Re: Property [was Re: The Education Function]

Samael (
Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:36:31 -0000

-----Original Message-----
From: <> To: <> Date: 14 December 1998 23:43
Subject: Re: Property [was Re: The Education Function]

>Samael writes:
>>[...] I believe that capitalism is as silly as any other method of
>>organising a system (yes, I know, capitalism is in some ways not a way of
>>organising a system).
>So, every method of organizing is silly? Then we're doomed, aren't we?

Equally silly. Doesn't mean they don't all work. Just that faithfully adhering to one of anto3rh seems equally silly, as I don't believe any system works perfectly.

>>I care about people and I believe that in certain situations that people
>>ought to be helped.
>If you really cared about people you wouldn't advocate forcing them, at
>gunpoint, to comply with your idea of "help".
>>But looking around I can see hundreds
>>of thousands of people starving to death when we have the technology to
>>the world and educate them all to university standard for a tiny fraction
>>the amount we spend on arms each year.
>Those hundreds of thousands are starving due to governmental strangulation
>of markets under the guise of crackbrained socialist and interventionist

So droughts, earthquakes and incursions from neighbouring states are all the fault fo their governments?

>>So yes, in a perfect world where Capitalism worked instnataneously to
>>equalise differences[1], I'd be happy to leave it to it's own devices, but
>>otherwise I think that I'd prefer the singularity to arrive 10 years later
>>with a load more happy well fed people than arrive ten years earlier with
>>hundreds of thousands of people dying of easily prevented diseases.
>You're betraying your ignorance of economics again.

No, I just disagree with your interpretation of it.

>>[1] A company moves into a very poor country and employs it's people
>>horrible jobs for a pittance.
>A "horrible" job paying a "pittance" sure beats the hell out of no job and
>>Eventually more companies move in, they have
>>to compete for labour, wages rise, quality of life rises, education rises
>>and the companies have to find someone else to make trainers. Great - in
>>the long run. In the short run I'd rather that we were sponsoring
>>in these countries and making people happy now. Even if it did mean you
>>to pay an extra $5 for your trainers and they were made in Ohio.
>So - you're advocating sacrificing everyone's long run wellbeing for short
>run (and ultimately illusory) "happiness". This is an extropian outlook, is

Nope, because educating those people will get them to the same stage, in a shorter time, that the company would in a longer time.