At 6:34 PM +0200 on 7/10/99, M. Uli Kusterer wrote:
>>Yep. With communism, you quickly find that no matter how hard you work, you
>>still don't have enough food on your plate. And the more labor you do, the
>>hungrier you are...so the only logical action is to site around all day and
>>do nothing.
>
>Anthony,
>
> what you're describing is a particular implementation of communism, which
>was faulty. Communism as Marx envisioned it, wouldn't have suffered this
>fate as eceryone would have had enough to eat.
Well, you can write anything you want in a book, but reality is reality.
>It's like with Velocity.
>Even though Velocity was slow as a dead cat, that doesn't mean all
>interpreters have to be as slow. It was only this particular
>implementation, while the basic concept allows for speed.
But in comparison with a real compiler, the basic concept is _far_ slower.
>
>>Went to hell, no doubt.
>
> Don't be so cynical, Anthony. That South Sea island probably survived, but
>they've had to re-learn everything I guess.
Probably had to re-learn how to live in a cave...
>
>>But it's also damaging to the giver: You don't have the food that you gave
>>to the animals anymore. And if enough animals were to come begging, you
>>would have no food for yourself. And you would not have food for them,
>>either. That's the ultimate ned of altruism: Death.
>
> Not if everyone is altruistic. Then everyone helps everyone and all get
>what they need, when they need it. Seen from this (agreeably one-sided)
>viewpoint, altruism is a very good base for a state.
No, they don't. because if you are 100% altruistic, you can't take the
stuff -- because that would be for your own good -- and you must give it to
your neighbor, who gives it to his neighbor, etc., until it rots.
>The problem is that
>here comes in the fact Marx didn't realize (while he realized many things
>that are astonishing to see if you look at today's world and how it turned
>out so similar to how he said the future would be), that humans are not
>beings that are 100% altruistic.
Because if they were 100% altruistic, they'd die from the rot scenario
above. And if they are anything less than 100%, the best alternative is 0%.
