Edgar, much of what you say about free market systems I used to agree with. But, when you say "public support for those truly in need, but only in a manner which does NOT perpetuate that need," how do you see this system? Public support is not only for those who are laid off and are capable of working and keeping a stable job. It is also for those with disabilities (ie. mental health, old aged, etc.) along with other factors which can include something like PTSD, addiction (which in my experience is usually a result of PTSD), etc.
You might say that it is up to the family to support this member of society, but then where does your family stop and "society" begin? hong yeong soo On 12/12/12, Edgar Owen <[email protected]> wrote: > Bill, > > Not a good idea. The communist system in its ideal form perpetuates > dependence and failure because it rewards incompetence and sloth. > > The ideal economic system is a free market system, but that being said there > are no truly free market systems since they are all perverted by the super > rich who impose rules through the public officials they buy for their > benefit at the expense of lower level entrepreneurs. > > The only regulations constraining a free market system should be to ensure > safety of products sold, and to minimize environmental effects towards > sustainability. However many of the current regulations are designed to > maintain the advantage of large corporations and banks. > > That being said there should be some public support for those truly in need, > but only in a manner which does NOT perpetuate that need. > > The ideal political system is a meritocracy where officials gain > appointments as the result of rising through an educational system designed > to train them to solve actual real world problems they will encounter. That > applies equally to the ranks of civil servants as well as the leaders > themselves. > > Democracy is a huge failure, because it elects not the best qualified to > solve real problems, but the best liars, bull shitters, and those most > willing to prostitute themselves to their corporate and banker masters. > > Edgar > > > > > On Dec 12, 2012, at 1:00 AM, Bill! wrote: > >> Edgar, >> >> Until we as a society can successfully establish a communistic economic >> system socialism is the best system we can strive for. Right now the best >> we can do is try to restrain and regulate our native capitalism with >> wealth redistribution tactics as are employed by our current form of >> Keynesian economics and continue to move it closer and closer to >> socialism. >> >> But maybe someday we can actually aspire to communism...we can only hope. >> >> ...Bill! >> >> --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: >> > >> > Joe, >> > >> > Perhaps, but the belief in taking other people's property and >> > redistributing it without their consent is an even more egregious >> > attachment... >> > >> > Edgar >> > >> > >> > >> > On Dec 11, 2012, at 1:24 PM, Joe wrote: >> > >> > > Chris, >> > > >> > > The question itself speaks volumes. >> > > >> > >> Can one's belief in personal ownership be an attachment, a hindrance >> > >> to the mind's freedom? >> > > >> > > Well done! It is certainly on-topic, and is eloquent. >> > > >> > > I'm impressed by planning and decision-making that's guided by >> > > consideration for and appreciation of others' future stewardship. I >> > > think of the "Seven Generations" planning of actions taken by certain >> > > Native American tribal councils, the making of decisions with a >> > > concern and consideration for how planned actions, if executed, might >> > > effect even the seventh following generation of people and culture >> > > after the elders' actions. >> > > >> > > Such planning probably could not have taken into account the arrival >> > > of Europeans in America, and I don't know if the "Seven Generations" >> > > principle remains in play on Native Reservations to this day. >> > > >> > > --Joe >> > > >> > > -> Chris Austin-Lane <chris@> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> Can one's belief in personal ownership be an attachment, a hindrance >> > >> to the >> > >> mind's freedom? >> > >> >> > >> It looks to me like it is, but perhaps we shouldn't argue politics >> > >> and tax >> > >> policy here? >> > >> >> > >> Rather than share my partisan arguments, let me simply state that >> > >> reasonable people do disagree about these issues. Personally I am >> > >> grateful >> > >> to have been born into a society that believes in vaccination public >> > >> schools voting research moon missions and the like. the society finds >> > >> it >> > >> sensible to pay me for tasks which are enjoyable and allow me to >> > >> learn and >> > >> to master myself, and that seems fine. I didn't create the society >> > >> nor >> > >> more than a bit of its wealth, so I don't feel like much more than a >> > >> temporary steward of the assets I control. >> > >> >> > >> I do know not everyone shares such a perspective, and there's no >> > >> profit in >> > >> arguing. I speak to offer the lurkers the data that the idea of >> > >> capitalism >> > >> without a fixed idea of a personal self can take many forms. >> > >> >> > >> Yours in praeteritio, >> > > >> > > >> > >> >> > > ------------------------------------ Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
