[ExI] Social right to have a living

Stefano Vaj stefano.vaj at gmail.com
Tue Jun 28 12:03:32 UTC 2011

On 26 June 2011 19:02, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> ### Swedes are a biologically uniform society with little immigration.
> The numbers within native-born IQ tranches in the US are definitely
> different, indicating that the main reason for high FS income
> elasticity in the US are biological differences.

This might be the case. But then why a society (rather, a community,
but such words in English have a different meaning than in Italian or
in German...) shouldn't have a say on its biological make, especially
when this is going to largely determined by way of choice? Not really
a libertarian concept...

OTOH, let us forget governments and their misdeeds. Let us take the
more libertarian concept of a commercial company and make a story. The
company gets bigger and bigger. It has shareholders and employees. The
relationships with them are contractual, so this is fine, right? The
company adopts internal regulations (well within its rights) and
general terms and conditions of trade and of employment. The company
buys land. The company become the main living framework on a given
territory, and amongst other benefits take care of increasingly
numerous aspects of the private life of its human resources.
Shareholders and employees increasingly tend to become one and the

At a point in time the company declares independence, and stop
recognising any superior, national legal system. Perhaps it creates
its own currency, why not. Libertarian dream, right? But it still pay
pensions according to retirement plans, and above all dividends to its
shareholders, simply because of such quality, allowing or demanding
them to participate to shareholders' meetings to identify with binding
resolutions the optimal corporate course and policies and directors.

What exactly is the difference between such a scenario and a
"socialist" regime? That the shareholders/employees may vote with
their feet and emigrate, relinquishing whatever rights they had
before? I think many socialists would find such a modification to,
say, the more typical Sovietic regimes as fairly acceptable as long as
the rest remains in place.

Stefano Vaj

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list