Re: The Property Protocol

James Rogers (
Tue, 05 Nov 1996 15:25:47 -0800

>> 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.

Everybody already has the opportunity. Admittedly, not everyone has the
*same* opportunity as everyone else, but it is about time that you accept
that LIFE IS NOT FAIR. No amount of anything will ever make life fair for
everyone. Cream always has a way of rising to the top. To say otherwise is
to say that all people are absolutely identical.

Why should scientists clean toilets? They weren't born scientists. They
got there via a long and arduous path where they may have cleaned many
toilets along the way. Not having to clean toilets is their reward for all
the work and suffering the endured in getting to be a scientist.

>> 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.

If your idea is really that great and profitable, you will find capitalist
who will support it. If not, then maybe the "greatness" and "profitability"
is in your own mind.

Having capital does not equate to equal opportunity. Many great businesses
have started using a technique called "bootstrapping" which has very little
capital requirements. Sure, you have to work a little harder for your money
initially, but in the long run, you are better off because you are in full
control. Getting capital from capitalists puts part of your idea and
business under someone else's control. It is not a case of something for

As I said above, opportunity exists for anyone will to put forth the effort
to take advantage of it. My own life is a case in point. I moved to the
Silicon Valley five years ago with $7 dollars to my name and a high school
diploma. I am now college educated, run my own business, and am extremely
successful financially. I got there because I work 70-80 hours a week and
am goal oriented. I strongly believe that anyone who really wants to
succeed can if they are willing to work hard enough.

Having capital is useless if you don't have the ambition to take advantage
of it. And if you have enough ambition and will, free capital is
unnecessary. I know many successful entrepreneurs and the common factor
among them is they work very hard and they make things happen instead of
waiting for things to happen to them. Very rarely do people succeed simply
because they have capital.

-James Rogers