>Webb_S [Webb_S@bls.gov] wrote:
>>Again, I'm not blaming capitalist theory for anything.
>So why did you bring it up in the first place?
I didn't. Dick.Gray@bull.com brought it up when claiming that "market freedom works (best)". Market freedom does work (best) in cultures that embrace its value system. It works less well in other cultures.
>>My point is that
>>some cultures do not share the sort of libertarian worldview required for
>>effective implementation of this theory.
>And we've seen the results of that; their economies collapsed, and the West
>is teetering after them. For the same reasons; they won't accept a free
>market, and keep playing with the economy until they destroy it. That they
>don't like this is their problem, not capitalism's.
They must realize that if they don't place the welfare of the individual above the welfare of the group (state/society), for example, capitalism won't work very well.
>>That's not quite how it works, but go ahead and do what you feel is right.
>So you're finally admitting that if I stop paying taxes the Almighty State
>will use force to make me do so, and that you only have your job because
>people are coerced into paying?
The state may use force at some point, though I can't say for sure. I know several people who went for long periods w/o paying taxes without the IRS taking notice. Most people (myself included) don't seem to fret about taxes nearly as much as you seem to, so the use of force is not required.
>>>I never claimed anything even remotely like this. I said that
>>I feel more threatened by American business practices than by Uncle Sam.
>Yeah, "I got mine, screw you", right? Who cares what your comrades in the
>government are doing as long as they leave you alone? Personally I do care
>when they burn kids to death and shoot unarmed women through the head from
>long range and splatter their brains over their babies. But if it doesn't
>threaten you *personally* it must be alright, eh?
Never said anything like that.
>>Ah, I take it you've read Murray Rothbard?
>No, I've just spent too long living in various depressing socialist states
>around the world. I hate them all, and I'm just waiting to see which
>comes out of the Y2K chaos closest to libertarianism/AC before I move.
We'll miss you.
>>In my view, there is nothing
>>wrong with preferring the comfort of home and hearth to the constant state
>>of disequilibrium and unrest associated with transhumanism.
>Indeed, there is nothing wrong with that (except that some enterprising
>nanobot will eventually decide to dismantle them for raw materials), but
>there is an awful lot wrong with using force to make me support them, or
>to prevent me from leading my life my way. If they want to live in quiet
>seclusion and leave me alone, that's fine. But they won't, because I'm
>a direct threat to their quiet life.
Well, if you're the one building the nanobots you most certainly are a threat.
>[This, incidentally, is a good example of what I meant about the aim of
>socialism being elimination of change and creation of a static society,
>which someone questioned a while ago.]
I wouldn't say this is the aim of socialism, at least not as it's defined in the dictionary. But you may be right that socialist societies tend toward cultural or technological stasis.
>>respect these peoples preferences if we want them to respect ours.
>When they start respecting me, I'll start respecting them; we've been
>"respecting" them for decades, and every time we "respect" them an inch
>they take a mile. I'm tired of seeing these people drag down so many who
>actually want to do something with their lives rather than vegetate and
>die. So I say fuck 'em.
And I say fuck not, lest ye be fucked.