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