[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Sat Mar 30 01:51:33 UTC 2002


On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Craighead, Scot D wrote:
> >First, again, I will state that it's not MY utopia.  It seems to me that
> >you want to personalize these sentiments so you can easily dismiss them
> >as the thoughts of a sole individual.  This isn't a philosphy I devised nor
> >even really one to which I adhere.  I can't see why you continue to call
> >this MY system.  I certainly don't call selfish YOUR idea.
> 
> So do tell.  Are you really a marxist or are you just playing devil's
> advocate?

Well, that's not really the point.  Even if I WAS a Marxist, it wouldn't
be MY system.

> >If you think that the system you support doesn't require force to
> >deploy, you're absolutely and totally disconnected from reality.
> 
> I don't think anyone is disputing that.  Police and military are
> necessary things that the government is required to provide.

No government is required to provide anything.  Our government supposedly
operates from a mandate of the people and the people have required, again,
supposedly, a police and military.

I was simply rebutting his statement that the "major flaw" of socialism
was that it "requires force to deploy".  Capitalism not only requires
force to deploy, but requires ongoing force to maintain.

> >The protection of your beloved private property is probably the single 
> >greatest instigator of violence in the history of the world.
> 
> Actually religion is.  Just ask the Israeli's.

I think the Israelis are probably a bit biased on that issue.

Anyway, I'd say private property and religion are pretty close.

> No one said it is the perfect system, however, it has shown itselve to
> be the best system that has been used to date in all of human history.  
> Marxism has fail miserable many timee resulting in the murder of
> millions of innocent people,
> 
> horrible living conditions and lack of freedom.  That's why I hate it.  
> Is that a good enough reason?

There has never been an industrialized Marxist state.  The preaching of
Marxist dogma by leaders doesn't make a state Marxist.

> >While communism is a nice ideal that's simply unattainable, capitalism
> >is an unattainable ideal that is destructive to the majority of the people
> >in the system.
> 
> What is unattainable?  There is the theory and there is what we see in
> practice.  What has proven itself in practice?  Capitalism or Marxism?

Show me a purely capitalist economy and I'll go ahead and show you a
purely socialist one for comparison.  Oh, wait... there aren't any.

We watched capitalism progress, more or less unchecked, from about
1800-1930 in this country.  The result was unblameable corporations having
the rights of human beings, monopolists controlling media and industry,
and the Great Depression.  There's no telling what would have happened had
we not begun to mix the economy a little and reign in those capitalists.

> One last thought.  Several od the things you have said lead me to
> beleive that you fall into the same misconception as most liberals do
> in one respect.  That is that there is a set amount of wealth that
> exists and the rich can only get richer by depriving the poor of still
> more.  The fact is....wealth can be created.  TADA!!!! Big concept.  

How can you say I don't understand that concept when you quoted, in the
very message to which I'm replying, my statement that follows?

"and the negative difference between the rate of increase in the amount of
wealth in a system and the rate at which the percentage of that wealth
held by the elite grows."

I understand full well that the economy grows and the amount of wealth
increases over time.  The problem is that the rate of economic growth does
not exceed the rate of growth of the elite's percentage of that wealth.

It doesn't matter to the majority of the people if the economy doubles in
size if their collective share (that of poorest 95% of the public) has
decreased by more than half.

The rich get richer at a rate higher than the total economy grows.  Thus,
the poor get poorer both relatively AND actually.

> Many, many people can't grasp it. Sure the rich in this country have
> become more rich, but so have the middle class and the poor.  

That's simply not born out in the numbers.  Today, the average person
works longer hours for fewer REAL dollars (in buying power) than twenty
years ago.

Median income is FALLING in real dollars.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org






More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list