[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > 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? :)
Yes, at gunpoint, about 50% of my profits go to them, so in an indirect sense,
I'm forced to do so.
> > 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.
So then, what's the answer? Capitalism or Crapunism under anarchy? :)
> > 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.
Help them out yes. As long as that's what YOU WANT to do. Being forced to
help them out at gun point, isn't the right way. It's theft. That's what
social government programs are. Theft. Steal from Joe under the pretense to
pay John, while taking 99% of that loot for the government.
> 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.
On the other hand, why not have it all be private donations? Why have it be
theft?
> 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.
I agree with that wholeheartedly. But, the government makes more money taking
away everything you own if you do smoke a little weed. I couldn't care less
what you do to yourself in your own home. I suspect they don't either, but
"for your own good" they'll take away your freedom, your possesions and slam
your ass in jail.
> 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.
Then it isn't a tax, it's a voluntary charity. When it becomes forced, it
becomes theft. So in reality, you're not for taxes that pay for social
programs, you're for charity collections that fund social programs. Well, why
didn't you say so in the first place? It's like pulling teeth!
> With such widespread computerization like we have now, it is feasible
> to track such allocation of funds.
Sure is, and there would be far less "pork".
> 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.
Why not work to just abolish taxes in the first place?
> > In what way does Capitalism suck again?
>
> There seems to be no built-in way to stave off large, controlling
> corporations doing harm.
Sure there is. Evolution. The market decides, and the market is ultimately the
consumers.
> The theory, of course, is competition and consumer boycott.
Yes. Exactly.
> 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.
Not entirely. Linux and *BSD are kicking Microsoft's ass. You won't see it
because Microsoft has more advertising dollars. But it's still reality. And
the more Microsoft does to make their OS fascist (forced registration, privacy
invasion, security holes), the more they'll lose. Mom and Pop aren't running
Linux yet, but that's because they don't know any better. Still, I know a guy
whose *grandfather* picked up a Linux CD from a Pee Cee magazine and installed
it. He was a lot happier with Linux as it crashed less than 95.
> 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.
Intelectual property isn't the problem. Enforcing the rules that grant patents
rather than being an rubber stamping open legged whore to anyone who can fill
out forms, would fix things.
> I don't have the first clue how to prevent this, mind you ..
See above. :)
--
---------------------------- Kaos Keraunos Kybernetos --------------------
+ ^ + Sunder "Only someone completely distrustful of /|\
\|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] all government would be opposed to what /\|/\
<--*--> -------------------- we are doing with surveillance cameras" \/|\/
/|\ You're on the air. -- NYC Police Commish H. Safir. \|/
+ v + Say 'Hi' to Echelon "Privacy is an 'antisocial act'" - The FedZ.
---------------------------- http://www.sunder.net -----------------------
I love the smell of Malathion in the morning, it smells like brain cancer.
