Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Re: Health Care, Wonderful Market for Message-ID: <804@psivax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 22-Oct-85 00:05:53 EDT Article-I.D.: psivax.804 Posted: Tue Oct 22 00:05:53 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 26-Oct-85 07:31:12 EDT References: <204@gargoyle.UUCP> <10516@ucbvax.ARPA> <787@psivax.UUCP> <10659@ucbvax.ARPA> Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA Lines: 58 In article <10659@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: >> ... In fact it may well be totally democratic(in >>the old sense of every member voting on every issue). Actually, the >>only truly successful socialist entities I know of are small, >>democratic communities. They exist right here in the US, as well as in >>Israel(If my memory serves me right). They do *not* exist in any major >>communist nation. It is interesting to note that the word "communist" >>and the word "community" are closely related. > >You mean the Israeli kibbutzim. The difference there is that the individuals >in a kibbutz have pooled their marbles voluntarily, and people may leave >the kibbutz -- in general, taking stuff with them. Yes, I mean the kibbutzim. And it is the voluntary nature of these communities that was a large part of my point. As far as I can see the only successful socialist economies are *voluntary* ones! I believe it is the attempt to make socialism *required* that has turned all larger scale attempts at socialism into statism. > >In true socialism, you're there for life, and if you manage to leave you >get the shirt on your back. Anyway, "community" ownership is a myth. In >practice, as well you know, one person or a small group of people control >the use of any given resource. Except in a small group, where group ownership is possible. > >Humph. All right, show me a socialist, non-statist society. Ther aren't any above the size of an individual community. The kibbutzim are one example, American religious communes are another(and some of them do *not* allow you to retrieve your goods when you leave). >> >And how are the rights enforced? In any real situation, the person that >receives a good from the "higher levels" does so not once but many times -- >and that means that the "higher levels" can cut off his flow any time. This >gives the "higher levels" considerable authority over the blokes at the bottom >of the ladder. "Yes, Comrade, everything is ours, but nothing is mine". > I agree, this often happens in practice. That is why I used the word "ideally" in my description. But there were methods of enforcement in many cases. In England there were Moots and Grand Juries, which were essentially independent of seignoral authority and which actually adjudicated most disputes. Also tradition was of far greater importance in European medieval society, providing considerable restraint on action(rather like peer pressure today). Then there was the Church, which did insist upon honoring agreements and respect of rights. Of course I prefer a more explicit set of checks on authority, and a more flexible method of assigning rights. That is why I live in the US. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa