I've been getting a fair amount of flame email from people about this essay. Before you send a NastyGram(tm), please consider the following points:

1. The essay isn't about reviving socialism. I work in small business, and wouldn't want to live in a socialist country (or work for a large company for that matter).

The essay explores the question of what could have happened if the idea of reallocating wealth was introduced today versus 100 years ago. My main point is that because of the information technology we have today, the idea could have evolved along a very different path. So, pretend it is 1901, and that the IBM PC was released in 1881. Inventions are dependent on those that precede them, so I think it's reasonable to say that things could have turned out differently had the idea been introduced at a different time.

2. For those of you who argue that the US is the land of unfettered capitalism, take a look at your most recent tax return. I was compelled to hand over nearly 60% of my income to the government last year. (Don't forget to include sales tax, property taxes, your employer's share of the FICA tax, etc in computing your tax burden. It's significantly more than your state and federal income taxes).

Handing the majority of my earnings over to the government seems pretty socialist to me, especially when I have effectively no say in how these funds are put to use. That is the second major point of the essay, that new information technology can be used to give individuals a greater say in how public wealth is put to use.

So, you can call it peer to peer taxation, free market socialism, or whatever you want. The point of the essay is to get people to think about how information technology can be used to create a better decision-making process. I guess some people are happy with the jokes that we call elections in this country, but I'm not among them.

Thanks for your time,

Brian McConnell