On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:14:17 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> On 9/4/2012 9:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 8:49:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>> On 9/4/2012 4:23 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>> > What struck me is that the "the USERS of wealth in directing the life
>> > of the country."
>> > seem to be exporting jobs overseas and hiding their money there as
>> > Richard
>> OK, let us confiscate all capital and distribute it evenly to every
>> one. Then what?
> then we have democracy?
> No, because people always congregate into groups, it is their nature.
> And from there it is "Lord of the Flies" all over. It has happened many
> times before. Why do we never learn?
I think that's why Jefferson was keen on periodic revolutions. If
inequality is inevitable though, it makes sense to mediate that tendency to
some extent if we can, rather than giving carte blanche to the winning
savages. It's like saying we should learn that there is always crime so why
bother with police. Isn't civilization based upon the effort to tame our
innate tendencies toward self interest? Or at least to agree to conspire
against the barbarians outside of the walls.
> wouldn't even need to confiscate all capital, and I don't think that
> anyone is suggesting that. Just make hoarding wealth more expensive.
> Sure! A tax credit for investing. Oh way, that already exists! It is
> why the investment tax is so low as it is!
Investing in guaranteed payouts is what makes hoarding of wealth possible.
Why would we want to give tax breaks for the wealthy to find ways of taking
more money out of the economy faster? At the plutocrat level, you should be
rewarded only for investing in non-profit enterprises that lose money.
Being able to invest huge amounts of money, especially unearned money from
a dynastic fortune, is a privilege that should be taxed, not rewarded.
> Maybe follow the Scandinavian model on a trial basis for 20 years in a
> handful of cities.
> Scandinavia is a bad place to build a model because it has a
> homogeneous population. Such populations behave, on average, very different
> from highly diverse populations. Segregation into polarized groups happens
> much slower in homogenous populations. You might check out the meme flow in
> such conditions, its amazing.
If by homogeneous you mean financially homogeneous, then a plan which tilts
the economy in favor of the middle class should by definition make any
place into a more homogeneous society - in which case the Scandinavian
model would be expected to perform as it does for them now. If you are
talking about anything else, then I suspect it's just a coded racism. This
country was built in large part by slaves. We exploit poor migrant workers.
There may not be a choice ultimately for us but to choose whether to become
slaves and disposable workers ourselves (assuming we are not already) in a
feudal plantation-prison society or to settle the score and go after those
who continue to benefit the most from the system as it is.
In any case, there is no reason to think that experimenting with a
Scandinavian type system, or even Canadian, British, etc, when it comes to
health care would not be better than what we have now. The biggest problem
is that our political assumptions are unfalsifiable. No matter how far our
standard of living plummets and how the far-too-rich get richer at everyone
else's expense, it can always be suggested that it could be worse had we
not done what we did. Only through experimentation in a scientific way will
we ever learn anything.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at