If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#311
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Go back to basic principles even MORE Fundamental than any supposed "rights"!: The ACTUAL ORIGINAL INTENT BEHIND "freedom of speech" is that the Truth be known, not that immature idiots and Evil *******s should have the right to deceive others any way they want to at any time for Evil purposes. The reason why we have freedom of speech enshrined in our Constitution is that when government starts arbitrarily deciding what is the "Truth" and who are the "immature idiots and Evil *******s," that power can be horribly misused, sometimes by intent and sometimes just because whoever is in power (even the majority) is wrong. ---------------------- Nonsense. The English weren't even doing any such thing at the time of the revolution. The framers knew doodley **** about your modern propaganda machines called the media. The danger to freedom is never the People deciding what is True, but minority nobilities or rich private minority cabals! We do make a few exceptions in extreme cases, but your attitude goes way, way too far in arrogantly assuming that you know what Truth is and that people who disagree with you must be the ones who are wrong. ------------------- The assertion that the Truth is so hard to detect is merely disinformation by the rich who want you to question yourselves so they aren't killed for their economic and political crimes! It's merely desperate propaganda! History has shown that such arrogance is too dangerous to be allowed to become a legal basis for silencing one's opponents. -------------------------- Propaganda!! History was WRITTEN by such arrogsant rich minorities, and they LIE about the availability of the Truth just to protect their wealth! Steve |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: We do make a few exceptions in extreme cases, but your attitude goes way, way too far in arrogantly assuming that you know what Truth is and that people who disagree with you must be the ones who are wrong. ------------------- The assertion that the Truth is so hard to detect is merely disinformation by the rich who want you to question yourselves so they aren't killed for their economic and political crimes! It's merely desperate propaganda! You prove my point for me even while you dispute it. Your economic fantasy of how things would work in a perfect world ignores numerous clearly proven realities about human nature and about the limitations of democratic control (not the least of which is how little the majority can reasonably be expected to know about the average issue with a zillion issues to decide). Variants of communism have been tried in the Soviet Union and China, among other places, and while some of the problems in such places can reasonably be attributed to the fact that their governments were totalitarian rather than democratic, other serious problems demonstrated in those nations would almost certainly crop up even in a democratically controlled communistic society. In the short term, fairer distribution of society's wealth could benefit the poor. But consider the exponential effect of any reduction in the rate of economic growth in the long term. Even if the rate of economic growth in a communistic society would be 99% of what it would be in a capitalistic society, the total growth in a communistic society in a century would be less than 37% of what a capitalistic society would achieve. Add another century and that drops to less than fourteen percent. And with a bigger difference in the growth rate, the exponential effect can be felt a lot more quickly. It is that exponential effect that destroyed the Soviet Union by causing them to fall farther and farther behind - even in spite of their being able to copy innovations from capitalist nations instead of having to invent everything themselves. At any one moment in time, yes, capitalism is a highly unfair system. But if capitalism can grow the pie at even a slightly faster rate than communism can - and all of the evidence indicates that it can do at least that - the long-term result is that even the poor in a capitalistic society will have more wealth than the citizens in a communistic society would. The fairness of communism is bought only by robbing the future. Getting back to the issue of freedom of speech, the point is that Truth often has more than one angle to it - and some angles are easier to see than others. Silencing competing viewpoints is very dangerous. |
#313
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: We do make a few exceptions in extreme cases, but your attitude goes way, way too far in arrogantly assuming that you know what Truth is and that people who disagree with you must be the ones who are wrong. ------------------- The assertion that the Truth is so hard to detect is merely disinformation by the rich who want you to question yourselves so they aren't killed for their economic and political crimes! It's merely desperate propaganda! You prove my point for me even while you dispute it. Your economic fantasy of how things would work in a perfect world ignores numerous clearly proven realities about human nature and about the limitations of democratic control (not the least of which is how little the majority can reasonably be expected to know about the average issue with a zillion issues to decide). Variants of communism have been tried in the Soviet Union and China, among other places, and while some of the problems in such places can reasonably be attributed to the fact that their governments were totalitarian rather than democratic, other serious problems demonstrated in those nations would almost certainly crop up even in a democratically controlled communistic society. In the short term, fairer distribution of society's wealth could benefit the poor. But consider the exponential effect of any reduction in the rate of economic growth in the long term. Even if the rate of economic growth in a communistic society would be 99% of what it would be in a capitalistic society, the total growth in a communistic society in a century would be less than 37% of what a capitalistic society would achieve. Add another century and that drops to less than fourteen percent. And with a bigger difference in the growth rate, the exponential effect can be felt a lot more quickly. It is that exponential effect that destroyed the Soviet Union by causing them to fall farther and farther behind - even in spite of their being able to copy innovations from capitalist nations instead of having to invent everything themselves. At any one moment in time, yes, capitalism is a highly unfair system. But if capitalism can grow the pie at even a slightly faster rate than communism can - and all of the evidence indicates that it can do at least that - the long-term result is that even the poor in a capitalistic society will have more wealth than the citizens in a communistic society would. The fairness of communism is bought only by robbing the future. Getting back to the issue of freedom of speech, the point is that Truth often has more than one angle to it - and some angles are easier to see than others. Silencing competing viewpoints is very dangerous. |
#314
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: We do make a few exceptions in extreme cases, but your attitude goes way, way too far in arrogantly assuming that you know what Truth is and that people who disagree with you must be the ones who are wrong. ------------------- The assertion that the Truth is so hard to detect is merely disinformation by the rich who want you to question yourselves so they aren't killed for their economic and political crimes! It's merely desperate propaganda! You prove my point for me even while you dispute it. Your economic fantasy of how things would work in a perfect world ignores numerous clearly proven realities about human nature and about the limitations of democratic control (not the least of which is how little the majority can reasonably be expected to know about the average issue with a zillion issues to decide). --------------------- Your moronic assertions about some magical unstated undemonstrable reason why democracy wouldn't work to give us equality with freedom in modern Plutokleptocracies, when it worked fine for 150,000 YEARS in pre-Plutokleptocratic times in all human tribes, is merely an obnoxious little low mean lie, nothing more. There ARE NO supposed "realities of human nature" that were not then also operant in tribal times that did not represent a fairly simple emotional disorder due to isolated cases of abuse which was then and now best treated by affection and social control, and if need be, systematic restraint and unrelanting humiliation for such behaviors, nor are there any other such magical features to ACTUAL Human Nature NOW that are not misbehaviors best treated as CRIMES and both deterred and punished severely in order to eradicate them! Your fantasy that this immature insecure greed-syndrome is "natural" is nothing more than an ugly myth caused by your emotionally sick partisan desire to succeed at thievery! Your supposed "normalcy" is nothing but an sick emotional anomaly, in a modern society in which it has become a pandemic, but one which in True Human Society is best detected early in children and treated and prevented. Variants of communism have been tried in the Soviet Union and China, among other places, -------------- So when 10% of the people enslave the other 90% and make them do all the work, and when that minority takes 95% of their productive wealth and sell it abroad to get rich and bank it in offshore banks just like Capitalist money-launderers, and then rides around in limnousines and fine clothes while the poor sew up their few cheap clothing items, and when they let the poor divide the remaining pittance and call it "equality", then that is "communism" to you??? Because it IS what happened in Russia and in China!!!!! And that is NOT COMMUNISM!!! Communism is when people are paid equally for their labor hours because there is NO exploitation of one man by another! and while some of the problems in such places can reasonably be attributed to the fact that their governments were totalitarian rather than democratic, -------------------- Nope! All govts are "totalitarian" to the people whose actions they intend to suppress. Doesn't mean they're not right! Soviet Russia and Red China and Europe waaay back when, were all feudalisms. THAT is why their govt'al power was WRONG, it was used to suppress the will of the majority!! It had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it presecuted people for violating its law, but instead, with what any such laws ARE! other serious problems demonstrated in those nations would almost certainly crop up even in a democratically controlled communistic society. ---------------------- Totalitarianism is a meaningless term. If you don't like what a govt does you call it totalitarian, even if most people like it just fine because it guarantees them the liberty of genuine equality. The rich call taxes "totalitarian", and so on... No society CAN be "totalitarian", because no society has the manpower to ever control every aspect of each other's lives, they have to work for a living and consequently DON'T HAVE TIME, any more than one can pull onseself into the air by one's bootstraps! So it amounts to a society using its police to suppress antisocial behaviors that we agree democratically we want to punish. Saying that is "totalitarian" is merely a word game of attempting to unjustly inflame your audience when most of them already disagree with you!! Any "totalitarian" govt that did that thoroughly what we all agreed upon democratically, is merely being extremely effective, and it should be COMMENDED! In the short term, fairer distribution of society's wealth could benefit the poor. But consider the exponential effect of any reduction in the rate of economic growth in the long term. ------------- You also have an undemonstrable notion that somehow magically, that without individal greed being given sway to steal, that overall productivity would drop. You forget collective greed, which is a social GOOD, by which people work together to obtain MORE than they'd EVER have individuallY, and it works even BETTER than the emotional illness that is "private" greed! People can democratically decide to produce just as well or better than any greedy pirate mentality who seeks only to get rich himself, and usually by enslaving others while HE sits on his ass! A group of people who want more consumer devices, can jolly well MAKE THEM together, for each other working nights and weekends when they WANT a huge boost in their consumer life! Even if the rate of economic growth in a communistic society would be 99% of what it would be in a capitalistic society, ---------------- No "growth" is needed. Remaining the same size is fine and normal. But that norm is NOT based on any notion of inflated stock prices, instead its economy is NORMALLY several times larger than Capitalism, because people work HARDER when they KNOW they are going to benefit far MORE for each of their hours of labor than they had under thieving Capitalism! When they know the rich have been put to work, and that the bean counters who worked for them are now working production lines, and that criminality has been prevented and the lazy will be starved to death if they will not work, and as soon as they KNOW they will get an EQUAL share of production for each of their hours of labor, they know they will NOT be exploited, and that they can get as much as they are willing to make! Consequently they will want MORE and MORE! They will order goods, and those orders will authorize as many needed extra hours of labor as they are willing to work to make those things and deliver them to THEM, the people who MADE them!! the total growth in a communistic society in a century would be less than 37% of what a capitalistic society would achieve. -------------------------- There is not even any known source for any such lie. You totally confabulated. Add another century and that drops to less than fourteen percent. And with a bigger difference in the growth rate, the exponential effect can be felt a lot more quickly. It is that exponential effect that destroyed the Soviet Union by causing them to fall farther and farther behind - even in spite of their being able to copy innovations from capitalist nations instead of having to invent everything themselves. --------------------------- Total nonsense. Their masters wanted a lot, but wanted their slaves to build it all for them. This deprived their slaves, and their slaves decided not to work. This happens in every serfdom! It happens whenever ANYONE is paid less than ANYONE else for the same hour of labor!! It is differention of hourly compensation that causes this, not any "evil commmmmmmmmunissm", as Nixon would say, his jowls shaking! At any one moment in time, yes, capitalism is a highly unfair system. ------------------------- Nope! Since each hour of labor is unfair, it is always just that unfair, exactly, and can never be any better or fairer, because those who do not work get the benefit of your labor, and that affects BOTH your labor, AND your desire to work for those rich, instead of for yourselves!. But if capitalism can grow the pie at even a slightly faster rate than communism can - and all of the evidence indicates that it can do at least that - the long-term result is that even the poor in a capitalistic society will have more wealth than the citizens in a communistic society would. The fairness of communism is bought only by robbing the future. ---------------------- Your dribble-down economic theory, which says that more will dribble down the chins of the filthy rich to somehow feed the poor better, does NOT work. The rich want to be ever richer, and they want ever more for their investments, and that depresses the worker psyche and loyalties to the system. The cycles of both investor and consumer confidence based on uncontrolled greedy speculation, fluctuate wildly and collapse periodically. Whereas a society where each gets an absolute equal share of goods and products of their every labor hour, have the greatest possible reason to keep working avidly, and to make as much as they want. And if their economy slumps at all it is absolutely zero cause for alarm, they are only simply laying off a bit so they can all have a vacation!! Getting back to the issue of freedom of speech, the point is that Truth often has more than one angle to it - and some angles are easier to see than others. Silencing competing viewpoints is very dangerous. ------------------------------- There are NO "viewpoints", there is only the Truth, and lies!! Steve |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: We do make a few exceptions in extreme cases, but your attitude goes way, way too far in arrogantly assuming that you know what Truth is and that people who disagree with you must be the ones who are wrong. ------------------- The assertion that the Truth is so hard to detect is merely disinformation by the rich who want you to question yourselves so they aren't killed for their economic and political crimes! It's merely desperate propaganda! You prove my point for me even while you dispute it. Your economic fantasy of how things would work in a perfect world ignores numerous clearly proven realities about human nature and about the limitations of democratic control (not the least of which is how little the majority can reasonably be expected to know about the average issue with a zillion issues to decide). --------------------- Your moronic assertions about some magical unstated undemonstrable reason why democracy wouldn't work to give us equality with freedom in modern Plutokleptocracies, when it worked fine for 150,000 YEARS in pre-Plutokleptocratic times in all human tribes, is merely an obnoxious little low mean lie, nothing more. There ARE NO supposed "realities of human nature" that were not then also operant in tribal times that did not represent a fairly simple emotional disorder due to isolated cases of abuse which was then and now best treated by affection and social control, and if need be, systematic restraint and unrelanting humiliation for such behaviors, nor are there any other such magical features to ACTUAL Human Nature NOW that are not misbehaviors best treated as CRIMES and both deterred and punished severely in order to eradicate them! Your fantasy that this immature insecure greed-syndrome is "natural" is nothing more than an ugly myth caused by your emotionally sick partisan desire to succeed at thievery! Your supposed "normalcy" is nothing but an sick emotional anomaly, in a modern society in which it has become a pandemic, but one which in True Human Society is best detected early in children and treated and prevented. Variants of communism have been tried in the Soviet Union and China, among other places, -------------- So when 10% of the people enslave the other 90% and make them do all the work, and when that minority takes 95% of their productive wealth and sell it abroad to get rich and bank it in offshore banks just like Capitalist money-launderers, and then rides around in limnousines and fine clothes while the poor sew up their few cheap clothing items, and when they let the poor divide the remaining pittance and call it "equality", then that is "communism" to you??? Because it IS what happened in Russia and in China!!!!! And that is NOT COMMUNISM!!! Communism is when people are paid equally for their labor hours because there is NO exploitation of one man by another! and while some of the problems in such places can reasonably be attributed to the fact that their governments were totalitarian rather than democratic, -------------------- Nope! All govts are "totalitarian" to the people whose actions they intend to suppress. Doesn't mean they're not right! Soviet Russia and Red China and Europe waaay back when, were all feudalisms. THAT is why their govt'al power was WRONG, it was used to suppress the will of the majority!! It had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that it presecuted people for violating its law, but instead, with what any such laws ARE! other serious problems demonstrated in those nations would almost certainly crop up even in a democratically controlled communistic society. ---------------------- Totalitarianism is a meaningless term. If you don't like what a govt does you call it totalitarian, even if most people like it just fine because it guarantees them the liberty of genuine equality. The rich call taxes "totalitarian", and so on... No society CAN be "totalitarian", because no society has the manpower to ever control every aspect of each other's lives, they have to work for a living and consequently DON'T HAVE TIME, any more than one can pull onseself into the air by one's bootstraps! So it amounts to a society using its police to suppress antisocial behaviors that we agree democratically we want to punish. Saying that is "totalitarian" is merely a word game of attempting to unjustly inflame your audience when most of them already disagree with you!! Any "totalitarian" govt that did that thoroughly what we all agreed upon democratically, is merely being extremely effective, and it should be COMMENDED! In the short term, fairer distribution of society's wealth could benefit the poor. But consider the exponential effect of any reduction in the rate of economic growth in the long term. ------------- You also have an undemonstrable notion that somehow magically, that without individal greed being given sway to steal, that overall productivity would drop. You forget collective greed, which is a social GOOD, by which people work together to obtain MORE than they'd EVER have individuallY, and it works even BETTER than the emotional illness that is "private" greed! People can democratically decide to produce just as well or better than any greedy pirate mentality who seeks only to get rich himself, and usually by enslaving others while HE sits on his ass! A group of people who want more consumer devices, can jolly well MAKE THEM together, for each other working nights and weekends when they WANT a huge boost in their consumer life! Even if the rate of economic growth in a communistic society would be 99% of what it would be in a capitalistic society, ---------------- No "growth" is needed. Remaining the same size is fine and normal. But that norm is NOT based on any notion of inflated stock prices, instead its economy is NORMALLY several times larger than Capitalism, because people work HARDER when they KNOW they are going to benefit far MORE for each of their hours of labor than they had under thieving Capitalism! When they know the rich have been put to work, and that the bean counters who worked for them are now working production lines, and that criminality has been prevented and the lazy will be starved to death if they will not work, and as soon as they KNOW they will get an EQUAL share of production for each of their hours of labor, they know they will NOT be exploited, and that they can get as much as they are willing to make! Consequently they will want MORE and MORE! They will order goods, and those orders will authorize as many needed extra hours of labor as they are willing to work to make those things and deliver them to THEM, the people who MADE them!! the total growth in a communistic society in a century would be less than 37% of what a capitalistic society would achieve. -------------------------- There is not even any known source for any such lie. You totally confabulated. Add another century and that drops to less than fourteen percent. And with a bigger difference in the growth rate, the exponential effect can be felt a lot more quickly. It is that exponential effect that destroyed the Soviet Union by causing them to fall farther and farther behind - even in spite of their being able to copy innovations from capitalist nations instead of having to invent everything themselves. --------------------------- Total nonsense. Their masters wanted a lot, but wanted their slaves to build it all for them. This deprived their slaves, and their slaves decided not to work. This happens in every serfdom! It happens whenever ANYONE is paid less than ANYONE else for the same hour of labor!! It is differention of hourly compensation that causes this, not any "evil commmmmmmmmunissm", as Nixon would say, his jowls shaking! At any one moment in time, yes, capitalism is a highly unfair system. ------------------------- Nope! Since each hour of labor is unfair, it is always just that unfair, exactly, and can never be any better or fairer, because those who do not work get the benefit of your labor, and that affects BOTH your labor, AND your desire to work for those rich, instead of for yourselves!. But if capitalism can grow the pie at even a slightly faster rate than communism can - and all of the evidence indicates that it can do at least that - the long-term result is that even the poor in a capitalistic society will have more wealth than the citizens in a communistic society would. The fairness of communism is bought only by robbing the future. ---------------------- Your dribble-down economic theory, which says that more will dribble down the chins of the filthy rich to somehow feed the poor better, does NOT work. The rich want to be ever richer, and they want ever more for their investments, and that depresses the worker psyche and loyalties to the system. The cycles of both investor and consumer confidence based on uncontrolled greedy speculation, fluctuate wildly and collapse periodically. Whereas a society where each gets an absolute equal share of goods and products of their every labor hour, have the greatest possible reason to keep working avidly, and to make as much as they want. And if their economy slumps at all it is absolutely zero cause for alarm, they are only simply laying off a bit so they can all have a vacation!! Getting back to the issue of freedom of speech, the point is that Truth often has more than one angle to it - and some angles are easier to see than others. Silencing competing viewpoints is very dangerous. ------------------------------- There are NO "viewpoints", there is only the Truth, and lies!! Steve |
#316
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: You prove my point for me even while you dispute it. Your economic fantasy of how things would work in a perfect world ignores numerous clearly proven realities about human nature and about the limitations of democratic control (not the least of which is how little the majority can reasonably be expected to know about the average issue with a zillion issues to decide). --------------------- Your moronic assertions about some magical unstated undemonstrable reason why democracy wouldn't work to give us equality with freedom in modern Plutokleptocracies, when it worked fine for 150,000 YEARS in pre-Plutokleptocratic times in all human tribes, is merely an obnoxious little low mean lie, nothing more. Would you mind giving me a ride in your time machine sometime? I'd be interested to see these fully democratic tribes from the distant past of yours. Oh, what, you don't have a time machine? Then how do you know how democratic they were or weren't? In the short term, fairer distribution of society's wealth could benefit the poor. But consider the exponential effect of any reduction in the rate of economic growth in the long term. ------------- You also have an undemonstrable notion that somehow magically, that without individal greed being given sway to steal, that overall productivity would drop. You forget collective greed, which is a social GOOD, by which people work together to obtain MORE than they'd EVER have individuallY, and it works even BETTER than the emotional illness that is "private" greed! Can you provide some practical, real-world examples? Even if the rate of economic growth in a communistic society would be 99% of what it would be in a capitalistic society, ---------------- No "growth" is needed. Remaining the same size is fine and normal. But that norm is NOT based on any notion of inflated stock prices, instead its economy is NORMALLY several times larger than Capitalism, Over the long term, an economy that is growing will inevitably eventually become bigger than one that is not. The process might take years, or even centuries, but it will happen. But on the other hand, I see no basis for your claim that the economy would somehow magically become several times larger to begin with. Capitalism! When they know the rich have been put to work, Where do you get your crazy notion that most of the rich do not work? |
#317
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: You prove my point for me even while you dispute it. Your economic fantasy of how things would work in a perfect world ignores numerous clearly proven realities about human nature and about the limitations of democratic control (not the least of which is how little the majority can reasonably be expected to know about the average issue with a zillion issues to decide). --------------------- Your moronic assertions about some magical unstated undemonstrable reason why democracy wouldn't work to give us equality with freedom in modern Plutokleptocracies, when it worked fine for 150,000 YEARS in pre-Plutokleptocratic times in all human tribes, is merely an obnoxious little low mean lie, nothing more. Would you mind giving me a ride in your time machine sometime? I'd be interested to see these fully democratic tribes from the distant past of yours. Oh, what, you don't have a time machine? Then how do you know how democratic they were or weren't? In the short term, fairer distribution of society's wealth could benefit the poor. But consider the exponential effect of any reduction in the rate of economic growth in the long term. ------------- You also have an undemonstrable notion that somehow magically, that without individal greed being given sway to steal, that overall productivity would drop. You forget collective greed, which is a social GOOD, by which people work together to obtain MORE than they'd EVER have individuallY, and it works even BETTER than the emotional illness that is "private" greed! Can you provide some practical, real-world examples? Even if the rate of economic growth in a communistic society would be 99% of what it would be in a capitalistic society, ---------------- No "growth" is needed. Remaining the same size is fine and normal. But that norm is NOT based on any notion of inflated stock prices, instead its economy is NORMALLY several times larger than Capitalism, Over the long term, an economy that is growing will inevitably eventually become bigger than one that is not. The process might take years, or even centuries, but it will happen. But on the other hand, I see no basis for your claim that the economy would somehow magically become several times larger to begin with. Capitalism! When they know the rich have been put to work, Where do you get your crazy notion that most of the rich do not work? |
#318
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote: Your moronic assertions about some magical unstated undemonstrable reason why democracy wouldn't work to give us equality with freedom in modern Plutokleptocracies, when it worked fine for 150,000 YEARS in pre-Plutokleptocratic times in all human tribes, is merely an obnoxious little low mean lie, nothing more. Would you mind giving me a ride in your time machine sometime? I'd be interested to see these fully democratic tribes from the distant past of yours. Oh, what, you don't have a time machine? Then how do you know how democratic they were or weren't? -------------------------- Tribes of people in the wilderness before high population densities numbering 50 to 200 couldn't be anything else, they wouldn't be able to agree to do anything except voluntarily, and that means informal democracy. If they ****ed off their members they'd leave, they had nothing keeping them there unless their primary ethic was to get along, and that points to even better than mere democracy, but to freedom and consensus!! In the short term, fairer distribution of society's wealth could benefit the poor. But consider the exponential effect of any reduction in the rate of economic growth in the long term. ------------- You also have an undemonstrable notion that somehow magically, that without individal greed being given sway to steal, that overall productivity would drop. You forget collective greed, which is a social GOOD, by which people work together to obtain MORE than they'd EVER have individuallY, and it works even BETTER than the emotional illness that is "private" greed! Can you provide some practical, real-world examples? ----------------------------------- We use collective greed constantly, in wanting things from government we exert collective greed, in wanting peace and law and order and rights and infrastructure and social guarantees. Most of the things you probably imagine to be private greed are actually expressions of collective greed that motivates us to good ends! You see, greed itself is not the problem, but only whether it brings us together or pushes us apart. Even if the rate of economic growth in a communistic society would be 99% of what it would be in a capitalistic society, ---------------- No "growth" is needed. Remaining the same size is fine and normal. But that norm is NOT based on any notion of inflated stock prices, instead its economy is NORMALLY several times larger than Capitalism, Over the long term, an economy that is growing will inevitably eventually become bigger than one that is not. The process might take years, or even centuries, but it will happen. -------------------------------------- Duh, I think that's what "growing" means. But what growth means to Capitalists is actually the migration of wealth to the wealthy, not actual growth in our productive capacity due to organization and technology. These are actually opposites. But on the other hand, I see no basis for your claim that the economy would somehow magically become several times larger to begin with. -------------------------------- The "economy" wouldn't, but the redistribution of wealth on a fairer basis would MORE than double most people's buying power for the same labor week, because the luxury items of the wealthy would no longer be produced, and other consumer items would be instead, and because the indolent rich and their cashiers and accountants that keep track of what the poor owe the rich now, would then be employed at producing consumer goods like the rest of us! Capitalism! When they know the rich have been put to work, Where do you get your crazy notion that most of the rich do not work? ----------------------- Watching them. I have known a large number of them. Steve |
#319
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" wrote: Your moronic assertions about some magical unstated undemonstrable reason why democracy wouldn't work to give us equality with freedom in modern Plutokleptocracies, when it worked fine for 150,000 YEARS in pre-Plutokleptocratic times in all human tribes, is merely an obnoxious little low mean lie, nothing more. Would you mind giving me a ride in your time machine sometime? I'd be interested to see these fully democratic tribes from the distant past of yours. Oh, what, you don't have a time machine? Then how do you know how democratic they were or weren't? -------------------------- Tribes of people in the wilderness before high population densities numbering 50 to 200 couldn't be anything else, they wouldn't be able to agree to do anything except voluntarily, and that means informal democracy. If they ****ed off their members they'd leave, they had nothing keeping them there unless their primary ethic was to get along, and that points to even better than mere democracy, but to freedom and consensus!! In the short term, fairer distribution of society's wealth could benefit the poor. But consider the exponential effect of any reduction in the rate of economic growth in the long term. ------------- You also have an undemonstrable notion that somehow magically, that without individal greed being given sway to steal, that overall productivity would drop. You forget collective greed, which is a social GOOD, by which people work together to obtain MORE than they'd EVER have individuallY, and it works even BETTER than the emotional illness that is "private" greed! Can you provide some practical, real-world examples? ----------------------------------- We use collective greed constantly, in wanting things from government we exert collective greed, in wanting peace and law and order and rights and infrastructure and social guarantees. Most of the things you probably imagine to be private greed are actually expressions of collective greed that motivates us to good ends! You see, greed itself is not the problem, but only whether it brings us together or pushes us apart. Even if the rate of economic growth in a communistic society would be 99% of what it would be in a capitalistic society, ---------------- No "growth" is needed. Remaining the same size is fine and normal. But that norm is NOT based on any notion of inflated stock prices, instead its economy is NORMALLY several times larger than Capitalism, Over the long term, an economy that is growing will inevitably eventually become bigger than one that is not. The process might take years, or even centuries, but it will happen. -------------------------------------- Duh, I think that's what "growing" means. But what growth means to Capitalists is actually the migration of wealth to the wealthy, not actual growth in our productive capacity due to organization and technology. These are actually opposites. But on the other hand, I see no basis for your claim that the economy would somehow magically become several times larger to begin with. -------------------------------- The "economy" wouldn't, but the redistribution of wealth on a fairer basis would MORE than double most people's buying power for the same labor week, because the luxury items of the wealthy would no longer be produced, and other consumer items would be instead, and because the indolent rich and their cashiers and accountants that keep track of what the poor owe the rich now, would then be employed at producing consumer goods like the rest of us! Capitalism! When they know the rich have been put to work, Where do you get your crazy notion that most of the rich do not work? ----------------------- Watching them. I have known a large number of them. Steve |
#320
|
|||
|
|||
"Parenting Without Punishing"
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message ... Nathan A. Barclay wrote: Tribes of people in the wilderness before high population densities numbering 50 to 200 couldn't be anything else, they wouldn't be able to agree to do anything except voluntarily, and that means informal democracy. If they ****ed off their members they'd leave, they had nothing keeping them there unless their primary ethic was to get along, and that points to even better than mere democracy, but to freedom and consensus!! You're ignoring the fact that living on one's own was both lonelier and more dangerous than living with the tribe. Thus, the power to banish people from the tribe, or to impose punishments that members of the tribe would have to banish themselves to avoid, offered the potential for a great deal of leverage. That would certainly have undermined freedom and the need for consensus. Further, it would not be especially hard for a tribal government to take the form of a "big-tough-hunter-ocracy" where a group of the biggest, strongest men impose their will on the rest of the tribe because the others don't dare to challenge them - and aren't willing to take a chance on whether they could survive if they killed off their best hunters in the night, even if they would be willing to kill them and even if they were not too afraid to try. There is no particular reason to think that everyone would be given an equal voice and vote. I'm not saying that an essentially democratic tribal government would be impossible. I'm just saying that it cannot be taken for granted. Can you provide some practical, real-world examples? ----------------------------------- We use collective greed constantly, in wanting things from government we exert collective greed, in wanting peace and law and order and rights and infrastructure and social guarantees. Most of the things you probably imagine to be private greed are actually expressions of collective greed that motivates us to good ends! You see, greed itself is not the problem, but only whether it brings us together or pushes us apart. I will certainly agree that collective greed works well in pursuing collective goals - goals that are shared and that can be reached more efficiently working together than working alone. But many goals are individual, not collective, and your own stance against vouchers shows how miserably collective greed can work when different people have different goals. "I want a Viper." "Sorry, but our collective greed says you have to get a Porsche instead." "I want a house with yellow bricks." "Sorry, but our collective greed says that houses have to have red bricks." A system centered around collective greed can fail miserably when individuals need or want things that the collective does not care about, or when the collective takes advantage of differences in what individuals want as an excuse to provide them with less. Over the long term, an economy that is growing will inevitably eventually become bigger than one that is not. The process might take years, or even centuries, but it will happen. -------------------------------------- Duh, I think that's what "growing" means. But what growth means to Capitalists is actually the migration of wealth to the wealthy, not actual growth in our productive capacity due to organization and technology. These are actually opposites. You're being absurd. Suppose I spend $5,000 on a machine that lets me produce widgets in half the time it takes other people to produce them. That provides economic growth because I can produce twice as many widgets in the same amount of time. If widgets normally cost $50, it might look at first glance like I can keep selling my widgets for $50 and pocket the difference for myself. But if I would try such a thing, other people would notice and start thinking, "Hey, he's getting rich off those widgets. I'll buy my own widget-making machine and make some of that money for myself." Once widget-making machines become more common, we have to reduce our prices in order to compete with each other, so most of the benefit from the widget-making machines ends up going to people who buy widgets instead of to us. If I'm the first one to get a widget-making machine, I might make a lot of money before that happens. But in the long term, it is the customers that can now buy widgets for maybe $30 each (since some of the money has to go to pay back the cost of the machinery) instead of $50 that get most of the benefit. That phenomenon, repeated over and over, is why America's economy has grown to a point where our poor would be considered rich by the standards of quite a few other nations. You can argue that you think your communistic approach would work better, but you would have to be blind, a liar, or a lunatic to claim that the rich are the only ones who benefit from a capitalistic system's growth. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Parenting Without Punishing" | Chris | General | 328 | July 1st 04 05:59 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Spanking | 12 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Spanking | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |