h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Wrong... 'Socialism' is an economic system and as such says *nothing* about personal freedom, only economic freedom. Most socialists are far closer to your definition of 'liberal' - you seem to be using 'socialist' in its bastardised form as used by Stalin.

The Stalinist system, the Maoist system... etc. There are groups called "social democrats," as I said, but that isn't entirely socialism. Karl Marx had some things to say about the social order above and beyond the mere economic issues... socialism in its true form also entails social regulation.

Yeah, but that's to assume Marx is the be-all and end-all of socialism, which he isn't - there were socialist organisations (eg the Diggers) centuries before Marx, and many (eg the Fabian Society) roughly concurrent with him who utterly disagreed with many of his views. Read Tony Benn's 'Arguments For Socialism' sometime. As a matter of fact Stalin and Mao were very far from being 'socialist' in the true sense of the word. Just because someone uses the word doesn't mean they believe in the concept. Look at my home country, the UK, which purports to be a democracy...

BTW I thought the entry itself was pretty good, although obviously partisan - didn't want you to get the wrong impression from my correction...

Thanks for the vote of confidence. You can't really put out an unpartisan article on any ideology, but I tried to keep it as balanced as possible.

As for your disagreements, that is exactly why I had to include the definitions... those words have so many different meanings to so many different people, that in order to have any discussion on the topic, some common meanings have to be agreed upon. Some countries have liberal parties in the classic sense of the word, and to them, the word "Libertarian" is alien, because their word "liberal" already carries that meaning. And in the US, what you equate to "socialism" is known as "liberalism." Tell a Democrat he is voting socialist, and you might get lucky to escape with all your teeth. But my version of the meaning of socialism does equate with those of Marx, Engels, Orwell, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Castro, so I'll go with the majority rule here and stick to my own definition. Your version is what I equate to "social democracy," as it exists in Sweden... not quite democracy, and not quite socialism, but something in between.

It certainly doesn't equate with that of Orwell - he was *very* passionately pro-democracy, and he fought *against* the Marxists in the Spanish Civil War - he fought in fact with the POUM (the anarchists) who in many ways resembled the libertarian movement, although with a socialist economic basis.
I would suggest changing 'socialism' to 'Marxism', as your definition really *is* very different from what most socialist thinkers, say George Bernard Shaw or Tony Benn, would consider socialism.
The use of the word 'liberalism' in the US is of course a distrtion of the original word, in much the same way as your use of 'socialism'. 'Socialism' became linked in the mind of the US population (note - not anywhere else in the world) with what is actually Stalinism (Marx was far less authoritarian socially, and we really know nothing of how Lenin would have put his ideas into practice, as he had to deal with a war, a civil war and a famine, then died before a peacetime government could properly be established), so a new word had to be used. However, this is not the way these words are used by the rest of the world, and your use of 'socialism' in the pejorative sense you use it could cause a lot of offence to many decent people who would indeed probably agree with a large part (though not all) of the Libertarians' platform.
Of course US 'liberalism' isn't *quite* socialism - the tradition of 'free market' economics in the US is to strong - but it is as much so as that of the UK Labour party, who claim (wrongly now, but until recently truthfully) to be socialists...

Orwell's name was not included to say that he promoted socialism, but he did have a lot to say on the subject. That which he discussed was the authoritarian version. And as I provided a list of major movers and shakers, the best you could come up with was Shaw and Benn (who the hell is that?). Marxism IS socialism... he's the father of the movement.

"However, this is not the way these words are used by the rest of the world" - By this you only mean Britain, and I am sorry to say this, but somebody has to tell you: Britain is not the be all and end all of the English language. Canada views the word "socialism" just as I do. So does Australia. So does New Zealand. I haven't asked any South Africans, but even if they side with the Isles, you've still got a minority vote. This is an international article destined for an international audience. And anyway, you can continue to call your social democracy socialism if you want, but as I said many times already, in order to have a meaningful discussion on the topic, some definitions must be agreed on from the start. All I am asking is that you agree to use my terms to discuss the subject, not to redefine your entire mental dictionary.

Anyway, I'm tired of defending them, because this is a silly semantic argument, and is obviously going nowhere.

Orwell generally *didn't* refer to what you think of as socialism by that name - he considered himself a socialist and also a democrat... he fought *for* democratic socialism and *against* Stalinism.
Benn is a British politician and writer and prominent socialist. I could probably come up with more people but I was (and am) writing off the top of my head...
"Marxism IS socialism... he's the father of the movement. "
That's just wrong - there was a flourishing socialist movement before Marx, and many socialists at the time and later disagreed strongly with Marx, or even more often found him a complete irrelevance - witness Harold Wilson (British Labour Prime Minister of the 60s and 70s and avowed socialist) who claimed he'd opened Das Kapital, seen that the footnotes were longer than the body of the text on the first page, and put it down again. Or Bernard Shaw who claimed that just as the old mistakes of political economy were being rectified, Marx came along and tried to start from scratch and ended up with a load of new mistakes.
I don't mean Britain, I also mean the whole of Europe. I don't know many Canadians, but the few I do know tend to use the word in the same way as I do, as do the few Australians and New Zealanders, but the subject hasn't really come up. I do know that the Socialist International use the word in the same way I do.
I apoligise if it appears my responses are Anglocentric, but this use of the word seems to me very Americentric...
"you can continue to call your social democracy socialism if you want" - actually not *my* social democracy - I don't follow any particular definable political movement...
I realise what your point is, but my point is that your terms as used could cause confusion or misunderstanding among a large number of people who *do* use a different definition of 'socialism' from you, which misunderstanding could be avoided by substituting another word. Like I say, I think it's a highly readable, well-thought out entry, I'm merely trying to offer some constructive criticism.

Seems to me that, unlike socialism, everyone in the world has the same definition of Marxism - surely it would promote understanding to use that word, rather than socialism. (and perhaps footnote it - "What is called 'Socialism' in america, and 'Communism' in erurope).

Can't do any harm, can it?

I changed the word to "Communism." We're never going to agree on a definition of socialism, but I think we can all agree on communism.

psst... you use 'socialism' in the first paragraph too - and link to the entry. But the enty on socialism gives three types: liberal, communist, and, uh, ... another one

Again, perhaps a change to Communism would be appropriate here...?

I don't think that would be as justified in the context that I use it in the first paragraph. I don't call it "authoritarian" in the first paragraph, but socialism still represents, economically, the polar opposite of libertarianism. Socialism supports the ultimate closed-market, with wealth distributed equally. Libertarianism supports the ultimate free-market, where wealth is distributed entirely based on merit. Of course, neither scheme works as advertised.

It is in the social realm where liberal socialism (a concept my head can't seem to bend around) and libertarianism aren't at complete odds. However, in order to achieve that level of economic regulation, certain social rights are given up. Therefore, even at this level, it is still incompatible with libertarianism, which is really the closest you can come to an anarchist style of government without descending into... well... anarchy.

And, of course, regardless of any other differences, their central tenets are as contrary as it is possible to get:

Socialism: People are unsuited to governing themselves, since they are selfish and easily corruptable. The more government regulation we have, the better for the common good.

Libertarianism: People are best governed when they govern themselves, since they will act better in their own self-interest than any dispassionate government agency can.

It's just a terminology change - what you call 'liberal' I call 'socialism': When I say 'liberal socialism' I don't mean anything different to what you mean by 'liberalism' - it's the same thing - I'm just trying to disambiguate myself.

Thinking a bit more - I think it's fair to say "including socialist strongholds Sweden and Russia" - mainly because I suspect that libertarianism is closer to most modern conservatives than modern liberals - simply because the fight on social freedom has, by and large, been won. The only social-right strongholds I can think of would be in arabia, where Islamic law holds.

But, according to the UK meaning of socialism, "Libertarianism is, quite simply, the polar opposite of socialism" - is wrong. It would be better to say that it's the opposite of a "control state", for instance. Or, indeed, authoritarianism - but nobody will know what that is. I wonder if you should just move it till after you've made your definitions?

I think you're being a little disingenious when mentioning extremes. Extreme left and right both tend to turn into a control state, and extreme libertarianism turns into anarchy - this says nothing about the philosophies when they are applied with a little more common sense.

Well, that's the source of all the disagreement, the fact that different terms mean different things to different people. What you call "socialism" means "liberalism" to me, and what I call "liberalism" means "libertarianism" to you. That's why I tried to find a middle ground and use the German term "social democrats" for "liberal socialist." These varying word definitions have been the plague of this project. A common people seperated by a common language, what? I'll take a look at it, and see what I can do with it, but I am sure the point will be lost if I tinker with that sentence too much.

"I suspect that libertarianism is closer to most modern conservatives than modern liberals" - First, let us ensure we are agreeing on terms... in this case, "conservatives," meaning people who want a free-market economy but endeavor to protect our "moral fiber" through censorship, partnering of church and state, etc. Philosophically, conservatives are no closer to libertarians than liberals... the differences just happen to fall in different areas. But realistically, conservatives aren't bent on taking away our social freedoms, while liberals *are* bent on redistributing the wealth, so there is some merit to your arguement. It's also worth noting that, before I became disgusted with the Republicans, I was a conservative. And I'm still not convinced that the first Bush was such a horrible president.

"the fight on social freedom has, by and large, been won" - I disagree. In the interests of safety and of minimizing shared costs, the government has been slowly eroding personal liberty here in the US, and I suspect the pattern continues elsewhere. Regardless of whether you agree with the spirit of these laws or not, the fact is that possession of a firearm by law-abiding citizens is guaranteed in our Constitution, yet this right is being revoked in increments. Free speech is another right, and yet we have more restrictions than they do in the UK, where no such guarantee has ever been made by their government. Despite seperation of church and state, the church does everything it can to insinuate itself in public arenas, such as when they try to pressure educators into teaching creation dogma in science. The battle for personal freedom is very much alive, it has just become less dramatic, as it has become much more subtle. Legislators are conscious of personal freedom, but they keep giving up tradeoffs... it's like drawing a line in the sand, but then they erase it and draw another and say "No further than this. Well, okay then, but no further than this. Well, okay, but..."

Which is why, of course, it is good that you properly defined your terms, and used real-life examples of political parties to emphasise the point.
Anyway, it's your article. And no matter what you do, the sub-ed will ruin^H^H^H^H modify it anyway...

Personally I've moved from conservative, through libertarian, and have now settled down as pragmatic liberal. I still think big government is fundamentally bad - I just see it as necessary - and the issue is to intervene as lightly as possible, and only when needed. Being liberal determines where I feel it is needed.

You may be interested to know that the EU convention on human rights has now been incorporated into british law... almost...

The phraseology is: "insofar as it is possible, the courts should interpret law so as not to contradict the EU convention on human rights". In practice, we've had those rights since the UK signed the convention - the EU court of human rights has been happily smacking down governments for breaching the convention for some time now - this just means it happens earlier in the process. A good thing, all told - though I was sceptical for a while.

I interpret health and safety legislation as a positive thing. In the UK, I now have the freedom to refuse to work longer than 48 hours a week. I can _choose_ to work more hours, should I wish - but I always have the right to say "no!". That's a positive thing.

I don't know what you mean by "minimising shared costs"...

Yeah, I wasn't very happy with that section on defined terms, as I thought it broke up the flow and seemed a bit out of place. But as we can see, it is a dire necessity.

It is health and safety legislation that I was referring to when I mentioned "minimising shared costs." One example of this is the safety belt law, which requires all automotive passengers to buckle up. Before I get into the details, let me assure you that I buckle up voluntarily, and I ensure that my passengers are buckled in as well... if they don't like it, they can get out and walk. Not like it's ever an issue, but I happen to think they're necessary.

However, some people don't want to wear a seat belt. They'll point to certain instances when people were not buckled in, and their lives were saved as a result. And they have a point... there are times when, in the course of an auto accident, the car will fly off of a cliff or burst into flames when the driver would have been flung out of the vehicle before that happened. There are also cases where the driver has lost legs due to front-end compression, where those legs would have slid over onto the passenger seat had they not been strapped in. These are farfetched situations, but in fact, they do happen. When we mandate that everyone must wear seat belts, we are counting on the 92% of accidents where seat belts minimize bodily damage. But we are, in effect, damning the other 8%. And if they are strapped in not by choice but because of legislation, they have every right, in my opinion, to hold the government responsible for their injuries. They call them *accidents* for a reason... you cannot possibly predict what will occur. Because of that, the government only has a right to tell us what can happen, give us the facts and statistics, and let us choose for ourselves. It is we the people who assume the risks when we get behind that wheel, and we deserve to make an informed choice. But it cannot be anything other than a conscious choice.

So, why do people allow seat-belt laws? Shared costs... in this case, medical insurance premiums, or, in the case of countries with government-provided medical care, tax dollars. Every time I've ever argued this point with people, the argument against comes down to insurance premiums. And they refuse to see it in any other way.

Well, I'd be happy to let people not wear seat belts, *provided* that when they lay dying in the wreckage, they *didn't* get an ambulance, that their family cleared up their blood, and that no attempt was made to save their lives - thus insuring that they die cleanly and don't become disabled and a burden on the state.

You talk about responsibilities in he entry - well this is a case in point: By taking advantage of state-provided services, you have a responsibility not to abuse them. By taking advantage of the provision of roads you have a responsibility not to drive so fast you become a hazard to others. By taking advantage of the police you have a responsibility to obey the law. By taking advantage of the army you have a responsibility not to try and sabotage their nuclear weapons silos. By taking advantage of the telephone system you have a responsibility not to use the lines to power your kettle.

And yes - by taking advantage of government provided ambulances and health care, you have a responsibility not to go around doing dumb things to your health.

In America, if we assume that the state has nothing to do with clearing up the blood and/or trying to save a life, then I agree - seat belt laws are dumb. Instead, get your insurance from a place which voids it if a seatbelt was not being worn at the time of the accident. And, incidentally, if the driver was over the limit, or was speeding.

Oh - and provided you don't provide a safety net for the disabled. As soon as the government provides help for the disabled, it gains a right, imo, to try and stop people becoming disabled in the first place. To do otherwise would be to behave irresponsibly with *MY* money.

That turned into a bit of a rant... *sigh* I'm on bad form today.

Ahh, but what about the poor guy who flew out the window and landed in some soft brush as his car rolled six times and immolated itself? He just wants his shoulder put back into his socket, and he just saved you a fortune... is that any way to repay him?

What about him?

If I'm the insurance company in the US, I point out what he signed, and tell him that he should have signed the vastly more expensive insurance for people who are too dumb to work out how to use seatbelts. That's cos I'm a company, and companies have no morality.

If I'm the government in the UK, I point out that he was breaking the law, and the government is not in the habit of subsidising criminal activities. Then I fix his shoulder and fine him the standard amount for not wearing a seatbelt.

People who do good stuff accidentally while behaving badly should be criticised for behaving badly. That they fluked it this time is irrelevant - next time they probably won't - and so I wish to discourage that behaviour. I don't see that there's any repayment to give.

This post has been removed.