Anna: An "idealistic" theory of social harmony that fails to take human psychology into consideration is like a food that is ideal except that it poisons and fails to nourish. It is like a vehicle that is ideal except that it cannot run. It is like an examination paper that is ideal except that all the answers are wrong. When you have said that this theory fails to take human psychology into consideration, you have said the most damning thing about it that you could possibly have said. You have revealed that such theory is a TOTAL FAILURE, pure and simple. There is nothing "idealistic" about it; it is just a failure if it assesses human beings improperly. "Culture," as I understand that word, pertains to any group of people who habitually interact with each other--as opposed to, say, a group of disparate strangers, including foreigners, who happen to have washed ashore together after a shipwreck. The most primitive village embodies a culture. Movies are often--arguably always are--bad art. But If there is a reason that they CANNOT be good art, I do not see what that reason is. If no one had ever written a good play, would you say that theater is not an art? I do not see how anyone can know that United States is the most free place that exists. I always suspect that those who maintain this have been reading the US Constitution, which has, as any lawyer--liberal or conservative or libertarian--will tell you, little or nothing to do with actual practice in United States. Other countries have totalitarian constitutions to which they currently pay as little attention as US pays to ITS constitution. I am the only person in the world who does not see any value in being, with respect to wealth, equal. I continually hear one country assumed happier or more fortunate or superior to another, based upon the fact that its population is more equal to each other in wealth than people in other countries. The French Revolution, as well as each revolution that has happened since, has adopted "equality" as one of its goals. The US' IRS apparently holds equality of wealth to be desirable. If I am neither much poorer nor much richer than those living next door to me, I am supposed to be pleased about this, and if I find I am, instead, unequal, I should, according to this thinking, either donate or confiscate in order to produce a greater equilibrium, or equality, of wealth. I would like to ask: Is a country that is, say, all starving to death together, or, say, all experiencing a huge boom in some business (oil?) together, or, say, all middle-class, a happier or superior country? Are people under socialist dictatorships happy? ( Or would they be if only those few at the top were eliminated so that there really would exist some measure of equality of the rest?) Are individuals happier and better off for being more equal in wealth--as the IRS tries to make them? WHAT is so great about equality of wealth, even assuming such equality were achievable? Nothing, I think, even though equality has become the universal standard (for everyone except me) for good versus bad. To give voice to the truth that equality is perfectly meaningless is like saying the emperor wears no clothes. (if someone feels he lacks something in his life--such as, for instance enough food--then certainly it is legitimate for him to solve this problem. But achievement of equality cannot solve it, as shown by the fact that sometimes whole populations starve together. There is no reason the entire population of the earth cannot starve to death together, while enjoying complete equality). I would LIKE to ask this, but to paraphrase:
Anna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mark, no - you just do not understand the point I am trying here to make. All theories usually fail because they do not take into consideration human psychology. While a free market capitalistic society where people decide about the fruits of their work sounds like an ideal model, nevertheless it creates huge inequalities which as a consequence will not allow the system to function as planned. Where is inequality, there is potential for violence . No society can be a success if it is plagued by riots and crime. The only solution would be to preventatively pacify the potential troublemakers, and this requires a system of welfare and other social services, which are not exactly fitting into a free social model as proposed. Your shortsightedness is understandable though. You are idealist who thinks that to have a paradise, all it takes is to make people free to earn money and enjoy it. You do not take into consideration the jealousy and greed of those who have less, but believe should have more. To keep the troublesome elements in order, the system would have to allow for expansion of militia powers. The more militia, the more potential for corruption. There will be always someone who has more money than you to pay to enforce his own way over yours. To have a regime in order to have a minority to enjoy the fruits of their labor is a moral suicide. It is not true that humans are inherently good, rather they are good unless they see an opportunity to profit by being bad. Being bad can also bring well earned profit. It is only a moral issue how it was earned. As I have read somewhere, many Mafioso consider themselves to be the honest capitalists. Who do you think tortures people in Iraq and elsewhere, some demons? No, the honest good people. A potential for evil is in every man and given an opportunity, it will blossom. Inequalities create such opportunity. Do you see a way out? Anna ----- Original Message ----- From: mark robert To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 9:25 PM Subject: RE: [Libertarian] Re: the truth.... Anna, When your points are refuted, you reply as below. How contradictory! If there ever was an ideal-society theory that failed, it was the one you generally persist in defending. -Mark _____ It is, in ideal society. But a theory even the best, never works the same in real life. Anna _____ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS a.. Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web. b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
