Posted by William Wixon on March 30, 2009, 1:27 pm
somehow i'd assume the same is more or less true for (wonderful) capitalism.
what on person has was taken from or denied to another, reinforcing the
right of possession. "i took this from you so it's mine". the biggest
monkey has the "right" to take whatever the smaller weaker monkeys have.
Posted by Jim Wilkins on March 30, 2009, 4:46 pm
The difference is that MD creates something that didn't exist before.
Posted by Ken Maltby on March 30, 2009, 5:02 pm
Capitalism, sets in place the means to establish ownership, based
on established rules. The intent of the rules are to prevent the taking
of capital from the owner and allows the means to transfer ownership
of the capital to another, usualy through a mutually agreed exchange
of capital. Capitalism gives no rights to take from anyone who can
establish ownership under common rules. Such taking is thieft, under
Socialism, doesn't acknowledge individual ownership. It sets in place
rules to distribute all assets, as determined by the wisest or loudest or
biggest monkey (usually the monkey who promises to hand out the
most bananas). As was pointed out (by both of you) socialism is
very dependent on controling all the bananas, and is based on the
zero-sum idea that to give to a deserving one, you must take from
those who have. ( It helps hide your thieft if you can claim that those
who have, don't have any right to keep the fruits of their banana
collecting, from those who need bananas. And/or that they are bad
Posted by William Wixon on March 30, 2009, 8:34 pm
the "golden rule" right? he who has the gold makes the rules.
Posted by William Wixon on March 31, 2009, 3:18 pm
your "bad greedy monkeys" (above).
in other words, thiefts
in other words, he who has the gold makes the rules.
i guess it depends on *who's* "gaming the system" that determines when
capitalist dogmatists get pissed off, whether it's welfare mothers or wall
principals huh. seemed the previous 8 years they were trying to institute
uh huh. as in "too big to fail".
uh huh. highly unlikely though, i'm assuming you agree.
as in, trying to protect the common citizen from the upper echelons of
capitalist society's major fuck up.
shipping jobs overseas. importing exploited labor. making jobs "part-time"
so they don't have to pay benefits.
he who has the gold makes the rules.
how about a highly regulated capitalism (put the sharks on a leash). a
compromise between "unfettered capitalism" and your "socialism".
, who had made the trilogy "White, Blue and Red." The 10 films,