From: John K Clark (jonkc@att.net)
Date: Thu Nov 14 2002 - 11:30:45 MST
"Alexander Sheppard" <alexandersheppard@hotmail.com>
> Oh, you can form socialism inside a small group of people, that's
>true--but in our modern society, a small group of people is not
>even nearly self sufficient, as a nation state is.
Well, if your socialistic community is not as large rich and powerful as
you'd like then just make it large rich and powerful, if you can that is.
After all that's what capitalists do, Andrew Carnegie was born dirt poor and
John D Rockefeller was not wealthy as a child, the very richest of the rich
seldom were.
In a predominantly capitalist society a tiny group of socialists would
generate absolutely no fear in the powers that be.
In a predominantly socialist society a tiny group of capitalists would and
does generate total panic in the powers that be.
The cause of this asymmetry is that one system works and one system does not
and the leaders of both know that one will always grow and the other always
shrink unless force is used.
>if you decide to take over some property and monopolize it by force,
>that affects me too, should I need to use it.
You sound like a socialist would never dream of ever using force. If I am
a better architect than you and a harder worker than you then I'll have a
better house than you and I'm not going to voluntarily give it to you even
if you do have a larger family. If you want it you'll have to send in the
goon squad and have them break my legs, or at least threaten to.
>I don't see why it matters, stuff about the arbitrator
It matters because intelligent even handed arbitrators would make more money
than stupid biased ones. Today wise judges do not make more money than
unwise judges so you have a lot of bad judges.
>it seems like it would be in the interest of the more powerful PPA
> (if we define "interest" to mean simply an increase in amount of
>resources the PPA controls) to just create a complete tyranny,
I can't give you an iron clad guarantee that a PPA won't take over the
world. I can't give you an iron clad guarantee that the US. Army won't
overthrow the government and set up a military dictatorship. They
certainly have the means to do it if they wanted to. I don't think that's
likely to happen, but it's far more likely than a PPA doing it. As soon as
a PPA starts doing things you don't like, shut off its money supply, quit
doing business with it and switch to a more friendly PPA. You don't have
that option with the US. Army, you are forced to keep sending it money
even if you hate what it's doing.
>>Me:
>>A yacht cost a lot more than a car, yet the Ford motor Company
>>is far richer than all the yacht builders on the planet combined.
>Well, this is true, but I think this is a different situation,
>ultimately with very different characteristics.
Translation: I know of no argument to counter the idea that the most
powerful PPA would be one that catered to the middle class.
>offending armies do, in fact, often win.
Yes, but I'm talking about mercenaries on both sides. Group A does not like
group B very much and would be willing to pay a little to see them dead.
Group B does not want to be dead, they feel rather strongly about this and
would be willing to pay a LOT for it not to happen. The general rule of
thumb is that the attacker needs 3 times as many men as the defenders,
so where are you going to get the money to pay all those soldiers?
It's easy to see where the money to pay the defenders comes from.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:07 MST