>Free? There is no free lunch. At whose expense?
Anthony,
in *capitalism* there is no free lunch. You must learn to think in
different dimensions: As money has no worth in capitalism, since everything
you do is for the community, and everything the community does is in the
end for your benefit, it is not needed anymore in communism.
>Simulary, if a person who does a lions share seems himself getting as much
>as someone who does a rats share -- even if both are working to the best of
>their ability -- he will become unmotivated. How is it fair that he does
>more and recieves the same in return?
How is it fair that the other person isn't able to work as much as he
does? Your reasoning assumes people only work to receive money out of it.
What if the people did their jobs because they like their work?
>Good. But there are some people who are not, and that will serve to bring
>down any society based on altruism.
Anthony, after reading this statement I began yelling loud (thus waking up
my mother, sorry) and had to run a few times through the house before I was
calm enough to answer again.
What you are saying here reminds me of Nazi argumentation: Arians are
good, the others are bad. It also reminds me of statements like "a rock is
a cow." and "a rock is not a cow". What you are saying is, to write it in a
way similar to what you used so often sourself:
class Human
{
Boolean good = true;
};
That is what Alain agrees with. And then you say:
void main(void)
{
Human one;
Human two;
if( one.good == true
&& two.good == false )
ThisIsAnthonysOpinion();
else
ThisIsWrong();
}
You say that *all humans* are good by nature, and then claim that some are
not. This is logically wrong. Either all humans are good, as Alain said, or
humans are both good and bad at the same time, as I said. But these two
don't mix.
>The law of the jungle is force. Is mob rule. Capitalism expressly forbids
>it. Capitalism can only work when the rights of individuals are repsected;
>it is based on those rights.
Capitalism is an economic system. It has nothing to do with human rights.
Actually, most of the time capitalism and human rights are on opposite
sides of the battlefield. Do me a favor, before you start talking about
thinks like Marxism, Capitalism and Democracy, look up the words in the
dictionary. Here's what my dictionary says on Capitalism:
(...) the economic system in which all or most of the means of production
and distribution, as land, factories, railroads etc., are privately owned
and operated for profit, originally under fully competitive conditions; it
has been generally characterized by a tendency toward concentration of
wealth, and in its later phase, by the growth of great corporations (...)
There's no mention of human rights in the entire entry.
>Communism rejects those rights. Communism forces you to work for your
>neighbor -- even if you don't want to. Communism is the law of the jungle:
>brute force.
Communism doesn't force you. That's socialism or leninism maybe, but not
communism.
>No. If I am working for myself, I keep what I earn.
That means you refuse to pay taxes?
>The only proper distribution is one which respects that my labor is mine to
>do with and sell to whomever I please (within reason -- I can't go out and
>murder someone).
Why? Capitalism only concerns itself with capital. If you can gain money
by murdering someone, capitalism lets you.
>Capitalism allows you to try and become self employed. It allows you to go
>seek a job. It is about your choice.
No. Capitalism is about money. Ask your encyclopedia.
>I see no problem with it. It's their money. (And no, it's not comparable to
>communism because one is done by physical force, and one is done by mutual
>consent.)
Do you think being bought requires mutual consent? You never concerned
yourself with the stock market, did you?
>The rich person did the intellectual work. The workers do the physical
>work. Draw your own conclusions.
So, this statement means Bill Gates did all the work on DOS, right? Sadly,
DOS was created and invented by someone else. Gates bought the sources,
letting money do his work.
>WHy was it not so before the 1930's? There was no Government safety net then.
Let me remind you of black friday. That's where living without a safety
net and with pure capitalism gets you.
>Change "without" to "with full" and you'd have a true statement.
This is the kind of reasoning I usually hear from first-graders when I'm
on that camping trip when I need to tell them to go to bed. ANthony, you
aren't stupid, so please get back to providing real arguments instead of
Yes, No, Yes again, no again.
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
--- HELP SAVE HYPERCARD: ---
Details at: http://www.hyperactivesw.com/SaveHC.html
Sign: http://www.giguere.uqam.ca/petition/hcpetition.html
