Good to see you post. gruff!//You are describing the Medieval period of western history and that led to nationalism and continuing wars, etc. Plus it was based on divine right and privilege by birth or merit granted from the rulers so it was not really a fair distribution.//The problem currently is huge debt and promises which cannot be maintained regarding social programs let alone fighting wars and fixing crumbling infrastructure. The sleaziest way for the government to react is to entrap property and business owners with higher taxes regardless of the damage they cause the general economy in the long run- which they are doing.
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. > > > >
