Furthermore I went to look at some property to the west and discovered that the stipulations to ownership consisted of........... No water well drilling............................I guess I have to pay someone for the water No livestock including chickens, rabbits, pigs, goats etc. ................so I guess I have to pay someone else to eat. Limitation to one out building.......................you got the picture.
So I guess to all of that you will tell me that someone (not me of course) is rising to their full potential. I guarantee that when you are in your 60's you will see it for what it is KC. Of course many of us won't be around for you to share your awakening with but perhaps you can share it with the future progeny of your generation. Only so many Yachts can fit in the ocean my friend. On Jan 21, 9:22 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > I never intimated that attorneys were all sneaky. However, a good > attorney knows the law but a great attorney knows the judge! lol > > Now we were in a position to get ahead. Each could rise as high as > his potential allowed. <KC > > Position to get ahead? As in, I can climb up high on the accumulation > of dead skulls below me to rise out of the pit and not become another > skull? Potential based on others falling? Potential that results in > the displacement of others? > > Why am I talking about food now? I posted your paragraph (to chris) > with starts out with >>I think the flaw in your reasoning is that you > assume if something exists everyone is entitled to it. << KC really > think about what you are saying. Do you really think that if > something exists, naturally on this planet, that people are Not > entitled to it? Man created television not the sun. I am not entitled > to television but I am entitled to the sun. I am entitled to food and > water and no one has the right to deprive that entitlement in exchange > for slavery. > The existence of heart transplants is not different from the existence > of plasma TV's, which neither should fall under the category of > entitlement. Go back a million years KC, food existed, why? So that > people could gather it all up and "Capitalize" in it's "Existence"? I > don't think so. > The initial debate is about capitalism and so because you tangent the > debate with exclusivity does not in any way divert the base debate. > > On Jan 21, 8:19 pm, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jan 21, 6:54 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I see you are going to make a good attorney, hope you pass the bar. > > > Personally I never could pass a bar without stopping in for at least > > > one drink. lol > > > Ok, ok, enough with lawyer jokes. Fact I've been participating on > > this group long before I ever went to law school. I'm not some sneeky > > attorney coming on to make unfair arguments. I'm quite sincere. . . . > > for the record. > > > > But seriously using the heart transplant surgical procedure as > > > analogous to resource entitlement is a bit of a legalese stretch. > > > Eating food is not an organ transplant. Everyone born "IS" entitled to > > > eat. Food is not a man made commodity but a given planetary resource, > > > the sun shines because it exists naturally within our solar system and > > > therefore we are entitled to sit out in it. > > > Why are you talking about food now? My argument never mentioned food > > once. I've been talking exclusively about medical care and > > education. Food is a whole 'nother topic all together. One that I > > could respond to, but seems would sidetrack the initial debate. > > > > FACT: If capitalists > > > could harness the sun and charge people for it they would, regardless > > > of the diseases that would occur from the lack of affordability. They > > > would also charge for the air we breath and the rain that falls. > > > Really? That's a fact? Who are these "capitalists" of which you > > speak? Yes, people want to make a buck. Some bad people want to make > > a buck unfairly. Does that mean we lump all of those people who want > > to make a buck into one lump group? That seems unfair, and > > uncharitable. In fact, the principles of free market capitalism do > > not suggest such an endeavor. > > > > Fortunately they have not been able to sell sunshine and rain but > > > unfortunately they have been able to sell food. Aside from that much > > > of the food they sell has now become GMF's which are increasingly > > > turning up with the exclusion of seeds that allow people to grow their > > > own crops. I've noticed that many vegetables not only lack taste but > > > are comprised of 95% pulp which makes for more weight which makes for > > > more "profit". I feel very fortunate to have a supplier that > > > propagates "heirloom" vegetable plants, and I can tell you that when I > > > bite into one of my tomatoes it's like going back in time. Let's not > > > forget mad cow which is the result of cow cannibalism thanks to the > > > infinite wisdom of the capitalist cattle rancher. > > > OK back on track. I think the idea is to merely socialize those basic > > > needs that without which lead to needless suffering. > > > Needless suffering is what made us turn to free market capitalism to > > begin with. We realized that the rich monarchs and aristocrats were > > never going to just give us a piece of the pie. Revolution after > > revolution, we finally broke away from those bastards and got what we > > wanted all along, there feet off our necks. Now we were in a position > > to get ahead. Each could rise as high as his potential allowed. > > Capitalism does just that. Of course it doesn't do so perfectly, but > > no system is perfect. > > > > I don't see why > > > people have such a problem with it. Some say that society will no > > > longer be motivated but in reality people are forced into motivation. > > > Suppose I don't want to have anything in life aside from my basic need > > > for food and shelter? Is this the MO of the Hobo community? Isn't it > > > OK that I don't want to be a cog in the wheel of corporate society? > > > The "bottom line" is that the wealthy survive because people need to > > > eat but more so because people have to "buy" the food they eat and > > > "buy" the shelter in which they live. > > > And what would we have to do in a state of nature? You would have to > > work your ass off 100 hours a week just to live on the edge of > > subsistence, and with a life expectancy of 20 years. Thats life my > > friend. Free market capitalism has made it possible for us all to > > live upwards of 80 years, and to do so without having to work 100 > > hours each week. Most people don't work over 40 hours a week. > > > > I'm still staggering at the thought that the government wants me to > > > pay to bail out the bank that charges me interest on a credit card. > > > I know, makes me sick too. Bastard socialists! > > > > So now I have to pay the bank so they can lend me my own money that I > > > have to pay back with interest. I just don't get it. Capitalism or a > > > Corrupt Corporate Run Government? Who is in charge here? Really! > > > I'm with you! Trust me! I'm saying the same thing. The gov't is > > ruining free market capitalism. > > > > I know I'm just a schlep in the world and don't really ask for much > > > other than what I can provide for myself and mine but my compassion > > > goes out to the world as a whole. If there is anything in the world > > > that should be outlawed it is "people capitalizing on other peoples > > > needs". > > > Have you ever noticed how the lion trainer gets the lion to do tricks > > > by giving him little food treats? > > > Is it any different with people? > > > Is it too much to ask to have something to eat? (while the rich dine > > > on caviar and such) > > > I don't care that the rich are rich, that is their curse but I do care > > > that the poor are poor. > > > No one in suffering has ever crossed my path that I did not lend a > > > hand to help! > > > That is because I am not a capitalist. > > > So capitalists are by nature uncharitable? Again, I think such an > > accusation is uncharitable. > > > > On Jan 21, 6:45 pm, Kierkecraig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > So Chris, your saying the problem with the world isn't too much > > > > government but too little government? I'd have to disagree with you > > > > there. > > > > > I think the flaw in your reasoning is that you assume if something > > > > exists everyone is entitled to it. Brain, heart, and lung transplants > > > > may either be possible, or in the future possible, but they are modern > > > > marvels. No one is entitled to these things. The procedures take a > > > > lot of money, time, and expenses to research and implement. People > > > > put their heart and soul into such ventures because they believe that > > > > it will mean a big pay check in their futures. Not everyone is going > > > > to be able to afford a heart transplant. The most obvious reason is > > > > not everyone can afford one. Not to mention their aren't enough spare > > > > hearts lying around. > > > > > The countries who have tried to implement socialism have ended up with > > > > countries that cannot keep up with those who have not. The only > > > > reason that medicine had continued to advance in today's modern > > > > society is because America is still relatively capitalistic. We will > > > > pay the big bucks for the research and procedures and so people still > > > > keep working to make it happen. But if we adopt medical care like > > > > Canada's and England's, I think you can kiss credible medical research > > > > goodbye. > > > > > And Education in our society is already socialist. How are you going > > > > to make it more Socialist? My contention is that the problem with our > > > > education today is precisely because its Socialist. If we privatized > > > > education, made the institutions compete, made the teachers compete, > > > > then our educational system would be much more competitive. > > > > > On Jan 21, 2:25 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 4:17 PM, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 20, 7:16 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > I've always had trouble with "capitalism" - the word hardly > > > > > > > appears in > > > > > > > Marx and I've never seen any satisfactory definitions of it as a > > > > > > > phenomena. > > > > > > > As a phenomenon it is highly misunderstood and applied for dubious > > > > > > political purposes. On another Newsgroup I was shocked to see this > > > > > > statement in response to my accusation that the writer had no idea > > > > > > what socialism was except as a thing to be destroyed to protect us > > > > > > all > > > > > > from evil. > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
