[ExI] Socialism and Environmentalism are inevitable

Tara Maya tara at taramayastales.com
Wed May 28 02:42:50 UTC 2014


On May 27, 2014, at 12:08 PM, Samantha Atkins <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> You grandmother was wrong.  Socialism requires state control of many aspects of the economy.  State control entails initiation of force.  There is no lack of force in socialism.  That the people may have a vote really changes nothing in respect to force on in respect to government control of "the means of production" and much of the economy.    It is true that socialism doesn't preach inevitable conflict.   But there is no real difference re use of force by government. 
>> 


I stand by my assertion that there's a huge difference between Nehru and Stalin. And between a system of re-distribution practiced in a democracy and practiced in a dictatorship. I believe we erase that distinction to our peril.

That said, I chose India as my example exactly because the best of socialist intentions, even as "nonviolent" as they tried to be, didn't dent poverty. (In striking comparison to a freer system, which has recently brought millions of Indians into the middle class in a short time.) The reason is probably for the one you identify. At the end of the day, you are still taking away people's free choice. You're replacing individual sovereignty with the caprice of strangers, which leads to miscommunication and waste at best and corruption and criminality at worst. The more freedom individuals have, economically as well as democratically, the better. No government is better able to tell you your best interest than you are.


Tara Maya
Blog  |  Twitter  |  Facebook  |  Amazon  |  Goodreads



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140527/792c44b5/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list