Please Register and login to reply and use other advanced options
Posted by William Wixon on March 30, 2009, 1:27 pm
> Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>> Ken Maltby wrote:
>>>>> Eric wrote:
>> .....
>>>>> I expect the loudest complaints to come from those who insist they
>>>>> have a
>>>>> "right" to squander resources at everyone else's expense.
>>>> Hmm..? "At everyone else's expense"? So I'm imposing some
>>>> expense on others when I buy heavily taxed fossil fuel generated
>>>> energy, but you aren't, if you get heavily subsidized (with my tax
>>>> dollars) "alternate" energy?
>>> I'm not sure whether you're thick, or simply ignorant. I /manufacture/
>>> devices that free my customers from the need to purchase the energy (and
>>> to pay the taxes) about which you're complaining....
>>
>> The 'logic' underlying socialism fails unless you assume zero-sum,
>> whatever one person has was taken from or denied to another, thus
>> undercutting the right of possession.
> Since you're responding to me, I'd like to understand what you said. Would
> you care to try again? I'm in the uncomfortable position of thinking I
> understand all the words, but not the message.
> What on earth has socialism (or any other -ism, for that matter) to do
> with my efforts to find less costly ways of doing things?
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
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.
b.w.
Posted by Jim Wilkins on March 30, 2009, 4:46 pm
> > Jim Wilkins wrote:
> >>> Ken Maltby wrote:
> >>>>> Eric wrote:
> >> .....
> >>>>> I expect the loudest complaints to come from those who insist they
> >>>>> have a
> >>>>> "right" to squander resources at everyone else's expense.
> >>>> Hmm..? "At everyone else's expense"? So I'm imposing some
> >>>> expense on others when I buy heavily taxed fossil fuel generated
> >>>> energy, but you aren't, if you get heavily subsidized (with my tax
> >>>> dollars) "alternate" energy?
> >>> I'm not sure whether you're thick, or simply ignorant. I /manufacture/
> >>> devices that free my customers from the need to purchase the energy (and
> >>> to pay the taxes) about which you're complaining....
> >> The 'logic' underlying socialism fails unless you assume zero-sum,
> >> whatever one person has was taken from or denied to another, thus
> >> undercutting the right of possession.
> > Since you're responding to me, I'd like to understand what you said. Would
> > you care to try again? I'm in the uncomfortable position of thinking I
> > understand all the words, but not the message.
> > What on earth has socialism (or any other -ism, for that matter) to do
> > with my efforts to find less costly ways of doing things?
> > --
> > Morris Dovey
> > DeSoto Solar
> > DeSoto, Iowa USA
> >http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/
> 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.
> b.w.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
The difference is that MD creates something that didn't exist before.
Posted by Ken Maltby on March 30, 2009, 5:02 pm
>> Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>> The 'logic' underlying socialism fails unless you assume zero-sum,
>>> whatever one person has was taken from or denied to another, thus
>>> undercutting the right of possession.
>>
> 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.
> b.w.
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
Capitalism.
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
greedy monkeys.)
Luck;
Ken
Posted by William Wixon on March 30, 2009, 8:34 pm
>>
>>> Jim Wilkins wrote:
>>>> The 'logic' underlying socialism fails unless you assume zero-sum,
>>>> whatever one person has was taken from or denied to another, thus
>>>> undercutting the right of possession.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> b.w.
> Capitalism, sets in place the means to establish ownership, based
> on established rules. The intent of the rules are to prevent the taking
the "golden rule" right? he who has the gold makes the rules.
> 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
<chuckle> http://foundsf.org/index.php?title=The_Hiring_Hall
> Capitalism.
> 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
> greedy monkeys.)
> Luck;
> Ken
yeah, right.
b.w.
Posted by William Wixon on March 31, 2009, 3:18 pm
> <<Clip of the rest of your insider's ramblings on how the system
> was gamed.>>
> Who's not objecting? Those responsible; both the players
> and those who were suspose to be watching them, need
> to face some real consequences for their actions or lack of
> action.
> We are suffering now because of some greedy players,
your "bad greedy monkeys" (above).
> who bent, distorted, or plain ignored the rules and
in other words, thiefts
> principles of Capitalism. Also, in part because those who
> were susposed to be watching the store - weren't.
in other words, he who has the gold makes the rules.
> NOT due to the nature of Capitalism. It would be very
> naive to believe that Socialism can't be gamed, as well.
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
street traders.
> Under capitalist principles there would be no "bail-outs",
principals huh. seemed the previous 8 years they were trying to institute
capitalist dogma.
> the failed operations would go out of business and their
> assets dispersed, to those who can lay claim to them.
uh huh. as in "too big to fail".
> Those who defrauded investors or others can and should
> be prosecuted, under our system. The bail-outs are a
uh huh. highly unlikely though, i'm assuming you agree.
> compromize of capitialist principles, more a nod tword
> a socialist approach.
as in, trying to protect the common citizen from the upper echelons of
capitalist society's major fuck up.
> Recient events don't indicate that Captialism can't
> work, (a lot of years with a rising prosperity prove it
shipping jobs overseas. importing exploited labor. making jobs "part-time"
so they don't have to pay benefits.
> can) but that you have to keep a better watch on
> those manning the store. Also that you can't let the
he who has the gold makes the rules.
> politicians charged with oversight be bought off, or
> be lulled by an artifical prosperity and increased
> home ownership figures.
> Luck;
> Ken
how about a highly regulated capitalism (put the sharks on a leash). a
compromise between "unfettered capitalism" and your "socialism".
excerpt...
> The consumer goods we amass, the status we seek in titles and
> positions, the ruthlessness we employ to advance our careers, the
> personal causes we champion, the money we covet and the houses we
> build and the cars we drive become our pathetic statements of being.
> They are squalid little monuments to our selves. The more we strive to
> amass power and possessions the more intolerant and anxious we become.
> Impulses and emotions, not thoughts but mass feelings, propel us
> forward. These impulses, carefully manipulated by a consumer society,
> see us intoxicated with patriotic fervor and a lust for war, a desire
> to vote for candidates who appeal to us emotionally or to buy this car
> or that brand. Politicians, advertisers, social scientists, television
> evangelists, the news media and the entertainment industry have
> learned what makes us respond. It works. None of us are immune.
> Published on Monday, March 16, 2009 by TruthDig.com
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090316_the_false_idol_of_unfettered_capitalism/
> The False Idol of Unfettered Capitalism
> by Chris Hedges
> When I returned to New York City after nearly two decades as a foreign
> correspondent in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and the
> Balkans, I was unsure of where I was headed. I lacked the emotional
> and physical resiliency that had allowed me to cope as a war
> correspondent. I was plagued by memories I wanted to forget, waking
> suddenly in the middle of the night, my sleep shattered by visions of
> gunfire and death. I was alienated from those around me, unaccustomed
> to the common language and images imposed by consumer culture, unable
> to communicate the pain and suffering I had witnessed, not much
> interested in building a career.
> It was at this time that the Brooklyn Academy of Music began showing a
> 10-part film series called "The Decalogue." Deka, in Greek, means 10.
> Logos means saying or speech. The Decalogue is the classical name of
> the Ten Commandments. The director was the Polish filmmaker Krzysztof
> Kieslowski
> <http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/03/kieslowski.html
, who had made the trilogy "White, Blue and Red." The 10 films,
This Thread
Please Register and login to reply and use other advanced options
Latest Posts
|
"
XML site map
>>> Ken Maltby wrote:
>>>>> Eric wrote:
>> .....
>>>>> I expect the loudest complaints to come from those who insist they
>>>>> have a
>>>>> "right" to squander resources at everyone else's expense.
>>>> Hmm..? "At everyone else's expense"? So I'm imposing some
>>>> expense on others when I buy heavily taxed fossil fuel generated
>>>> energy, but you aren't, if you get heavily subsidized (with my tax
>>>> dollars) "alternate" energy?
>>> I'm not sure whether you're thick, or simply ignorant. I /manufacture/
>>> devices that free my customers from the need to purchase the energy (and
>>> to pay the taxes) about which you're complaining....
>>
>> The 'logic' underlying socialism fails unless you assume zero-sum,
>> whatever one person has was taken from or denied to another, thus
>> undercutting the right of possession.
> Since you're responding to me, I'd like to understand what you said. Would
> you care to try again? I'm in the uncomfortable position of thinking I
> understand all the words, but not the message.
> What on earth has socialism (or any other -ism, for that matter) to do
> with my efforts to find less costly ways of doing things?
> --
> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> DeSoto, Iowa USA
> http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/