Nah, socialism means government ownership of the means of production, and oligarchy means that the government is controlled by a few people. Therefore, a socialist system that can truly be described as a “fascist oligarchy” is really socialist. In fact, if you look about, “fascist oligarchy” is the normal government for socialism.

The core problem of a libertarian society is the tragedy of the commons. A lot of Libertarian fiction tends to gloss over this problem, assuming that the parties involved are more rational than people really are. Classical economics traditionally made this assumption of the rational agent, but recent studies have shown that actual behavior doesn’t follow this model, in ways that your examples illustrate.

The idea that people will see needs and fill them, that they can self regulate simply as a result of societal pressures is a lovely idea.. but one which I’m not sure is feasible. You can say that people will be forced to adhere, else they will be thrown out of society/hindered in their efforts/killed.. but really, isn’t that the system we have now? Is it different if your neighbor decides to enforce the “law” or if the government does? The government is not some amorphous being that judges from on high.. it’s a group of people.

I also think there’s a certain amount of speciousness to the arguments of the inherent unfairness of governments. Governments are a product of history, there was a time without them. They evolved for a reason. I think they’re going to continue evolving until we find a version we don’t want to change (like that’ll ever happen)… but the ones we’ve got now, they weren’t imposed on us by some outside force. We imposed them on ourselves. Well, our forefathers imposed them upon us. I wouldn’t be surprised if our descendants turned any “free” system we designed now around on us at some point. I agree that governments are unfair.. in turn, they’re unfair to different people in different ways. They’re unfair to just about everyone in some way or another, and that’s sort of how I feel they should be. Everyone has to give a little so that we can all live together. The question becomes, how much are you willing to give?

Heinlin and Rand wrote interesting books, I think, but in the end, I always felt like they let their politics sabotage a perfectly good story. (Seriously, 30 pages of speeches from Roarke and John Galt?!) It felt like at times they were substituting political rhetoric for an examination of people and their behavior. Show, don’t tell, is what they always say. The societies (especially in Rand’s books) never felt that authentic to me, their ideals were, well, too idealistically realized.

Socialism entails public ownership of the means of production; oligarchy implies that the means of production are in private hands, the hands of a few wealthy owners who control the government in their own interest.

What about “fascist oligarchy” and “socialism” prevents the same social system from being both? =

But when it comes to frontiers, I do still maintain that the envrionment of space, unwelcoming as it is to human life, must be one where regulation is inherently more, rather than less likely, all other things being equal.

First note, the “spy” in the RAH novel was in The Cat Who Walks Through Walls in the same universe (sometimes) as The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. It is true that in MIAHM a proponent of free air was tossed from a meeting. I’m sure that never happened during the Continental Congress (not over free air, anyway).

It’s always fascinating to see critics attempt to dissect a book that was never written.

I’ve seen that myself. Somehow, my “Freehold,” with backstabbing opportunistic capitalists, a sociopath for a military commander, an admitted elite leadership, no government safety net whatsoever, no rules against a Company Store system in asteroid mining, no way to stop smugglers from setting up transfer points at space stations, or to stop restaurateurs from serving rat in lieu of chicken, plus power-grabbing NCOs and quislings, is a “libertarian utopia where nothing bad happens.” It seems I overestimated something somewhere. Since the same universe has a bloated bureaucratic UN with its fingers in large-scale commercial operations that control everything from food production to the military to bars and entertainment, perhaps I overestimated the educational level of readers who can look at a “Fascist oligarchy” and insist it’s a “socialism.”

I could stereotype about the need of fourth-rate socialists to attack any attempt to destroy their ludicrous utopias where a benevolent government anticipates all problems and always resolves them fairly, without somehow turning into an imperial fascism. But I don’t like stereotyping people and history speaks for itself. Nor do I think most critics intend to defend such a system. They’ve simply been trained from birth to accept that such a system is inevitable and desirable, and changing POV to an external, analytical position is neither easy nor comfortable.

It’s true, though, that I no longer associate with Party Libertarians because I’ve found them to be as annoying and naive as your typical Marxian. It’s also no secret I’ve denounced L. Neil Smith as an anarcho-hypocrite and gun-toting nutjob (and I own somewhere north of 75 firearms myself, to set the baseline here). He’s a “purist” who wants a society with NO GOVERNMENT! Government is THEFT! Down with government!

But Lois, _any_ frontier society has, must and will go through stages of grabbing resources and available real estate, creating a society with increasing controls, until it reaches a point that is unacceptable to some members. Erik the Red found a society that objected to brutal murder over petty arguments to be intolerably restrictive and headed for Iceland, then Greenland, leading his son to find North America. The American Founding Fathers saw taxation as an intrusion onto their attempts to create large slave-run commercial farms. Those are two examples.

I fail to see how writing fiction about future parallel situations is somehow wrong or escapist, as long as the basics of plot, character and conflict are covered.

You find that some mindset among devout Christians, Muslims, communists, fascists and other groups, too.

And it’s true.

A shame we have to go ruin it by being different and all.

Not sure I ever read #2 of those, but the themes we were talking about were so similar I just assumed they were the same book. Apologies for the confusion. It’s probably another of those cases where Heinlein took themes and characters from an older, successful work and tried to dust it off and make it work as something new. I have read quite a few of those, since I used to be a fan of Heinlein’s stuff.

If you haven’t read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and you’re a Heinlein fan, you should give it a look. It’s not the best example of his work, but it ranks pretty high in my opinion. And like I said, when I was first reading Lois’ article, it was the first thing that came to my mind.