On Sun, 09 Mar 1997 Erik Moeller <flagg@oberberg-online.de> Wrote:
>If everyone decides that they don't want the state anymore, the
>state can be "fired".
We don't all have to agree to buy the same sort of car, why must we all agree
on whether we have a state or not? If you want to belong to a state then do
so, I want no part of it.
>I agree that the "government bug" is inherent. There are ways to
>change it, though. In order to do it, we need more state, not less
And if you're wrong, if whatever change you have in mind doesn't work then we
have a disaster, a dictator with the power to control everything.
>Imagine Japan had started with free markets after WW II, they'd be
>like South Korea today.
I don't know quite what to make of that, no economy on Earth has grown faster
than South Korea over the last 30 years, and Japan is in the middle of the
worst rescission since World War 2.
>it is "evil" (to use *your* words) if companies and banks invest
>money in the stock market where it just circulates.
GOOD GOD! Erik, when you become our king promise me that you'll spend at
least 5 minutes glancing at an Economics textbook.
>Everything would be fine if all information would be accessible
>AND centralized in one archive
That word "centralized" sent cold shivers down my spine. Of course only
THE TRUTH would be in that one centralized archive, and of course you would
be the judge as to what was true and what was not.
>even the web would probably not be preserved in free markets for
>economic reasons.
Huh??
>As soon as big money circulates, goodbye net.
Huh??
>Don't forget that the really large net capacities are owned by the
>state.
I'm not sure about Germany, but that's certainly not true in the USA,
thank goodness.
>large companies try to crush users who publish unwanted information,
>even in the entertainment area. Without laws, companies will be
>able to do that much easier.
Let me ask you something straight out, do you really think people should get
government approval before they publish something on the Web?
>simply killing other companies with force is much cheaper
Ridiculous, violence is always expensive. If necessary I would spend every
cent I have to protect myself, some people don't like me but I don't think
anybody hates me enough to impoverish themselves to see to my destruction.
>They don't pay anyone what he/she's worth, but everyone is paid
>the fewest money possible.
And the employees don't demand what he/she's is worth, they demand the most
money possible.
>So if someone is paid 2$/hour in one company, he will get only
>2$/hour in the neighbour company
I wish everybody could get paid 2000$/hour, I wish everybody was immortal too,
but wishing does not make it so. The sad fact is that neither is possible,
at least not yet. If there is a huge number of people who want to work,
can do my job as well as I can and are currently making 1$/hour, then nobody
is going to pay me more that 2$/hour to do the same thing. You wouldn't pay
me more yourself, unless I was your friend and you wanted to give me charity,
otherwise you'd pay 2 people 1$/hour, you'd get twice as much work and help
twice as many people.
>didn't you criticize that I valued people?
I most certainly did not, I value people as much as you do.
>Don't you always get totally upset if I call the majority of the
>American population uneducated?
No, that doesn't make me upset, what upsets me is your wish to enforce your
opinion on others. In your posts you have said that people read the wrong
books, watch the wrong programs on TV, go to the wrong movies, buy the wrong
products, use the wrong computer operating system, send foolish E-mail and
visit bad web pages. Well, perhaps so, I have strong opinions on some of
these things too. What scares the hell out of me however is when you make it
clear that you intend to make others have the same opinions about these
things that you do, whether they like it or not. Eric, no offense, but I
wouldn't trust anyone with that much power.
>bad education (much worse in free markets).
Unfortunately we have public schools so education is not part of the free
market, that's why it's so bad.
>if you quit a work where the supply is higher than the demand, no
>one will pay you more if there are thousands of unemployed people
>willing to work
Exactly, I couldn't have said it better myself. You think this indicates
there must to a villain lurking about determined to make people's lives
miserable, I agree, but the villain's name is not Capitalism, it's poverty,
there is simply not enough wealth for everybody to live as they would like to.
Sympathy will not create more net wealth, neither will charity, or moral
outrage, or government regulation, or socialism, but Capitalism will.
>Do you think that one of these [billionaires] 360 guys [...] is
>able to spend even 1 per cent of his/her money?
No I do not, that means that the vast majority of their money is not used for
personal luxuries but is used in ways that the billionaire thinks will make
even more wealth. Considering the fact that the man was smart enough to make
all that money in the first place, do you really believe that politicians
could use that money to increase the net wealth of the world more than the
billionaire could?
>I know that you don't have the knowledge necessary to decide
>whether free markets are a useful thing or not, and I *think* that
>I do.
If your ideas are more powerful than mine then they will prevail, in the free
market of ideas.
John K Clark johnkc@well.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCzAgUBMyOd9n03wfSpid95AQH/RATsCskSoioU9Zwo1HAktyFD+8zpueeLTgBD
A9eyOsi53hQQVKvKb/zIrqGPEJQtlxQbGnjz+nFZGUznbCVH5LFFdVUmcEPJIhhK
QGnnvl1ACaDQDXsYTMpjxHLXTB4ztBN/DqUxNy3Z5Jb1lM622EbGdAlvKB9N+FBh
hvdHH4xsokAcsoiC5q/+t6Cq7aw5me68F+OG7JpNnT2b8m/2rRY=
=ivvS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----