Re: Re: fairness and sustainability
Hi Bruno Marchal That's fine. Although it is a bit out-dated an idea, I conceive of the evil acting in evil people metaphorically as demons. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-10, 10:26:30 Subject: Re: fairness and sustainability Hi Roger, On 09 Sep 2012, at 12:48, Roger Clough wrote: Marchal Hi Bruno By sin or evil I mean intentionally diminishing the life of others. OK. If you doubt that that is not the way of the world, you must not watch the news. I never doubt that, alas. Evil is not an abstract word, it is very real, and it lives to whatever extent in each of us. In two very different ways. In fantasy, with consent, and in act without consent. The good can and will never triumph on the bad, but it can reduce the harm. The extent of evil in you is not the problem, the sin is in the evil act that actually augment the harm of others. The evil is in all on us, you are right. But this does not make all person a sinner. You became a sinner only if you actually sin (diminish the life of others), intentionally, or not, I am not sure but with some degree or responsibility, relatively to different realities. The better you know the evil in you, the less surprising it is in unexpected circumstances, making easier the self-control. Some believe that thinking bad things is already a sin. But you have to think on bad things to say that, so it is a bit self-defeating. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/9/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-08, 13:54:23 Subject: Re: fairness and sustainability On 08 Sep 2012, at 16:41, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Indeed, we are all sinners. Hi Roger, Saying this can only dilute the responsibility and helps the sinners. I am not sure at all we are all sinners, unless you are using a so weak sense that it is making every baby already sinning. I am not sure about the notion of sin. It looks too much like an easy way to explain suffering, and it makes many people feeling guilty for no reason that they can see, and sometimes it can act as a self-prophecy: given that I have already sin why not sin again? I think that there is only one sin: hurting others without legitimate concern. And most people don't sin, I think, Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-08, 08:37:30 Subject: Re: fairness and sustainability On 08 Sep 2012, at 12:35, Roger Clough wrote: Hi John Mikes Here's the dilemma: Unfortunately, any system -- with the exception of the oil-rich countries (where fairness would seem to be hard to define) -- that is completely fair is unsustainable. Capitalism, like it or not, is the only known way to increase a country's wealth. Fairness decreases a country's capacity to grow. Darwin would agree. Cuba and the former soviet union and now europe are good examples. They all failed in trying to be completely fair or are in the process of failing. I think that capitalism + democracy is the most fair system. Today, unfortunately, capitalism has been perverted by minorities which build money on fears, lies and catastrophes, and that is very bad. They are clever, and have succeeded in mixing the black and non black money, so that the middle class and the banking systems have become hostages. Those liars are transforming the planet economy into a a pyramidal con. Lying is part of nature, like cancers and diseases. Defending ourselves against liars is part of nature too. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-07, 14:44:26 Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect Brent, I believe there is a difference between (adj) 'fair' or 'unjust' and the (noun) 'fairness', or 'consciousness'. While the nouns (IMO)?re not adequately identified the adverbs refer to the applied system of correspondence. E.g.: Fair to the unjust system. (I don't think we may use the opposite: unjust to a 'fair' system in our discussion). As I tried to explain in another post: the 'rich' consume MORE of the country-supplied services than the not-so-rich and pay less taxes (unfair and unjust). Certain big corporations also
Re: Re: fairness and sustainability
Hi Roger, Do demons have free will? Or are the evil actions of people an involuntary gift from God? Is there another option? Craig On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:19:23 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal That's fine. Although it is a bit out-dated an idea, I conceive of the evil acting in evil people metaphorically as demons. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript: 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-09-10, 10:26:30 *Subject:* Re: fairness and sustainability Hi Roger, On 09 Sep 2012, at 12:48, Roger Clough wrote: Marchal Hi Bruno By sin or evil I mean intentionally diminishing the life of others. OK. If you doubt that that is not the way of the world, you must not watch the news. I never doubt that, alas. Evil is not an abstract word, it is very real, and it lives to whatever extent in each of us. In two very different ways. In fantasy, with consent, and in act without consent. The good can and will never triumph on the bad, but it can reduce the harm. The extent of evil in you is not the problem, the sin is in the evil act that actually augment the harm of others. The evil is in all on us, you are right. But this does not make all person a sinner. You became a sinner only if you actually sin (diminish the life of others), intentionally, or not, I am not sure but with some degree or responsibility, relatively to different realities. The better you know the evil in you, the less surprising it is in unexpected circumstances, making easier the self-control. Some believe that thinking bad things is already a sin. But you have to think on bad things to say that, so it is a bit self-defeating. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript: 9/9/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-09-08, 13:54:23 *Subject:* Re: fairness and sustainability On 08 Sep 2012, at 16:41, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Indeed, we are all sinners. Hi Roger, Saying this can only dilute the responsibility and helps the sinners. I am not sure at all we are all sinners, unless you are using a so weak sense that it is making every baby already sinning. I am not sure about the notion of sin. It looks too much like an easy way to explain suffering, and it makes many people feeling guilty for no reason that they can see, and sometimes it can act as a self-prophecy: given that I have already sin why not sin again? I think that there is only one sin: hurting others without legitimate concern. And most people don't sin, I think, Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript: 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Bruno Marchal javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-09-08, 08:37:30 *Subject:* Re: fairness and sustainability On 08 Sep 2012, at 12:35, Roger Clough wrote: Hi John Mikes Here's the dilemma: Unfortunately, any system -- with the exception of the oil-rich countries (where fairness would seem to be hard to define) -- that is completely fair is unsustainable. Capitalism, like it or not, is the only known way to increase a country's wealth. Fairness decreases a country's capacity to grow. Darwin would agree. Cuba and the former soviet union and now europe are good examples. They all failed in trying to be completely fair or are in the process of failing. I think that capitalism + democracy is the most fair system. Today, unfortunately, capitalism has been perverted by minorities which build money on fears, lies and catastrophes, and that is very bad. They are clever, and have succeeded in mixing the black and non black money, so that the middle class and the banking systems have become hostages. Those liars are transforming the planet economy into a a pyramidal con. Lying is part of nature, like cancers and diseases. Defending ourselves against liars is part of nature too. Bruno Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net javascript: 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* John Mikes javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-09-07, 14:44:26 *Subject:* Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect Brent, I believe there is a difference between (adj) 'fair
Re: fairness and sustainability
On 11 Sep 2012, at 13:18, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal That's fine. Although it is a bit out-dated an idea, I conceive of the evil acting in evil people metaphorically as demons. With two horns ? :) Many people reports seeing daemons, and sort of daemons, on different psychedelics. Those daemons might be just interpretation, made by the neocortex, through culture and life-memory, of antic subroutines, charged of relative content, operating around de amygdala, who knows? Plausibly, with the comp hyp., they might already consist in sophisticated universal subroutines of the mind processing, and be common to very large collection of Löbian machines or numbers. demon is a cute word, but be careful not to demonized the demon. if you act badly, knowingly, you sin (knowingly), the inspiring demon does not, and can't be used to attenuate the responsibility. The demons doing their job in hell, are there willingly, --I mean they are not punished. God love demons. It is very practical to test the creature for the heaven/hell question. Here I am not working in just comp, but with a momentary possible consistent christian extension. It does not make Satan himself into a friend, necessarily, as you can still (re)define Satan, by what makes you do the bad act, but in that case, you are Satan, when you sin (act badly). I don't know. Theodicy is the most complex part of theology. With comp, it can only be a sequence of harder and harder open questions (in arithmetic), none having really normative consequences except some sort of open mindedness and interrogative attitude towards the unknown and the unknowns. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/11/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-10, 10:26:30 Subject: Re: fairness and sustainability Hi Roger, On 09 Sep 2012, at 12:48, Roger Clough wrote: Marchal Hi Bruno By sin or evil I mean intentionally diminishing the life of others. OK. If you doubt that that is not the way of the world, you must not watch the news. I never doubt that, alas. Evil is not an abstract word, it is very real, and it lives to whatever extent in each of us. In two very different ways. In fantasy, with consent, and in act without consent. The good can and will never triumph on the bad, but it can reduce the harm. The extent of evil in you is not the problem, the sin is in the evil act that actually augment the harm of others. The evil is in all on us, you are right. But this does not make all person a sinner. You became a sinner only if you actually sin (diminish the life of others), intentionally, or not, I am not sure but with some degree or responsibility, relatively to different realities. The better you know the evil in you, the less surprising it is in unexpected circumstances, making easier the self-control. Some believe that thinking bad things is already a sin. But you have to think on bad things to say that, so it is a bit self- defeating. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/9/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-08, 13:54:23 Subject: Re: fairness and sustainability On 08 Sep 2012, at 16:41, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Indeed, we are all sinners. Hi Roger, Saying this can only dilute the responsibility and helps the sinners. I am not sure at all we are all sinners, unless you are using a so weak sense that it is making every baby already sinning. I am not sure about the notion of sin. It looks too much like an easy way to explain suffering, and it makes many people feeling guilty for no reason that they can see, and sometimes it can act as a self-prophecy: given that I have already sin why not sin again? I think that there is only one sin: hurting others without legitimate concern. And most people don't sin, I think, Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-08, 08:37:30 Subject: Re: fairness and sustainability On 08 Sep 2012, at 12:35, Roger Clough wrote: Hi John Mikes Here's the dilemma: Unfortunately, any system -- with the exception of the oil-rich countries (where fairness would seem to be hard to define) -- that is completely fair is unsustainable. Capitalism, like it or not, is the only known way to increase a country's wealth. Fairness decreases a country's capacity to grow. Darwin would agree. Cuba and the former soviet union and now europe are good
Re: fairness and sustainability
Hi Roger, On 09 Sep 2012, at 12:48, Roger Clough wrote: Marchal Hi Bruno By sin or evil I mean intentionally diminishing the life of others. OK. If you doubt that that is not the way of the world, you must not watch the news. I never doubt that, alas. Evil is not an abstract word, it is very real, and it lives to whatever extent in each of us. In two very different ways. In fantasy, with consent, and in act without consent. The good can and will never triumph on the bad, but it can reduce the harm. The extent of evil in you is not the problem, the sin is in the evil act that actually augment the harm of others. The evil is in all on us, you are right. But this does not make all person a sinner. You became a sinner only if you actually sin (diminish the life of others), intentionally, or not, I am not sure but with some degree or responsibility, relatively to different realities. The better you know the evil in you, the less surprising it is in unexpected circumstances, making easier the self-control. Some believe that thinking bad things is already a sin. But you have to think on bad things to say that, so it is a bit self-defeating. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/9/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-08, 13:54:23 Subject: Re: fairness and sustainability On 08 Sep 2012, at 16:41, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Indeed, we are all sinners. Hi Roger, Saying this can only dilute the responsibility and helps the sinners. I am not sure at all we are all sinners, unless you are using a so weak sense that it is making every baby already sinning. I am not sure about the notion of sin. It looks too much like an easy way to explain suffering, and it makes many people feeling guilty for no reason that they can see, and sometimes it can act as a self-prophecy: given that I have already sin why not sin again? I think that there is only one sin: hurting others without legitimate concern. And most people don't sin, I think, Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-08, 08:37:30 Subject: Re: fairness and sustainability On 08 Sep 2012, at 12:35, Roger Clough wrote: Hi John Mikes Here's the dilemma: Unfortunately, any system -- with the exception of the oil-rich countries (where fairness would seem to be hard to define) -- that is completely fair is unsustainable. Capitalism, like it or not, is the only known way to increase a country's wealth. Fairness decreases a country's capacity to grow. Darwin would agree. Cuba and the former soviet union and now europe are good examples. They all failed in trying to be completely fair or are in the process of failing. I think that capitalism + democracy is the most fair system. Today, unfortunately, capitalism has been perverted by minorities which build money on fears, lies and catastrophes, and that is very bad. They are clever, and have succeeded in mixing the black and non black money, so that the middle class and the banking systems have become hostages. Those liars are transforming the planet economy into a a pyramidal con. Lying is part of nature, like cancers and diseases. Defending ourselves against liars is part of nature too. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-07, 14:44:26 Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect Brent, I believe there is a difference between (adj) 'fair' or 'unjust' and the (noun) 'fairness', or 'consciousness'. While the nouns (IMO)燼re not adequately identified the adverbs refer to the applied system of correspondence. E.g.: Fair to the unjust system. (I don't think we may use the opposite: unjust to a 'fair' system in our discussion). As I tried to explain in another post: the 'rich' consume MORE of the country-supplied services than the not-so-rich and pay less taxes (unfair and unjust). Certain big corporations also pay 'less' than the system would require (in all fairness - proverbially said) ordinarily. Semantix, OOH! John M On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/4/2012 1:12 PM, John Mikes wrote: It is a 'trap' to falsify the adequate taxing of the 'rich' as a leftist attempt to distributing richness. It does not include more than a requirement for THEM to pay their FAIR share - maybe more than the not-so-rich layers (e.g. higher use
Re: Re: fairness and sustainability
Marchal Hi Bruno By sin or evil I mean intentionally diminishing the life of others. If you doubt that that is not the way of the world, you must not watch the news. Evil is not an abstract word, it is very real, and it lives to whatever extent in each of us. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/9/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-08, 13:54:23 Subject: Re: fairness and sustainability On 08 Sep 2012, at 16:41, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Indeed, we are all sinners. Hi Roger, Saying this can only dilute the responsibility and helps the sinners. I am not sure at all we are all sinners, unless you are using a so weak sense that it is making every baby already sinning. I am not sure about the notion of sin. It looks too much like an easy way to explain suffering, and it makes many people feeling guilty for no reason that they can see, and sometimes it can act as a self-prophecy: given that I have already sin why not sin again? I think that there is only one sin: hurting others without legitimate concern. And most people don't sin, I think, Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-08, 08:37:30 Subject: Re: fairness and sustainability On 08 Sep 2012, at 12:35, Roger Clough wrote: Hi John Mikes Here's the dilemma: Unfortunately, any system -- with the exception of the oil-rich countries (where fairness would seem to be hard to define) -- that is completely fair is unsustainable. Capitalism, like it or not, is the only known way to increase a country's wealth. Fairness decreases a country's capacity to grow. Darwin would agree. Cuba and the former soviet union and now europe are good examples. They all failed in trying to be completely fair or are in the process of failing. I think that capitalism + democracy is the most fair system. Today, unfortunately, capitalism has been perverted by minorities which build money on fears, lies and catastrophes, and that is very bad. They are clever, and have succeeded in mixing the black and non black money, so that the middle class and the banking systems have become hostages. Those liars are transforming the planet economy into a a pyramidal con. Lying is part of nature, like cancers and diseases. Defending ourselves against liars is part of nature too. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-07, 14:44:26 Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect Brent, I believe there is a difference between (adj) 'fair' or 'unjust' and the (noun) 'fairness', or 'consciousness'. While the nouns (IMO)?re not adequately identified the adverbs refer to the applied system of correspondence. E.g.: Fair to the unjust system. (I don't think we may use the opposite: unjust to a 'fair' system in our discussion). As I tried to explain in another post: the 'rich' consume MORE of the country-supplied services than the not-so-rich and pay less taxes (unfair and unjust). Certain big corporations also pay 'less' than the system would require (in all fairness - proverbially said) ordinarily. Semantix, OOH! John M On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/4/2012 1:12 PM, John Mikes wrote: It is a 'trap' to falsify the adequate taxing of the 'rich' as a leftist attempt to distributing richness. It does not include more than a requirement for THEM to pay their FAIR share - maybe more than the not-so-rich layers (e.g. higher use of transportation, foreign connections, financial means, etc. - all costing money to the country) in spite of their lower share in the present unjust?axation-scheme. .. And PLEASE, Brent, do not even utter in econo-political discussion the word FAIRNESS! So is it OK if I use FAIR and unjust? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
Re: fairness and sustainability
On 08.09.2012 12:35 Roger Clough said the following: Hi John Mikes Here's the dilemma: Unfortunately, any system -- with the exception of the oil-rich countries (where fairness would seem to be hard to define) -- that is completely fair is unsustainable. Capitalism, like it or not, is the only known way to increase a country's wealth. Fairness decreases a country's capacity to grow. Darwin would agree. Cuba and the former soviet union and now europe are good examples. They all failed in trying to be completely fair or are in the process of failing. Soviet Union is a pretty bad example for fairness. As for Europe, I am not that sure. You may want to compare Germany and the USA. It is not evident for me, which will fail the first. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: fairness and sustainability
But Roger, capitalism can go both ways as witnessed by the Great depression and the Great Recession. Richard On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi John Mikes Here's the dilemma: Unfortunately, any system -- with the exception of the oil-rich countries (where fairness would seem to be hard to define) -- that is completely fair is unsustainable. Capitalism, like it or not, is the only known way to increase a country's wealth. Fairness decreases a country's capacity to grow. Darwin would agree. Cuba and the former soviet union and now europe are good examples. They all failed in trying to be completely fair or are in the process of failing. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-07, 14:44:26 Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect Brent, � I believe there is a difference between (adj) 'fair' or 'unjust' and the (noun) 'fairness', or 'consciousness'. While the nouns (IMO)燼re not adequately identified the adverbs refer to the applied system of correspondence. E.g.: Fair to the unjust system. (I don't think we may use the opposite: unjust to a 'fair' system in our discussion). As I tried to explain in another post: the 'rich' consume MORE of the country-supplied services than the not-so-rich and pay less taxes (unfair and unjust). Certain big corporations also pay 'less' than the system would require (in all fairness - proverbially said) ordinarily. Semantix, OOH! � John M On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/4/2012 1:12 PM, John Mikes wrote: � It is a 'trap' to falsify the adequate taxing of the 'rich' as a leftist attempt to distributing richness. It does not include more than a requirement for THEM to pay their FAIR share - maybe more than the not-so-rich layers (e.g. higher use of transportation, foreign connections, financial means, etc. - all costing money to the country) in spite of their lower share in the present unjust爐axation-scheme. ... And PLEASE, Brent, do not even utter in econo-political discussion the word FAIRNESS! So is it OK if I use FAIR and unjust? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: fairness and sustainability
On Saturday, September 8, 2012 6:36:26 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi John Mikes Here's the dilemma: Unfortunately, any system -- with the exception of the oil-rich countries (where fairness would seem to be hard to define) -- that is completely fair is unsustainable. Capitalism, like it or not, is the only known way to increase a country's wealth. Fairness decreases a country's capacity to grow. Darwin would agree. Cuba and the former soviet union and now europe are good examples. They all failed in trying to be completely fair or are in the process of failing. It sounds like you are defining wealth as capitalism in the first place. Historically, there have been other ways of increasing a country's wealth. Conquest. Agriculture. Slavery. There are examples of redistributive economies in Polynesia...the idea of 'the Big Man' who gains influence and glory by throwing the biggest parties for everyone. As the poverty of many capitalist economies today shows (aren't most sub-Saharan economies capitalist?), it is really the history of exploitation of natural and human resources (or being the target of exploitation thereof) which seems to relate to the ability of the nation to increase its wealth. What is happening now though is that capitalist countries are seeing their capitalist elites become independent of the country. ExxonMobil makes history with its obscenely high profits while the country debates yet more cutbacks on basic human services. This isn't the fault of capitalism, since it only values economic considerations, if human beings overproduce their numbers and reduce their demand, the corporate leader is put in the position where if they don't exploit that condition, then somebody else will. Technology amplifies this. What globalization means is eventually we will have a tiny group of international insiders and a disposable population of potential employees all competing for the lowest possible wage. Capitalism is building glass bank towers that stay empty all night while more and more people sleep in the streets, prisons, squat in foreclosed houses, etc. Unrestrained social Darwinism is not the only alternative to 'trying to be completely fair'. Parts of the Soviet Union and Cuba are doing much better than parts of New Orleans and Detroit. It's really very simplistic to try to draw a line from a single economic proposition and the complex reality of the fate of a nation. What would Cuba be like without the revolution? Maybe Monte Carlo, maybe Haiti...neither...both? It's all speculation. All I can see is that whatever we are doing in the US, is making everything worse - here and around the world. I see the quality of life stagnating and dropping for most people, for lack of money that is flowing into the bank accounts of people who have no way to tell the difference except in their imagination. Craig Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net javascript: 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* John Mikes javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-09-07, 14:44:26 *Subject:* Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect Brent, � I believe there is a difference between (adj) 'fair' or 'unjust' and the (noun) 'fairness', or 'consciousness'. While the nouns (IMO)锟�re not adequately identified the adverbs refer to the applied system of correspondence. E.g.: Fair to the unjust system. (I don't think we may use the opposite: unjust to a 'fair' system in our discussion). As I tried to explain in another post: the 'rich' consume MORE of the country-supplied services than the not-so-rich and pay less taxes (unfair and unjust). Certain big corporations also pay 'less' than the system would require (*in all fairness* - proverbially said) ordinarily. Semantix, OOH! � John M On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:18 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: On 9/4/2012 1:12 PM, John Mikes wrote: **� It is a 'trap' to falsify the adequate taxing of the 'rich' as a *leftist attempt to distributing richness*. It does not include more than a requirement for THEM to pay their FAIR share - maybe more than the not-so-rich layers (e.g. higher use of transportation, foreign connections, financial means, etc. - all costing money to the country) in spite of their lower share in the present unjust锟�axation-scheme. ... And PLEASE, Brent, do not even utter in econo-political discussion the word *FAIRNESS!* So is it OK if I use FAIR and unjust? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. For more options, visit this
Re: fairness and sustainability
On 08 Sep 2012, at 12:35, Roger Clough wrote: Hi John Mikes Here's the dilemma: Unfortunately, any system -- with the exception of the oil-rich countries (where fairness would seem to be hard to define) -- that is completely fair is unsustainable. Capitalism, like it or not, is the only known way to increase a country's wealth. Fairness decreases a country's capacity to grow. Darwin would agree. Cuba and the former soviet union and now europe are good examples. They all failed in trying to be completely fair or are in the process of failing. I think that capitalism + democracy is the most fair system. Today, unfortunately, capitalism has been perverted by minorities which build money on fears, lies and catastrophes, and that is very bad. They are clever, and have succeeded in mixing the black and non black money, so that the middle class and the banking systems have become hostages. Those liars are transforming the planet economy into a a pyramidal con. Lying is part of nature, like cancers and diseases. Defending ourselves against liars is part of nature too. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-07, 14:44:26 Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect Brent, � I believe there is a difference between (adj) 'fair' or 'unjust' and the (noun) 'fairness', or 'consciousness'. While the nouns (IMO)燼re not adequately identified the adverbs refer to the applied system of correspondence. E.g.: Fair to the unjust system. (I don't think we may use the opposite: unjust to a 'fair' system in our discussion). As I tried to explain in another post: the 'rich' consume MORE of the country-supplied services than the not-so-rich and pay less taxes (unfair and unjust). Certain big corporations also pay 'less' than the system would require (in all fairness - proverbially said) ordinarily. Semantix, OOH! � John M On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/4/2012 1:12 PM, John Mikes wrote: � It is a 'trap' to falsify the adequate taxing of the 'rich' as a leftist attempt to distributing richness. It does not include more than a requirement for THEM to pay their FAIR share - maybe more than the not-so-rich layers (e.g. higher use of transportation, foreign connections, financial means, etc. - all costing money to the country) in spite of their lower share in the present unjust爐 axation-scheme. ... And PLEASE, Brent, do not even utter in econo-political discussion the word FAIRNESS! So is it OK if I use FAIR and unjust? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: fairness and sustainability
Hi Bruno Marchal Indeed, we are all sinners. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-08, 08:37:30 Subject: Re: fairness and sustainability On 08 Sep 2012, at 12:35, Roger Clough wrote: Hi John Mikes Here's the dilemma: Unfortunately, any system -- with the exception of the oil-rich countries (where fairness would seem to be hard to define) -- that is completely fair is unsustainable. Capitalism, like it or not, is the only known way to increase a country's wealth. Fairness decreases a country's capacity to grow. Darwin would agree. Cuba and the former soviet union and now europe are good examples. They all failed in trying to be completely fair or are in the process of failing. I think that capitalism + democracy is the most fair system. Today, unfortunately, capitalism has been perverted by minorities which build money on fears, lies and catastrophes, and that is very bad. They are clever, and have succeeded in mixing the black and non black money, so that the middle class and the banking systems have become hostages. Those liars are transforming the planet economy into a a pyramidal con. Lying is part of nature, like cancers and diseases. Defending ourselves against liars is part of nature too. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-07, 14:44:26 Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect Brent, I believe there is a difference between (adj) 'fair' or 'unjust' and the (noun) 'fairness', or 'consciousness'. While the nouns (IMO)?re not adequately identified the adverbs refer to the applied system of correspondence. E.g.: Fair to the unjust system. (I don't think we may use the opposite: unjust to a 'fair' system in our discussion). As I tried to explain in another post: the 'rich' consume MORE of the country-supplied services than the not-so-rich and pay less taxes (unfair and unjust). Certain big corporations also pay 'less' than the system would require (in all fairness - proverbially said) ordinarily. Semantix, OOH! John M On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/4/2012 1:12 PM, John Mikes wrote: It is a 'trap' to falsify the adequate taxing of the 'rich' as a leftist attempt to distributing richness. It does not include more than a requirement for THEM to pay their FAIR share - maybe more than the not-so-rich layers (e.g. higher use of transportation, foreign connections, financial means, etc. - all costing money to the country) in spite of their lower share in the present unjust?axation-scheme. .. And PLEASE, Brent, do not even utter in econo-political discussion the word FAIRNESS! So is it OK if I use FAIR and unjust? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: fairness and sustainability
Hi Craig Weinberg Indeed, we are all sinners. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-08, 08:14:26 Subject: Re: fairness and sustainability On Saturday, September 8, 2012 6:36:26 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi John Mikes Here's the dilemma: Unfortunately, any system -- with the exception of the oil-rich countries (where fairness would seem to be hard to define) -- that is completely fair is unsustainable. Capitalism, like it or not, is the only known way to increase a country's wealth. Fairness decreases a country's capacity to grow. Darwin would agree. Cuba and the former soviet union and now europe are good examples. They all failed in trying to be completely fair or are in the process of failing. It sounds like you are defining wealth as capitalism in the first place. Historically, there have been other ways of increasing a country's wealth. Conquest. Agriculture. Slavery. There are examples of redistributive economies in Polynesia...the idea of 'the Big Man' who gains influence and glory by throwing the biggest parties for everyone. As the poverty of many capitalist economies today shows (aren't most sub-Saharan economies capitalist?), it is really the history of exploitation of natural and human resources (or being the target of exploitation thereof) which seems to relate to the ability of the nation to increase its wealth. What is happening now though is that capitalist countries are seeing their capitalist elites become independent of the country. ExxonMobil makes history with its obscenely high profits while the country debates yet more cutbacks on basic human services. This isn't the fault of capitalism, since it only values economic considerations, if human beings overproduce their numbers and reduce their demand, the corporate leader is put in the position where if they don't exploit that condition, then somebody else will. Technology amplifies this. What globalization means is eventually we will have a tiny group of international insiders and a disposable population of potential employees all competing for the lowest possible wage. Capitalism is building glass bank towers that stay empty all night while more and more people sleep in the streets, prisons, squat in foreclosed houses, etc. Unrestrained social Darwinism is not the only alternative to 'trying to be completely fair'. Parts of the Soviet Union and Cuba are doing much better than parts of New Orleans and Detroit. It's really very simplistic to try to draw a line from a single economic proposition and the complex reality of the fate of a nation. What would Cuba be like without the revolution? Maybe Monte Carlo, maybe Haiti...neither...both? It's all speculation. All I can see is that whatever we are doing in the US, is making everything worse - here and around the world. I see the quality of life stagnating and dropping for most people, for lack of money that is flowing into the bank accounts of people who have no way to tell the difference except in their imagination. Craig Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-07, 14:44:26 Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect Brent, I believe there is a difference between (adj) 'fair' or 'unjust' and the (noun) 'fairness', or 'consciousness'. While the nouns (IMO)? re not adequately identified the adverbs refer to the applied system of correspondence. E.g.: Fair to the unjust system. (I don't think we may use the opposite: unjust to a 'fair' system in our discussion). As I tried to explain in another post: the 'rich' consume MORE of the country-supplied services than the not-so-rich and pay less taxes (unfair and unjust). Certain big corporations also pay 'less' than the system would require (in all fairness - proverbially said) ordinarily. Semantix, OOH! John M On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:18 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/4/2012 1:12 PM, John Mikes wrote: It is a 'trap' to falsify the adequate taxing of the 'rich' as a leftist attempt to distributing richness. It does not include more than a requirement for THEM to pay their FAIR share - maybe more than the not-so-rich layers (e.g. higher use of transportation, foreign connections, financial means, etc. - all costing money to the country) in spite of their lower share in the present unjust? axation-scheme. .. And PLEASE, Brent, do not even utter in econo-political discussion the word FAIRNESS! So is it OK if I use FAIR and unjust? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything
Re: Re: fairness and sustainability
Does that mean there is no difference between maximizing sin and minimizing it? On Saturday, September 8, 2012 10:44:43 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Indeed, we are all sinners. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript: 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-09-08, 08:14:26 *Subject:* Re: fairness and sustainability On Saturday, September 8, 2012 6:36:26 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi John Mikes Here's the dilemma: Unfortunately, any system -- with the exception of the oil-rich countries (where fairness would seem to be hard to define) -- that is completely fair is unsustainable. Capitalism, like it or not, is the only known way to increase a country's wealth. Fairness decreases a country's capacity to grow. Darwin would agree. Cuba and the former soviet union and now europe are good examples. They all failed in trying to be completely fair or are in the process of failing. It sounds like you are defining wealth as capitalism in the first place. Historically, there have been other ways of increasing a country's wealth. Conquest. Agriculture. Slavery. There are examples of redistributive economies in Polynesia...the idea of 'the Big Man' who gains influence and glory by throwing the biggest parties for everyone. As the poverty of many capitalist economies today shows (aren't most sub-Saharan economies capitalist?), it is really the history of exploitation of natural and human resources (or being the target of exploitation thereof) which seems to relate to the ability of the nation to increase its wealth. What is happening now though is that capitalist countries are seeing their capitalist elites become independent of the country. ExxonMobil makes history with its obscenely high profits while the country debates yet more cutbacks on basic human services. This isn't the fault of capitalism, since it only values economic considerations, if human beings overproduce their numbers and reduce their demand, the corporate leader is put in the position where if they don't exploit that condition, then somebody else will. Technology amplifies this. What globalization means is eventually we will have a tiny group of international insiders and a disposable population of potential employees all competing for the lowest possible wage. Capitalism is building glass bank towers that stay empty all night while more and more people sleep in the streets, prisons, squat in foreclosed houses, etc. Unrestrained social Darwinism is not the only alternative to 'trying to be completely fair'. Parts of the Soviet Union and Cuba are doing much better than parts of New Orleans and Detroit. It's really very simplistic to try to draw a line from a single economic proposition and the complex reality of the fate of a nation. What would Cuba be like without the revolution? Maybe Monte Carlo, maybe Haiti...neither...both? It's all speculation. All I can see is that whatever we are doing in the US, is making everything worse - here and around the world. I see the quality of life stagnating and dropping for most people, for lack of money that is flowing into the bank accounts of people who have no way to tell the difference except in their imagination. Craig Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* John Mikes *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2012-09-07, 14:44:26 *Subject:* Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect Brent, I believe there is a difference between (adj) 'fair' or 'unjust' and the (noun) 'fairness', or 'consciousness'. While the nouns (IMO)锟�re not adequately identified the adverbs refer to the applied system of correspondence. E.g.: Fair to the unjust system. (I don't think we may use the opposite: unjust to a 'fair' system in our discussion). As I tried to explain in another post: the 'rich' consume MORE of the country-supplied services than the not-so-rich and pay less taxes (unfair and unjust). Certain big corporations also pay 'less' than the system would require (*in all fairness* - proverbially said) ordinarily. Semantix, OOH! John M On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:18 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/4/2012 1:12 PM, John Mikes wrote: ** It is a 'trap' to falsify the adequate taxing of the 'rich' as a *leftist attempt to distributing richness*. It does not include more than a requirement for THEM to pay their FAIR share - maybe more than the not-so-rich layers (e.g. higher use of transportation, foreign connections, financial means, etc. - all costing
Re: fairness and sustainability
On 08 Sep 2012, at 16:41, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Indeed, we are all sinners. Hi Roger, Saying this can only dilute the responsibility and helps the sinners. I am not sure at all we are all sinners, unless you are using a so weak sense that it is making every baby already sinning. I am not sure about the notion of sin. It looks too much like an easy way to explain suffering, and it makes many people feeling guilty for no reason that they can see, and sometimes it can act as a self- prophecy: given that I have already sin why not sin again? I think that there is only one sin: hurting others without legitimate concern. And most people don't sin, I think, Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-08, 08:37:30 Subject: Re: fairness and sustainability On 08 Sep 2012, at 12:35, Roger Clough wrote: Hi John Mikes Here's the dilemma: Unfortunately, any system -- with the exception of the oil-rich countries (where fairness would seem to be hard to define) -- that is completely fair is unsustainable. Capitalism, like it or not, is the only known way to increase a country's wealth. Fairness decreases a country's capacity to grow. Darwin would agree. Cuba and the former soviet union and now europe are good examples. They all failed in trying to be completely fair or are in the process of failing. I think that capitalism + democracy is the most fair system. Today, unfortunately, capitalism has been perverted by minorities which build money on fears, lies and catastrophes, and that is very bad. They are clever, and have succeeded in mixing the black and non black money, so that the middle class and the banking systems have become hostages. Those liars are transforming the planet economy into a a pyramidal con. Lying is part of nature, like cancers and diseases. Defending ourselves against liars is part of nature too. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-07, 14:44:26 Subject: Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect Brent, I believe there is a difference between (adj) 'fair' or 'unjust' and the (noun) 'fairness', or 'consciousness'. While the nouns (IMO)燼re not adequately identified the adverbs refer to the applied system of correspondence. E.g.: Fair to the unjust system. (I don't think we may use the opposite: unjust to a 'fair' system in our discussion). As I tried to explain in another post: the 'rich' consume MORE of the country-supplied services than the not-so-rich and pay less taxes (unfair and unjust). Certain big corporations also pay 'less' than the system would require (in all fairness - proverbially said) ordinarily. Semantix, OOH! John M On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:18 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 9/4/2012 1:12 PM, John Mikes wrote: It is a 'trap' to falsify the adequate taxing of the 'rich' as a leftist attempt to distributing richness. It does not include more than a requirement for THEM to pay their FAIR share - maybe more than the not-so-rich layers (e.g. higher use of transportation, foreign connections, financial means, etc. - all costing money to the country) in spite of their lower share in the present unjust爐 axation-scheme. ... And PLEASE, Brent, do not even utter in econo-political discussion the word FAIRNESS! So is it OK if I use FAIR and unjust? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
