> > When did I say, "individuals may own ANY amount
> of property"? I think that
> > owning 10 houses (like the McCains) is way too much,
> but one house per family is
> > about right, but that is only my opinion. My forty
> acres is in French Gulch,
> > California and I have kept it pristine and out of the
> greedy hands of developers
> > who would love to buy me out and sub-divide it. I
> will build on it only after I sell my home in Eureka.
> So, the answer is, owning as much as Jon, good, owning more
> than Jon, bad.
> Obviously, the solution is for anyone who owns more than
> Jon to give half the
> excess to Jon, thus eliminating the problem. Or everyone
> could divide all the
> property equally. I like that one better. Jon owns more
> than I do, and I want my share!
There you go again, putting words in my mouth. I am still waiting for you to
tell me when I said, "individuals may own ANY amount of property"? I said,
"one house per family is about right, BUT that is only my opinion". However,
if you want to give me half the excess, I will accept. You are inflating the
value of my property, but in any case, I will not share with you, any more than
I expect the corporate plutocrats will share their wealth. Redistribution of
wealth requires legislation and regulation. It is not about the middle class
becoming lower class, it is the kind of trickle down that results in a much
larger middle class, by regulating profit gouging and excessive greed, etc.
> > In what context?
> The free market is the way to efficiently allocate
> resources, and cash returns
> provide a measure of the desirability of the project. You
> disagreed, but have still not offered an alternative.
Yes i have, but you refuse to address the alternative. Your definition of free
market is flawed and you have not explained HOW the free market is the way to
efficiently allocate
resources, and cash returns...
> > As for allocating resources, I am a democratic
> socialist and believe in things
> > like a living wage, equitable distribution of wealth,
> limitations on profit
> > gouging, fair trade, affirmative action, equal
> opportunity, equal justice, free
> > education based on merit, etc. I don't believe it
> is right to exploit labor, or
> > non-renewable vanishing resources, to increase demand,
> etc. I would prefer
> > industry to create jobs in recycling, conservation,
> single payer health
> > providers, education that is relevant, affordable
> housing, healthy food
> > production, etc. I could go on, but that is feeding
> into your tactic of asking
> > questions that have no easy answer. That way you put
> your opponent on the
> > defensive and avoid having to provide your own answers
> how to allocate
> > resources, etc.
> Actually, those are beliefs, not ways of accomplishing
> something, such as
> allocating resources. Which is why you have trouble with
> the question, to which there IS an easy answer.
Not so, but I'm waiting to hear YOUR "beliefs"....
Jon
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
