Ask not what your brand name can do for you,
but what you can do for your brand name.
On Tue, 5 Nov 1996 Enigl@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 96-11-04 21:33:42 EST, (Suresh) wrote:
>
> << Some people are victims of geography, some people are born handicapped.
> Does that mean they should be ground up by the wheels of the capitalist
> machine? >>
>
> Capitalism lets people free themselves from geography by creating means to
> move and choose where you want to go. I don't know of any capitalistic
> society that forbids travel or even travel out of the capitalistic society.
> I do however know that socialistic governments place travel restrictions
> even within their own borders. In this way a capitalistic society is closer
> to libertarianism than a socialistic government.
>
> People born handicapped were killed in the (very socialistic) USSR and Nazi a
> Germany. I don't know of any capitalistic government that has ever done
> that. I fact there are many non-government groups in capitalistic countries
> that help the poor, handicapped, jobless, homeless. I see no reason to go
> back to a socialistic government where those private groups are outlawed and
> only the government rules. I don't see charities decreasing in capitalistic
> countries and see no reason why they would decrease in a
> libertarian-capitalist society.
Point of Misinformation: Again I have to say that socialistic does not
mean totalitarian. The Nazis were not socialists. you'll notice that among
the people lumped in the death camps were the communists, who hitler
feared, because of his links to the industrialists.
A state sponsored capitalism is even worse than unrestricted capitalism.
Like we have here, where the government health care system is at the mercy
of pharmaceutical companies price increase. The companies know they can
increase the price of equipment as much as they want and the governemnt
will soak it up. Same thing with the pentagon: guaranteed state market.
>
> I have seen people "ground" into submission by governments but they always
> seem to be the socialist governments. Socialist governments want all people
> to be equal, equally poor, starving, no rich at all. The only exception I've
> seen is the Swiss were everyone is equally rich. They don't let anyone enter
> their country and become a citizen that is poor.
I don't want that. Look at socialist democracies. They work fine. There is
no oppression, but there are taxes. It's not the best system, but within a
market economy, it's working fairly well.
>
> Centralized government or centralized business is a great problem. When
> either gets too much power the people can not negotiate a free and prosperous
> life. Perhaps you are talking about "centralized (business monopoly)
> capitalism". If so, we agree on that one point, at least.
>
I love competition. The thought of netscape and microsoft going head to
head over who develops the best product is great, because nobody is
getting crushed in the process, and I get (depending on who wins) better
software. But with multinationals, and monopolies, this spirit of free
trade and beneficial competition goes out the window.
With unrestricted capitalism, I think you'll get monopolies happening
faster than ever, simply because unethical corporations are not punished,
as thus can do whatever they want to get ahead. Then one corporation will
be nastier, make more money, and be able to purchase all the other ones.
> <<Libertarianism would work if everybody could compete on fair
> terms, >>
>
> Decentralization helps because it lets people negotiate their choices with
> many different other people. The central authority does not control. If you
> don't like the people you are dealing with, go to the next one.
>
That would be great!! But I have a feeling there won't be a next one. I
think you'll get a situation much like the last century, where workers
were ill-treated, and the merchants did whatever they could to further
profits, regardless of the human impact it had.
> <<but they can't, so some are going to lose all the time. >>
>
> "Some people will lose all the time" to me is a meaningless statement. Some
> people we call "just plain losers". Some people are lazy, stupid or
> uneducated. And, some people will not help themselves no matter what you do
> for them.
>
Yes, I don't want to coerce anyone into being rich!!
> Some people will not choose to help themselves no matter what you give them
> to make things equal. Equality is not a stable state if people choose to
> work harder than other people. Soon they gain the fruits of their labor and
> everything is unequal again (poorer vs. richer). If one person learns more
> than the next. . . you no longer have intellectual equality (educated vs.
> uneducated). China tried this and the educated scientists cleaned toilets.
> Did the uneducated make a new scientific discoveries? You should not force
> equality anymore than you force people to do anything else. China had a
> disaster when they tried. They chose to stop the "inequality" of intellect.
> Ironically they got an _Atlas Shrugged_Ayn Rand disaster of their own
> making.
But everybody should have the same opportunity. I would like everybody to
have the same chances offered to them to be rich as anybody else. If they
refuse it, fine, but they should have the chance. Yes, having scientists
clean toilets exclusively is bad, but rotating the menial jobs about, so
the scientist has to clean a toilet a week, isn't.
>
> Equality is not the answer. It's too unstable. The minute everything is
> equal, things change and the society spontaneously drifts out of that
> unstable state.
Yes, rigid equality is grotesque. I just picture Zamyatin's We. What I
want is equal opportunity. This isn't offered in capitalism because the
capital is held by others, who wouldn't give it to you because they don't
like you. Your idea may be profitable and great, but if you speak up
against those who finance these things, you'll go down.
>
>
>
> Dynamically Optimistic,
> Davin
>
> November 5, 1996
> 9:17 am
>