Comments on How Much Profit is Enough?, page 5 of 6
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Peter Kidson · 2003-07-08T11:03:00
when the dwindling number of workforces with any political power do decide the time has come to act, for example by striking, the state that Mr. Kidson abhors so much often changes the law to make their actions illegal.
So can I take it you would support a deregulation of the labour market so that strikes were no longer crimialised? Perhaps you too can learn to abhor the state.
I don't see why my complaints about the way that capitalism operates necessarily imply a desire for a totalitarian state.
What other possibility is there? You don't like free markets, but you like unfree markets even less?
In fact, in my opinion government in the USA interferes far too much, and I'd like to see a little creative anarchy being indulged as a means of letting people feel more in control of their own lives.
How about slashing government to 5% of its present size?
I have already pointed out my belief that the greed which brings out the worst in a capitalist society will probably bring out the worst in other forms of society too.
The difference is that in socialism, greed is backed and organised coercively by the state; there is outright plunder of some by others via redistributive taxation. In capitalism if you want more you have to go out and produce more.
What I don't like about government is the way government interferes far more often to defend the interests of the landed and the wealthy than those of the landless and the poor, and the recent changes in US tax regulations are just one more example. The median tax advantage would be less than a thousand dollars (much less), but the hugely wealthy will see huge advantages.
The government is not interfering more to help the rich - if tax is going down it is interfering less/u]. It's not that the state is giving the rich a bigger tax advantage, it's that they are being given a smaller tax disadvantage than before - but still a bigger disadvantage than everyone else. That is because they are paying more tax to start with. In a truly fair society everyone would pay exactly the same tax and have the same responsibilities.
Socialism is a dirty word in the USA as a result of a determined campaign of propaganda against all left-wing political beliefs.
Socialism is a dirty word because it is a dirty concept. It is only the left's overwhelming superiority in progaganda in Europe and other less advanced societies that makes people believe otherwise.
Study the changes that Allende made in Chile ... he was using information technology to implement a decentralised socialist state, which would have given the lie to the propaganda.
Explain this allegedly "decentralised socialist state" Allende had in mind.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Tasos Zervos · 2003-07-09T01:37:00
It seems that most of the critisism above is related to the fact that a lot of people only feel safe in a good-evil, good-bad, white-black polarised environment...
"If you are not with us you are with the others". "You could as well burn in hell"!
Give it a break!
Whatever you call Capitalism didn't come to us with the first human settlements. Let your eyes and mind open and think that our/your current systems are not terminal! We are just in another point of our evolution.
And if Gulags are not here anymore is because they evolved as well...!
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Steve Holden · 2003-07-09T17:12:00
What other possibility is there? You don't like free markets, but you like unfree markets even less?
To place capitalism and totalitarianism at opposite poles the way you continually do suggests that you think capitalism protects us from totalitarianism. I see capitalism moving towards an oppressive society in which the choices open to the ordinary individual are increasingly limited.
How about slashing government to 5% of its present size?
That would be fine if it didn't lead to even greater accumulations of wealth among the already wealthy. Unfortunately, in a capitalist society that's extremely unlikely. The rich continue to get richer and "trickle-down" has been exposed for the lie it always was. Given that the current distribution of wealth is uneven, we appear to disagree about the fairness of redistribution as well as the government's role in effecting such redistribution.
The difference is that in socialism, greed is backed and organised coercively by the state; there is outright plunder of some by others via redistributive taxation.
This right-wing extremism is amusing for a while, but I'm afraid your polarised view of the world (at least as expressed in this forum) is rapidly becoming tedious. In my opinion it's outright plunder to make tax cuts that benefit the rich far more than the poor.
In capitalism if you want more you have to go out and produce more.
Please explain how the 13c-per-hour workers in the sweatshops can get more by producing more. they're already working 70 hours a week. Should they stop slacking and work more?
The bottom line seems to be that you don't feel it's desirable, let alone necessary, for people to look after each other. Instead we should all grab for as much as we can, and the devil take the hindmost. I hope I'm misunderstanding you, as your attitudes appear to reflect a terrible lack of human sympathy.
I'm rather less paranoid than you about such matters as progressive taxation, since I feel that the more you have the more you should contribute to the general good. This is my form of socialism, a personal political philosophy rather than a theoretical dictionary-definition bogeyman to be feared and despised. What the world actually needs is more rich socialists. If you think I'm joking, or that that's a contradiction in terms, then your understanding of socialism is theoretical and not practical.
It is only the left's overwhelming superiority in progaganda in Europe and other less advanced societies that makes people believe otherwise
My personal experience as a committed European allows me to tell you this is arrant nonsense. For really effective propaganda there's nothing to match the American right wing. That's the extreme right wing, of course, since America doesn't appear to have a political left wing at all. However, even in Europe the right wing has dominated politics for a long time, and the forces of reaction have ensured that entrenched political power remains where it has always been, with the wealthy.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Peter Kidson · 2003-07-10T06:54:00
PK: What other possibility is there? You don't like free markets, but you like unfree markets even less?
SH: To place capitalism and totalitarianism at opposite poles ... suggests that you think capitalism protects us from totalitarianism.
Yes, free markets and unfree markets are inherently at opposite poles. I don't see how you can possibly dispute this.
In very loose terms, capitalism refers to free markets (little or no state), while socialism refers to shackled or unfree markets (a highly intrusive state). Or if you prefer we could refer to libertarianism (my position) and authoritarianism (yours).
I see capitalism moving towards an oppressive society in which the choices open to the ordinary individual are increasingly limited.
I tend to agree - capitalism (freedom) being does seem to be progressively losing out to socialism (statism).
PK: How about slashing government to 5% of its present size?
[i/]SH: That would be fine if it didn't lead to even greater accumulations of wealth among the already wealthy.[/i]
So you are prepared to sacrifice freedom for oppression, merely in order to prevent people becoming wealthy from the honest fruits of their own endeavours?
The rich continue to get richer and "trickle-down" has been exposed for the lie it always was.
No, in fact is is the the critique of trickle-down has been exposed for the lie it always was. In capitalism the rich get richer and the poor get richer.
Given that the current distribution of wealth is uneven, we appear to disagree about the fairness of redistribution as well as the government's role in effecting such redistribution.
Yes. You want everyone to equal wealth regardless of their contribution, and advocate whatever coercion or other unfairness is necessary to achieve this. I on the other hand have no interest of the distribution of wealth, but want all wealth to be fairly attained. Your basic philosophy is authoritarianism, mine is libertarianism.
PK: The difference is that in socialism, greed is backed and organised coercively by the state; there is outright plunder of some by others via redistributive taxation.
SH: In my opinion it's outright plunder to make tax cuts that benefit the rich far more than the poor.
You have it back-to-front. More tax is plundered from the rich than from the poor. These tax cuts reduced the plunder on the rich more than they reduced the plunder on the poor, but the rich are still being plundered more than the poor. To be fair everyone should obviously pay the same tax and get the same benefits.
PK: In capitalism if you want more you have to go out and produce more.
SH: Please explain how the 13c-per-hour workers in the sweatshops can get more by producing more. they're already working 70 hours a week. Should they stop slacking and work more?
I don't claim to know how they can produce more in order to earn more. Learning new skills perhaps. But stealing from others (whether by street muggings or via the welfare state - there is no differebce) is not the answer.
The bottom line seems to be that you don't feel it's desirable, let alone necessary, for people to look after each other. Instead we should all grab for as much as we can, and the devil take the hindmost. I hope I'm misunderstanding you
Yes you are. I have nothing but admiration for those who help others voluntarily. It's the coercion and those who advocate it I object to.
I feel that the more you have the more you should contribute to the general good.
But still you duck the central question : should this be a voluntary, or should coercion and violence be used to force compliance?
It is only the left's overwhelming superiority in progaganda in Europe and other less advanced societies that makes people believe otherwise
Compared to North America, Europe is a cultural and economic backwater, a pathetic self-opiniated geriatric rashly resting on its 200 year-old laurels. Hence the EU and slide ever leftwards in its politics. And the left, as always, remain masters of propaganda and spin : there are few more shallow, arrogant and biased loony-left news agences as Britain's BBC for example.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Jean-Louis Ardoint · 2003-07-10T08:22:00
Advertisement
"Socialism is a dirty word because it is a dirty concept. It is only the left's overwhelming superiority in progaganda in Europe and other less advanced societies that makes people believe otherwise."
It seems you're sure of that USA is the most advanced society in the world. Maybe you could take a look at the UN human development index:
As you can there are even countries that are considered as being more developped than USA, and a large number that is not so far beyond. Also, if you take a look at the poverty index:
You'll see that USA is the worst OECD country in this matter.
Please open your mind a little bit, and you'll see that there are other human beings on the Earth, and that the huge problems like poverty, AIDS, environmental issues won't be solved by big corporations and less rules, but could be by governments (if they were really people representative) and fair rules. Just an example, do you think it is fair that people are dying of AIDS in third world countries because they are not allowed to produce generic medication to protect the profit of the big pharmaceutical corporations?
You'll see that USA is the worst OECD country in this matter. This document seems like total propaganda to me. It rates things such as "also capturing social exclusion" whatever that is. It also refers to a "technical note 1" that I can't find. However, looking at the data, the main column for poverty is labeled "50% of median income". So, they are defining poverty not as an absolute measurement but relative to the rich in the society. This is ludicrous. If a country has 1,000,000 with 500,000 making $1 billion a year and 500,000 making only $1 million, the millionaires would be labeled poor.
Poverty should be measured in absolute terms. There is a very good book regarding this, "The Myth of Rich and Poor" (Cos and Alm ISBN 0465047831).
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Steve Holden · 2003-07-10T10:02:00
SH: To place capitalism and totalitarianism at opposite poles ... suggests that you think capitalism protects us from totalitarianism.
PK: Yes, free markets and unfree markets are inherently at opposite poles. I don't see how you can possibly dispute this.
This is pathetic. You are assuming, without proof or reason, that capitalism is a free market and that totalitarianism is an unfree market. If you don't understand the concept of orthogonality it's not going to be possible to have a sensible discussion.
PK: Compared to North America, Europe is a cultural and economic backwater, a pathetic self-opiniated geriatric rashly resting on its 200 year-old laurels. Hence the EU and slide ever leftwards in its politics. And the left, as always, remain masters of propaganda and spin : there are few more shallow, arrogant and biased loony-left news agences as Britain's BBC for example.
And you, sir, reveal yourself as an ill-informed and self-deluding bigot who has clearly never visited any major European nation. The United States' history may (ignoring the disenfranchised indigenous people) begin 200 years ago but Europe has cultures over two thousand years old, which three hundred years ago were developed enough to perform the disenfranchisement.
I am extremely glad you are not typical of the Americans I meet in daily life. This coversation is over.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Peter Kidson · 2003-07-10T10:07:00
> It seems you're sure of that USA is the most advanced > society in the world. Maybe you could take a look at the > UN human development index: > http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2002/en/indicator/indica > or.cfm?File=indic_283_1_1.html
The UN is itself a very biased, backward and deeply corrupt organisation. Its word counts for nothing.
> huge problems like poverty, AIDS, environmental issues > won't be solved by big corporations and less rules, but > could be by governments (if they were really people > representative) and fair rules.
Poverty is ~caused~ by governments. The cure for it is less government, not more.
Government is based on force and is thus inherently unfair. At best all that happens is that the majority use this force to oppress minorities.
> do you > think it is fair that people are dying of AIDS in third > world countries because they are not allowed to produce > generic medication to protect the profit of the big > pharmaceutical corporations?
Yes. These corporations spent a lot of money developing these drugs. If they cannot charge for their work (which includes their ideas), they won't bother developing any new ideas. Yes, stealing their ideas would help the current aids victims, but when the next killer disease comes along noone is going to want to risk money on developing drugs for it.
The best answer is for those who want to help the aids victims to buy the drugs legitimately.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Peter Kidson · 2003-07-10T10:39:00
SH: [i> You are assuming, without proof or reason, that capitalism is a free market and that totalitarianism is an unfree market. ... orthogonality ...[/i]
You are hoping for orthogonality where none exists, and ignoring the logic. Try and explain how a government can have total control over people if markets are free, or how people can control their own lives if markets are not free.
you, sir, reveal yourself as an ill-informed and self-deluding bigot who has clearly never visited any major European nation.
I have lived in and around the backwater of London for the last 12 years. And you, sir, appear to be reduced to ad hominems.
Europe has cultures over two thousand years old, which three hundred years ago were developed enough to perform the .
I take it you mean enfranchisement, not disenfranchisement. Yes, you'd never say it now, but Europe was once great.
I am extremely glad you are not typical of the Americans I meet in daily life.
Hardly surprising. I am not American.
This coversation is over.
Was it something I said?
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Tor · 2003-07-11T02:59:00
>* I call myself a "socialist libertarian" to indicate what I >consider to be a dynamic balance. > >What you are is an Oxymoron.
Many would argue that point. See, for example, http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/faq.html#libandleft which is part of the faq for http://www.politicalcompass.org/, which seems to be a rather pertinent site considering the course of discussion on this thread. Note: If you are interested in seeing how the political compass characterizes your own views, you would be better served by going to the main page first before reading the faq.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Peter Kidson · 2003-07-08T11:03:00
when the dwindling number of workforces with any political power do decide the time has come to act, for example by striking, the state that Mr. Kidson abhors so much often changes the law to make their actions illegal.So can I take it you would support a deregulation of the labour market so that strikes were no longer crimialised? Perhaps you too can learn to abhor the state.
I don't see why my complaints about the way that capitalism operates necessarily imply a desire for a totalitarian state.
What other possibility is there? You don't like free markets, but you like unfree markets even less?
In fact, in my opinion government in the USA interferes far too much, and I'd like to see a little creative anarchy being indulged as a means of letting people feel more in control of their own lives.
How about slashing government to 5% of its present size?
I have already pointed out my belief that the greed which brings out the worst in a capitalist society will probably bring out the worst in other forms of society too.
The difference is that in socialism, greed is backed and organised coercively by the state; there is outright plunder of some by others via redistributive taxation. In capitalism if you want more you have to go out and produce more.
What I don't like about government is the way government interferes far more often to defend the interests of the landed and the wealthy than those of the landless and the poor, and the recent changes in US tax regulations are just one more example. The median tax advantage would be less than a thousand dollars (much less), but the hugely wealthy will see huge advantages.
The government is not interfering more to help the rich - if tax is going down it is interfering less/u]. It's not that the state is giving the rich a bigger tax advantage, it's that they are being given a smaller tax disadvantage than before - but still a bigger disadvantage than everyone else. That is because they are paying more tax to start with. In a truly fair society everyone would pay exactly the same tax and have the same responsibilities.
Socialism is a dirty word in the USA as a result of a determined campaign of propaganda against all left-wing political beliefs.
Socialism is a dirty word because it is a dirty concept. It is only the left's overwhelming superiority in progaganda in Europe and other less advanced societies that makes people believe otherwise.
Study the changes that Allende made in Chile ... he was using information technology to implement a decentralised socialist state, which would have given the lie to the propaganda.
Explain this allegedly "decentralised socialist state" Allende had in mind.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Tasos Zervos · 2003-07-09T01:37:00
It seems that most of the critisism above is related to the fact that a lot of people only feel safe in a good-evil, good-bad, white-black polarised environment..."If you are not with us you are with the others". "You could as well burn in hell"!
Give it a break!
Whatever you call Capitalism didn't come to us with the first human settlements. Let your eyes and mind open and think that our/your current systems are not terminal! We are just in another point of our evolution.
And if Gulags are not here anymore is because they evolved as well...!
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Steve Holden · 2003-07-09T17:12:00
What other possibility is there? You don't like free markets, but you like unfree markets even less?To place capitalism and totalitarianism at opposite poles the way you continually do suggests that you think capitalism protects us from totalitarianism. I see capitalism moving towards an oppressive society in which the choices open to the ordinary individual are increasingly limited.
How about slashing government to 5% of its present size?
That would be fine if it didn't lead to even greater accumulations of wealth among the already wealthy. Unfortunately, in a capitalist society that's extremely unlikely. The rich continue to get richer and "trickle-down" has been exposed for the lie it always was. Given that the current distribution of wealth is uneven, we appear to disagree about the fairness of redistribution as well as the government's role in effecting such redistribution.
The difference is that in socialism, greed is backed and organised coercively by the state; there is outright plunder of some by others via redistributive taxation.
This right-wing extremism is amusing for a while, but I'm afraid your polarised view of the world (at least as expressed in this forum) is rapidly becoming tedious. In my opinion it's outright plunder to make tax cuts that benefit the rich far more than the poor.
In capitalism if you want more you have to go out and produce more.
Please explain how the 13c-per-hour workers in the sweatshops can get more by producing more. they're already working 70 hours a week. Should they stop slacking and work more?
The bottom line seems to be that you don't feel it's desirable, let alone necessary, for people to look after each other. Instead we should all grab for as much as we can, and the devil take the hindmost. I hope I'm misunderstanding you, as your attitudes appear to reflect a terrible lack of human sympathy.
I'm rather less paranoid than you about such matters as progressive taxation, since I feel that the more you have the more you should contribute to the general good. This is my form of socialism, a personal political philosophy rather than a theoretical dictionary-definition bogeyman to be feared and despised. What the world actually needs is more rich socialists. If you think I'm joking, or that that's a contradiction in terms, then your understanding of socialism is theoretical and not practical.
It is only the left's overwhelming superiority in progaganda in Europe and other less advanced societies that makes people believe otherwise
My personal experience as a committed European allows me to tell you this is arrant nonsense. For really effective propaganda there's nothing to match the American right wing. That's the extreme right wing, of course, since America doesn't appear to have a political left wing at all. However, even in Europe the right wing has dominated politics for a long time, and the forces of reaction have ensured that entrenched political power remains where it has always been, with the wealthy.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Peter Kidson · 2003-07-10T06:54:00
PK: What other possibility is there? You don't like free markets, but you like unfree markets even less?SH: To place capitalism and totalitarianism at opposite poles ... suggests that you think capitalism protects us from totalitarianism.
Yes, free markets and unfree markets are inherently at opposite poles. I don't see how you can possibly dispute this.
In very loose terms, capitalism refers to free markets (little or no state), while socialism refers to shackled or unfree markets (a highly intrusive state). Or if you prefer we could refer to libertarianism (my position) and authoritarianism (yours).
I see capitalism moving towards an oppressive society in which the choices open to the ordinary individual are increasingly limited.
I tend to agree - capitalism (freedom) being does seem to be progressively losing out to socialism (statism).
PK: How about slashing government to 5% of its present size?
[i/]SH: That would be fine if it didn't lead to even greater accumulations of wealth among the already wealthy.[/i]
So you are prepared to sacrifice freedom for oppression, merely in order to prevent people becoming wealthy from the honest fruits of their own endeavours?
The rich continue to get richer and "trickle-down" has been exposed for the lie it always was.
No, in fact is is the the critique of trickle-down has been exposed for the lie it always was. In capitalism the rich get richer and the poor get richer.
Given that the current distribution of wealth is uneven, we appear to disagree about the fairness of redistribution as well as the government's role in effecting such redistribution.
Yes. You want everyone to equal wealth regardless of their contribution, and advocate whatever coercion or other unfairness is necessary to achieve this. I on the other hand have no interest of the distribution of wealth, but want all wealth to be fairly attained. Your basic philosophy is authoritarianism, mine is libertarianism.
PK: The difference is that in socialism, greed is backed and organised coercively by the state; there is outright plunder of some by others via redistributive taxation.
SH: In my opinion it's outright plunder to make tax cuts that benefit the rich far more than the poor.
You have it back-to-front. More tax is plundered from the rich than from the poor. These tax cuts reduced the plunder on the rich more than they reduced the plunder on the poor, but the rich are still being plundered more than the poor. To be fair everyone should obviously pay the same tax and get the same benefits.
PK: In capitalism if you want more you have to go out and produce more.
SH: Please explain how the 13c-per-hour workers in the sweatshops can get more by producing more. they're already working 70 hours a week. Should they stop slacking and work more?
I don't claim to know how they can produce more in order to earn more. Learning new skills perhaps. But stealing from others (whether by street muggings or via the welfare state - there is no differebce) is not the answer.
The bottom line seems to be that you don't feel it's desirable, let alone necessary, for people to look after each other. Instead we should all grab for as much as we can, and the devil take the hindmost. I hope I'm misunderstanding you
Yes you are. I have nothing but admiration for those who help others voluntarily. It's the coercion and those who advocate it I object to.
I feel that the more you have the more you should contribute to the general good.
But still you duck the central question : should this be a voluntary, or should coercion and violence be used to force compliance?
It is only the left's overwhelming superiority in progaganda in Europe and other less advanced societies that makes people believe otherwise
Compared to North America, Europe is a cultural and economic backwater, a pathetic self-opiniated geriatric rashly resting on its 200 year-old laurels. Hence the EU and slide ever leftwards in its politics. And the left, as always, remain masters of propaganda and spin : there are few more shallow, arrogant and biased loony-left news agences as Britain's BBC for example.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Jean-Louis Ardoint · 2003-07-10T08:22:00
It seems you're sure of that USA is the most advanced society in the world. Maybe you could take a look at the UN human development index:
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2002/en/indicator/indicator.cfm?File=indic_283_1_1.html
As you can there are even countries that are considered as being more developped than USA, and a large number that is not so far beyond. Also, if you take a look at the poverty index:
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2002/en/indicator/indicator.cfm?File=indic_301_2_2.html
You'll see that USA is the worst OECD country in this matter.
Please open your mind a little bit, and you'll see that there are other human beings on the Earth, and that the huge problems like poverty, AIDS, environmental issues won't be solved by big corporations and less rules, but could be by governments (if they were really people representative) and fair rules. Just an example, do you think it is fair that people are dying of AIDS in third world countries because they are not allowed to produce generic medication to protect the profit of the big pharmaceutical corporations?
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Jordan Zimmerman · 2003-07-10T09:55:00
Also, if you take a look at the poverty index:http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2002/en/indicator/indicator.cfm?File=indic_3 01_2_2.html
You'll see that USA is the worst OECD country in this matter.
This document seems like total propaganda to me. It rates things such as "also capturing social exclusion" whatever that is. It also refers to a "technical note 1" that I can't find. However, looking at the data, the main column for poverty is labeled "50% of median income". So, they are defining poverty not as an absolute measurement but relative to the rich in the society. This is ludicrous. If a country has 1,000,000 with 500,000 making $1 billion a year and 500,000 making only $1 million, the millionaires would be labeled poor.
Poverty should be measured in absolute terms. There is a very good book regarding this, "The Myth of Rich and Poor" (Cos and Alm ISBN 0465047831).
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Steve Holden · 2003-07-10T10:02:00
SH: To place capitalism and totalitarianism at opposite poles ... suggests that you think capitalism protects us from totalitarianism.PK: Yes, free markets and unfree markets are inherently at opposite poles. I don't see how you can possibly dispute this.
This is pathetic. You are assuming, without proof or reason, that capitalism is a free market and that totalitarianism is an unfree market. If you don't understand the concept of orthogonality it's not going to be possible to have a sensible discussion.
PK: Compared to North America, Europe is a cultural and economic backwater, a pathetic self-opiniated geriatric rashly resting on its 200 year-old laurels. Hence the EU and slide ever leftwards in its politics. And the left, as always, remain masters of propaganda and spin : there are few more shallow, arrogant and biased loony-left news agences as Britain's BBC for example.
And you, sir, reveal yourself as an ill-informed and self-deluding bigot who has clearly never visited any major European nation. The United States' history may (ignoring the disenfranchised indigenous people) begin 200 years ago but Europe has cultures over two thousand years old, which three hundred years ago were developed enough to perform the disenfranchisement.
I am extremely glad you are not typical of the Americans I meet in daily life. This coversation is over.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Peter Kidson · 2003-07-10T10:07:00
> It seems you're sure of that USA is the most advanced> society in the world. Maybe you could take a look at the
> UN human development index:
> http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2002/en/indicator/indica
> or.cfm?File=indic_283_1_1.html
The UN is itself a very biased, backward and deeply corrupt organisation. Its word counts for nothing.
> huge problems like poverty, AIDS, environmental issues
> won't be solved by big corporations and less rules, but
> could be by governments (if they were really people
> representative) and fair rules.
Poverty is ~caused~ by governments. The cure for it is less government, not more.
Government is based on force and is thus inherently unfair. At best all that happens is that the majority use this force to oppress minorities.
> do you
> think it is fair that people are dying of AIDS in third
> world countries because they are not allowed to produce
> generic medication to protect the profit of the big
> pharmaceutical corporations?
Yes. These corporations spent a lot of money developing these drugs. If they cannot charge for their work (which includes their ideas), they won't bother developing any new ideas. Yes, stealing their ideas would help the current aids victims, but when the next killer disease comes along noone is going to want to risk money on developing drugs for it.
The best answer is for those who want to help the aids victims to buy the drugs legitimately.
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Peter Kidson · 2003-07-10T10:39:00
SH: [i> You are assuming, without proof or reason, that capitalism is a free market and that totalitarianism is an unfree market. ... orthogonality ...[/i]You are hoping for orthogonality where none exists, and ignoring the logic. Try and explain how a government can have total control over people if markets are free, or how people can control their own lives if markets are not free.
you, sir, reveal yourself as an ill-informed and self-deluding bigot who has clearly never visited any major European nation.
I have lived in and around the backwater of London for the last 12 years. And you, sir, appear to be reduced to ad hominems.
Europe has cultures over two thousand years old, which three hundred years ago were developed enough to perform the .
I take it you mean enfranchisement, not disenfranchisement. Yes, you'd never say it now, but Europe was once great.
I am extremely glad you are not typical of the Americans I meet in daily life.
Hardly surprising. I am not American.
This coversation is over.
Was it something I said?
Re: How Much Profit is Enough?
Tor · 2003-07-11T02:59:00
>* I call myself a "socialist libertarian" to indicate what I >consider to be a dynamic balance.>
>What you are is an Oxymoron.
Many would argue that point. See, for example, http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/faq.html#libandleft which is part of the faq for http://www.politicalcompass.org/, which seems to be a rather pertinent site considering the course of discussion on this thread. Note: If you are interested in seeing how the political compass characterizes your own views, you would be better served by going to the main page first before reading the faq.
Older comments · Page 5 of 6 · Newer comments
Back to post