From: Randy Smith (randysmith101@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Sep 17 2001 - 14:40:07 MDT
>From: Adrian `Guru Zeb` Harper <guruzeb@blueyonder.co.uk>
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>To: extropians@extropy.org
>Subject: RE: WTC Insurance
>Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 21:02:23 +0100
>
>At 19:30 17/09/01, you wrote:
>
>
>
>>>From: Adrian `Guru Zeb` Harper <guruzeb@blueyonder.co.uk>
>>>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>>>To: extropians@extropy.org
>>>Subject: RE: WTC Insurance
>>>Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 16:08:03 +0100
>>>
>>>At 06:02 17/09/01, you wrote:
>>>>>From: "Sean Kenny" <seankenny@blueyonder.co.uk>
>>>>
>>>>>Funnily enough, the BBC just reported (not online yet) that there were
>>>>>massive share movements in Insurance companies just before the attacks.
>>>>>Bin
>>>>>Laden may be be an insane terrorist but he's also a Billionaire I
>>>>>understand, anyone know if that's inherited wealth or if he's just good
>>>>>at
>>>>>capitalistm?
>>>>
>>>>I heard he's more like a $300 millionaire. I do not believe he's a self
>>>>made man. Probably inherited from a rich daddy. Not sure though.
>>>
>>>Hmmmmm this brings me onto another topic, that many ppl on this list am
>>>sure
>>>would instinctively react against. But does the situation with Bin Laden
>>>show that
>>>it can be genuinely dangerous for too much financial power to be allowed
>>>to
>>>accrue
>>>in one persons control.
>>
>>
>>I suppose you could show that both good and bad for society might come
>>great personal wealth. But the main point is that society has the RIGHT to
>>make such decisions. Since the great majority of wealth in the world in
>>held by a few, then we may assume that great efforts will be expended to
>>persuade society that great personal wealth is a Good Thing.
>>That is b/c actions tend to be more effective when directed by a single
>>actor as opposed to being directed by a committee, etc. The motivation (to
>>persuade society) is certainly there--that's really inarguable. And
>>certainly, the means (to persuade society) is there. Heh, heh, in fact
>>that (in the hands of a few, relatively) is where the *means* is...
>>
>>Now, I am the kinda person who likes to look at things in a cause and
>>effect way, and I see the world as a hodgepodge of force vectors, pointing
>>in many different directions, and of varying magnitudes.
>>Some vectors are big, some are small. Vectors may be organized together
>>by sentient creatures so as to accomplish some task. The more sentient
>>beings that attempt such organization, the less effective they are at
>>accomplishing the task. But since so much wealth is in the hands of a few,
>>I would fully expect that those few would be very effective at
>>accomplishing tasks undertaken jointly. Socialism/communism must surely be
>>a foe to be fought most tenaciously by those with great wealth. But where
>>and how do they fight this fight?
>>
>>So, being the kind of guy I am, I see those massive force vectors, I see
>>the motivation for persuading the public that wealth accumulation is a
>>Good Thing, and I think...hmmm...that kind of force, wielded by so few,
>>with such high motivational factors, there must surely be some effect upon
>>society visible to me, Randy Smith. So, I go looking for it.
>>And everywhere I go I see, like bomb craters, the aftereffects of these
>>organized force vectors...your post, quoted above, is an aftereffect....
>>no offense....
>
>Non taken. Somewhat dismissive ....... but am sure i can take it. :)
Well, actually, I am not really speaking to your reaction, but to those who
would be offended by your post. They are the ones who have been "affected"
by said "force vectors."
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:47 MST