Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!qumix!ittvax!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Socialism and minimal law
Message-ID: <779@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 01:49:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.779
Posted: Mon Jul 15 01:49:25 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 15:48:02 EDT
References: <1615@dciem.UUCP> <1340273@acf4.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 25

In article <1340273@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes:

>>Laws should be the minimum
>>that permits society to function both freely and efficiently.  We can
>>argue about the means to that end, but I think that both libertarians
>>and socialists on the net would agree on the objective (fundamentalists
>>might not).

>This is indeed the view of utilitarians and libertarians , but I don't see
>how socialists fit in.  It seems to me that they wish to introduce laws
>promoting their own moral agenda, quite apart from considerations
>of freedom and efficiency (I assume you mean efficiency in the production
>of material wealth).

All laws codify some moral agenda; yours seems to be the protection of
private property.

Besides, the only thing different about the socialists is that they think
that the minimum of law is more laws than you would care to have.  Sure, the
Libertarians may want few laws.  This does not protect them from wanting not
enough laws.

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe

"You've disintegrated Einstein!"