> Let's see... the Greens support equal redistribution of wealth,
> Say no more. They are already an extremely nasty form of idiots with just
> that one plank. An equal distribution of wealth would at this point make
> everyone on earth a pauper and bring all progress to an immediate halt
> (assuming you could acheive it). By what twisted notion of justice does
> everyone get exactly and only as much as everyone else regardless of
> relative talent, devotion, merit, ambition, ability to wisely and
> producively use the resources and so on? How would such an absolute
> egalitarianism of results really help at all?
Okay, I worded that one wrong. I'll quote this directly from their own
"The Greens stand for a society in which wealth and power are distributed
broadly among all the people rather than concentrated in the hands of a
No, they do not believe in equal redistribution of wealth. I hope this
corrects that notion. I'd also argue that with the way our economic system
is set up, many people attain wealth and power through means that do not
require talent or devotion, do not have the requisite ability (George W.
Bush, anyone?), or attain power through means that are far less than
ethical, means that result in the opression of others and the destruction of
the environment. Sure, I like the thought of "enlightened capitalism"- I
was raised by an ethical, socially aware businessman father- but it is
frequently more of an exception than a rule. Am I in support of communism
or a government-controlled economy? No. Do I think that the corporate
structure needs a definite overhaul? Yes.
> Only those utterly unable to concretize an abstract idea could fall for
> madness for a minute.
What? Socialism or Objectivism? ;)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:21 MDT