That is exactly what I've had in mind, go to the roots of each and
promote the best each has to offer. Capitalism has great potential,
socialism has great securities, and I agree with tribalism in the sense
of the expanded community (cradle to grave). That should be the basis of
the social contract and put in place as soon as a society is capable.
Also if community/national service were an actual duty, and selection
performed by a neutral lottery, certain ---holes might take things a
little more seriously. They lose as much as others, I say send the
people responsible for the oil spill out to do clean up along with the
people losing their health, businesses and we'll see changes quickly.
On 6/11/2010 7:14 PM, gruff wrote:
Hey, Slip. It's a melding of the two I'm talking about. There is no
valid reason a wealthy and robust economy can't take care of it's
members, even unto the least of them. However, there are number of
invalid reasons: greed, selfishness, ego, fear, etc. etc. etc.
On Jun 11, 2:56 pm, Slip Disc<[email protected]> wrote:
Double posting Gruff? Good to see you emerging from a long hiatus,
leave it to capitalistic dialogue to lure you in. Either that or the
desert heat is pointing to a better indoor environment and more time
on the computer.
As usual I wish I could wholeheartedly agree with you but regardless
of how much better poverty seems in the current light it doesn't
change the fact that much of capitalism is causal to poverty. I could
agree with the behavioral aspect to which you point to as being a huge
flaw but not as it being the only one. There is much to be done to
improve the system but then again we could also tweak socialism to be
a better system and perhaps a melding of the two might bring about a
whole new perspective on social governance.
