Does that mean there is no difference between maximizing sin and minimizing it?
On Saturday, September 8, 2012 10:44:43 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: > > Hi Craig Weinberg > > Indeed, we are all sinners. > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <javascript:> > 9/8/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > *From:* Craig Weinberg <javascript:> > *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> > *Time:* 2012-09-08, 08:14:26 > *Subject:* Re: fairness and sustainability > > > > On Saturday, September 8, 2012 6:36:26 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: >> >> Hi John Mikes >> >> Here's the dilemma: >> >> Unfortunately, any system -- with the exception of the oil-rich countries >> (where fairness would seem to be hard to define) -- >> that is completely fair is unsustainable. Capitalism, >> like it or not, is the only known way to increase a >> country's wealth. Fairness decreases a country's capacity >> to grow. Darwin would agree. >> >> Cuba and the former soviet union and now europe >> are good examples. They all failed in trying to be completely fair >> or are in the process of failing. >> > > It sounds like you are defining wealth as capitalism in the first place. > Historically, there have been other ways of increasing a country's wealth. > Conquest. Agriculture. Slavery. There are examples of redistributive > economies in Polynesia...the idea of 'the Big Man' who gains influence and > glory by throwing the biggest parties for everyone. As the poverty of many > capitalist economies today shows (aren't most sub-Saharan economies > capitalist?), it is really the history of exploitation of natural and human > resources (or being the target of exploitation thereof) which seems to > relate to the ability of the nation to increase its wealth. > > What is happening now though is that capitalist countries are seeing their > capitalist elites become independent of the country. ExxonMobil makes > history with its obscenely high profits while the country debates yet more > cutbacks on basic human services. This isn't the fault of capitalism, since > it only values economic considerations, if human beings overproduce their > numbers and reduce their demand, the corporate leader is put in the > position where if they don't exploit that condition, then somebody else > will. Technology amplifies this. What globalization means is eventually we > will have a tiny group of international insiders and a disposable > population of potential employees all competing for the lowest possible > wage. Capitalism is building glass bank towers that stay empty all night > while more and more people sleep in the streets, prisons, squat in > foreclosed houses, etc. > > Unrestrained social Darwinism is not the only alternative to 'trying to be > completely fair'. Parts of the Soviet Union and Cuba are doing much better > than parts of New Orleans and Detroit. It's really very simplistic to try > to draw a line from a single economic proposition and the complex reality > of the fate of a nation. What would Cuba be like without the revolution? > Maybe Monte Carlo, maybe Haiti...neither...both? It's all speculation. All > I can see is that whatever we are doing in the US, is making everything > worse - here and around the world. I see the quality of life stagnating and > dropping for most people, for lack of money that is flowing into the bank > accounts of people who have no way to tell the difference except in their > imagination. > > Craig > > > >> >> >> Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net >> 9/8/2012 >> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him >> so that everything could function." >> >> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >> *From:* John Mikes >> *Receiver:* everything-list >> *Time:* 2012-09-07, 14:44:26 >> *Subject:* Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect >> >> Brent, >> I believe there is a difference between (adj) 'fair' or 'unjust' and >> the (noun) 'fairness', or 'consciousness'. >> While the nouns (IMO)锟�re not adequately identified the adverbs refer to >> the applied system of correspondence. >> E.g.: "Fair" to the unjust system. (I don't think we may use the >> opposite: "unjust" to a 'fair' system in our discussion). >> As I tried to explain in another post: the 'rich' consume MORE of the >> country-supplied services than the not-so-rich and pay less taxes (unfair >> and unjust). Certain big corporations also pay 'less' than the system would >> require >> (*in all fairness* - proverbially said) ordinarily. >> Semantix, OOH! >> John M >> >> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:18 PM, meekerdb <meek...@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> On 9/4/2012 1:12 PM, John Mikes wrote: >>> >>> >>> ** >>> It is a 'trap' to falsify the adequate taxing of the 'rich' as a *leftist >>> attempt to distributing richness*. It does not include more than a >>> requirement for THEM to pay their FAIR share - maybe more than the >>> not-so-rich layers (e.g. higher use of transportation, foreign connections, >>> financial means, etc. - all costing money to the country) in spite of their >>> lower share in the present unjust锟� axation-scheme. >>> ... >>> >>> And PLEASE, Brent, do not even utter in econo-political discussion the >>> word *"FAIRNESS"!* >>> >>> >>> So is it OK if I use "FAIR" and "unjust"? >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/gYVzlhgsIvYJ. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/2AUpEbRHA5QJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
