you're coming across as rather patronizing, but maybe that is just me. A couple of questions - what is a "bad seed" according to you? The argument about property values does not exactly apply here. Much as he might like to do so, Bush cannot sell the United States. It sounds like you are saying that there would be problems if the country chose to sell its oil elsewhere. How does this translate to the United States protecting its stuff?
On 1/8/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dana wrote: > > I am not sure whether you are saying that the US would have no reason > > to get involved or would be justified in doing so. > > I'm saying that a capitalist country doesn't operate any different > than a capitalist person: they protect their stuff. First it's > themselves, then it's their family, then their property, then their > interests. > > EXAMPLE: Gel has plenty of interest in who his neighbors are. If some > neighbors should move to Gel's building/street and they proceed to > bring down his property values, or bring up his costs, he's going to > oppose it. He may cut a deal with them, he may buy them out, or he > may attempt to have the police force them out. And, if those > neighbors are nuisance, he'd be justified in doing so. The core of > capitalism is getting rid of the bad seeds. > > The same is true of America - she's going to protect her interests. > If Latin America has oil which they're more than willing to sell, and > a stable democracy which views the US as a customer at a minimum, then > there's not going to be any problem. If, on the other hand, you've > got a bad seed, or potential bad seed, then the US is going to oppose > him/her/it. > > Gel points about others are irrelevant. Are the people across town > going to care about Gel's nuisance neighbors? No. > > Now, someone might argue that Gel is hell bent on taking over his > country because he'd like to get rid of these nuisance neighbors. > They could point out how he'd gone the police, how he'd been to their > house "harassing" them, and how nobody seems to care but Gel. > > If someone were to make that argument they'd either not understand > their own capitalism, or not be a capitalist. If, on the other hand, > they did understand capitalism then they'd say that Gel was just > looking out for his interests. And they'd know that, in doing so, Gel > was doing a public service: he was keeping his neighborhood clean and > therefore keeping the property values up. > > So where's the line between looking out for your interests and > infringing on somebody else's rights? That's what the law is for and > capitalism's success is 100% dependant on the law - that's what makes > the system egalitarian. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:191079 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
