From: John K Clark (jonkc@att.net)
Date: Fri Nov 15 2002 - 23:01:09 MST
"Alexander Sheppard" <alexandersheppard@hotmail.com>
> If to have a "rich socialistic community" means have a community
> where the members have a reasonable degree of material prosparity, how are
> you supposed to do that without either participating in the capitalist
> system
I have no idea, I don't know why you're asking me, it's you who think
socialism works not me.
>or having a group which is around the size of a nation all become
>socialism at the same time?
In other words force people to become socialist. I agree, that's socialism's
only hope.
> I also am unclear about what you mean by "powerful".
Are you? I doubt it.
>if I assume that you mean libertarian socialism--then yes,
> I think it would generate tremendous fear in the powers that be
Right, I'm sure President Bush wakes up lake at night in a cold sweat
worrying about the great convent revolution and how that way of life will
take over the world, and those nuns can get pretty mean too. And I shudder
just thinking about the Amish.
>someone who unilaterally became a libertarian
> socialist, in their actual action, would go into stores when they
>needed food and take what they needed from the person who
>was controlling the store by force, which is not allowed by
>capitalism.
Hmm, then I guess Winona Ryder libertarian socialist.
>Such people are very dangerous to the capitalist system
Yes, the technical term is "thieves". By the way if the store keeper is a
libertarian socialist too would it be OK for him to take the food back?
>Well, I'm not sure where the "powers that be" lie in a libertarian
>socialist society.
The Mother Superior.
>if some commander today ordered the military to slaughter Congress,
> kill the President, etc., nobody would listen.
I agree because most people in the army want to do the right thing most of
the time and I don't see why the same sort of people wouldn't work in a PPA
too.
>But in a PPA, everybody is devoted to bringing resources under their
>control. That's the only goal, effectively--that's what profit is.
Yes, the goal is in making money, and you don't do that by making your
customers angry at you.
In my last post I asked a question and I couldn't make any sense in your
answer, I don't know if you mean yes or no so I will ask again.
If I am a better architect than you and a harder worker than you then I'll
have a better house than you. If you have a larger family than me are you
going to take my house from me?
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:10 MST