On 10 Nov 2013, at 22:06, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno and Brent:
Who are you to T E L L society what it needs?
I am only trying to tell society what "I" need, and what I think my
children, my students, my friends, and all people I care about can
need.
(BTW: I agree perfectly with your position).
I had discussions on other lists in aspects of religion and gun-
control and received similar offensive repercussions. No universal
machine can tell any other universal machine how to think and what
to aim at.
I absolutely agree with you.
But all universal machine have the right, for that very reason, to
criticize and "vote against" those machines who want to impose their
mode of thinking.
Voting is a lying hoax, democracy is nonetxistent. A handful people
of goodwill will not change the malicious crowd.
When I abhor shooting to kill people, it does not prove wrong those
crazies who like to do it - just marks a difference of opinions.
TELLING society what it needs is fascism, socialism, or religion.
OK. but the idea is not "killing is bad". The idea is "killing me or
my children is bad", and so I might vote for someone who will help (or
promise to help) to minimize the probability of that happening.
Bruno
Be careful with your words: they are mostly meaningless substitutes.
John M.
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 11:50 AM, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 06 Nov 2013, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/6/2013 12:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
There is nothing wrong being rich, unless the money is stolen
money, and that's the case today.
There's nothing morally wrong with being rich, but it creates an
ethical problem. Being much wealthier than others bestows a lot of
power. If there is no effective government (like parts of Somalia)
then the rich hire a personal army to protect their property.
Where there is government, the police protect their property and
the rich attempt to control the government through propaganda and
buying influence. So long as the rich are not so rich as to live
in a different 'world' than the middle class and they are
relatively diverse this works OK. But the system seems to be
unstable in that the rich can and do use their wealth and power to
get more wealth and power - and not necessarily productively. So
those who inherit wealth tend to gain even more wealth. Society
needs to do something to stabilize the system and prevent the
increasing concentration of wealth.
I completely agree. The problem is that with money, you can produce
more money in two ways, honestly or dishonestly....
Bruno, before I touch the "basics" - could you explain what you
would consider to produce M O R E money HONESTLY? Same question to
Brent's text above: that the rich can and do use their wealth and
power to get more wealth and power - and not necessarily productively.
I don't see a 'productive' way how 'the rich' get more wealth and
power by using their wealth and power. It is exploitation, political
scam, bribery, terrorism, etc. - all in the framework of accepted
"morals" of the system (either capitalist, or fascist).
I recall some basics (I am no 'Socialist') from Marx:
NOBODY owns Nature so any natural products (mining, farming, or
other) are valued 'honestly' as recompensation for the efforts
invested into the natural process "for getting money" - honestly -
productively, without exploitation. Does any mine-owner work on his
product? Does any Farming conglomerated stockholder work honestly on
the crop? I do not advocate the CEO to sweep the floor: there is
tasks' - organization in which everyone has a "role to perform", but
are the roles proportionately paid for? Mao tried to switch 'roles'
temporarily - he failed. Lenin realized that such just distribution
is impossible in today's society and postulated FIRST the
development of som "COMMUINST" MAN who lives up to such 'just
distribution' of benefits - surely realizing the impossibility of
such development. All other ("Socialist?") countries suffered from
the same malaise as the (democraticly?) capitalistic ones: the
leadership and its power usurped wealth, acquired MONEY and POWER on
the back of the 'not so fortunate' exploited majority.
Alas, I have no solution to remedy the situation.
Re-hire Dr. Guillotine is unrealistic.
JM
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be>
wrote:
On 06 Nov 2013, at 17:25, meekerdb wrote:
On 11/6/2013 12:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
There is nothing wrong being rich, unless the money is stolen
money, and that's the case today.
There's nothing morally wrong with being rich, but it creates an
ethical problem. Being much wealthier than others bestows a lot of
power. If there is no effective government (like parts of Somalia)
then the rich hire a personal army to protect their property.
Where there is government, the police protect their property and
the rich attempt to control the government through propaganda and
buying influence. So long as the rich are not so rich as to live
in a different 'world' than the middle class and they are
relatively diverse this works OK. But the system seems to be
unstable in that the rich can and do use their wealth and power to
get more wealth and power - and not necessarily productively. So
those who inherit wealth tend to gain even more wealth. Society
needs to do something to stabilize the system and prevent the
increasing concentration of wealth.
I completely agree. The problem is that with money, you can produce
more money in two ways, honestly or dishonestly. Once a few "fake
money" (based on a lie) appears, it corrupts the whole system, and
the society get pyramidal, with a higher gap between poor and rich,
and eventually this crush down.
We must think about a way to prevent that. Some state can play a
role. But we have to get rid of the bandits first, and there is an
easy way: legalize all drugs. Regulate them, and tax them
proportionally by the "real" harm (that is measured by statistics no
more confusing a -> b and b -> a) they do.
May be that is not enough. Prohibitionists should be judged. We have
to get spiritual or mature enough to understand that.
The state must ensure the fairness of competition among products,
their traceability, the presence of notice with the secondary
effects, etc. But the state has nothing to say about what is good or
not for any one. That's between you and you, with the help of your
shaman if you decide so, but it is your decision, to say "yes" or
"no" to this or that shaman.
Stopping prohibition will not solve all problems. But continuing
prohibition aggravates the situation, ... except for the super-
riches and the bandits.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.