On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Sunder wrote:
> That just proves that Joe Average is entertaining you, but believes otherwise.
> Or is entertaining the mob.
That could very well be the case.
> Not a problem. You get them an emergency, you feed them FUD and scare them,
> and they'll bend over in every direction you ask. Hell, just scream terrorist
> and they'll happily put up with all sorts of nonsense to take a plane ride.
Wow. You're good at this! You work for the feds? :)
> > I've read Smith and Friedman.. and, since you are familar with Marx, you
> > realize that his dream degraded in practice .. just like the dream of
> > pure capitalism has.
>
> Yep, but even so, capitalism under a fascist tending government is far better
> off than communism under a fascist tending government.
I agree with that completely. I suspect that in an honest government,
communism would work ok .. the problem is that "honest government" is
an oxymoron.. and capitalism seems to tend toward chaos at a slower
rate than communism.
> But unlike you, I'm in favor of doing away with ALL social programs. If
> they're honest, working folk, they're also going to be honest about saving for
> a rainy day. I'm not responsible for anyone's downfall except my own. As
> such, you can bet I'd do everything in my power to prevent it.
That is where we fundamentally depart. I recognize that I am not
responsible for other's downfall .. but I still make an attempt to help
them out.
> > Hell, it could even be in the form of a zero-interest loan. Give the
> > family some money until the hard times pass, and let them pay it off
> > little-by-little, the money goes back into the system to help more people.
> > That small percentage of our taxes picks up the slack for inflation.
>
> That would be appropriate. But what happens when they can't pay off the loan?
Depending on how it was run .. private donations into the program by
citizens like myself could help with such problems when the family is
in such a complete financial hell. On the other end, to stop active abuse,
you have criminal penalties.
Hey.. cheating a social program out of coin meant to help needy families
is a helluvalot more reasonable a crime to throw stiff penalties at
than, say, smoking a little weed in the privacy of your own home.
> No, I agree with that the above paragraph. If you do volunteer work, it's
> because you chose to. Because you get some value out of it. But put a gun to
> my head and demand I hand over 50% of my money so that some insignifican amount
> of that (or even if it were a significant portion) can go to feed the hungry,
> and it becomes theft.
I'm not in favor of mandatory taxes in general, let alone taking your
money for a program you don't believe in.
I'd prefer a tax system in which you pay whatever sum you feel is
appropriate, and delegate what sorts of programs your money goes to.
With such widespread computerization like we have now, it is feasible
to track such allocation of funds.
> Then start by creating a charity system, not one based on stealing from those
> who work to give to those who won't or can't.
That would sort of be what my vision of taxation would be. In the mean
time, I'd rather work toward tax reform than not help those in need.
> In what way does Capitalism suck again?
There seems to be no built-in way to stave off large, controlling
corporations doing harm.
The theory, of course, is competition and consumer boycott.
But with our institution of intellectual property, it becomes possible
to keep competition at bay such that the consumer has no choice but to
either live without the product or service completely, or hand over
the money to the corporation.
Capitalism without intellectual property will have problems too, because
if I am a little guy, and I come out with a new type of monitor, the
day I open shop and sell them, you can come along with 1000 times the
resources that I have, clone my monitors, produce them at a volume
that I cannot match, and therefore be able to offer them at a lower
price.
I don't have the first clue how to prevent this, mind you ..
Michael J. Graffam ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
