I disagree with you that it is a zero sum game, Steven. development and inventions do create wealth and as a society we can decide if the wealth should be distributed and how to distribute it. Life is not fair. Some person might enter the software market and get hold of a rather antiquated program handle it right to be very rich. Another person builds a 3 phase distribution system for electrical energy and dies rather poor. In the very end it does not matter. We can take nothing with us when we die. We can only eat a certain amount and drink a limited quantity. Then we can have entertainment but that also have its limits. Most people do not get involved in marketing a successful software or develop an electrical distribution system. It can be said that without the general group (most of us) the inventors and developers and entrepreneurs would not succeed as their would be no market and no resources to distribute the inventions / developments. Therefore the argument that a distribution of the wealth is valid as I see it. Based on pure economic reasons. Going back to the late 1800 and early 1900 there was a need to correct that picture in Europe. The many people were taken advantage of in an unfair way. (US industries developed in a different climate, where the workforce had alternatives - more so than in Europe). That is the reason for the 'socialistic' movements in Europe with communistic and labor parties in all countries. Russia was even more out of balance. A good base for revolution, which was applauded by laborers in other counties in Europe. Today we have a very connected world. We are also depending on each other. The solution so far is that we build large organizations, which interact and establish an elite class purely working with the issue of distributing the wealth. Unfortunately just like all rulers they think they have the ultimate answer to everything. Therefore they interfere in all faces of life. Now we have a structure that takes 50% of the wealth and distributive 20% as they consume most of the wealth within themselves. The technical development actually support more freedom than ever before. That is a contradiction that needs to be addressed. It is as usual if we do not take decision life will and that is often not so well thought through. (See the Russian revolution 1917). So in the end I agree with you Steven - yes we need another format to distribute wealth. I live in CA - better sunshine than Wisconsin. I think that cannot be distributed fairly but I am sure the politician are thinking about a way to tax it. (all politicians same same)
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Hoyt A. Stearns Jr. <hoyt-stea...@cox.net> wrote: > ...and as Robert A. Heinlein said: an insurance company is just a > bookie-- let's call it what it is -- you make bets that something will go > wrong. > > > > > > > > *From:* James Bowery [mailto:jabow...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 22, 2015 8:19 AM > *To:* vortex-l > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Coal mining industry in steep decline > > > > The original libertarians in the US -- the 1800s frontier libertarians > like Lysander Spooner, understood legitimate government as a mutual > insurance company. An insurance company operating as government would > charge an insurance premium for the protection of property rights. This is > essentially a wealth tax. Moreover, as a mutual insurance company, not > only would the territory be protected under a collective defense -- > rendering immigration restriction a natural function -- but dividends would > be paid to the members, and those dividends would function as an > unconditional basic income thereby rendering virtually all social goods a > natural function of local communities so endowed. > > > > Then the "Austrian" School of Economics that came along in the 20th > century shot the original libertarian movement in the head, execution > style, totally denying any kind of collective right to territorial > protection (open borders) and totally socializing the cost of protection of > property rights. This is why Ron Paul and Rand Paul don't stand a chance > of being elected as "libertarians". > > > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson < > orionwo...@charter.net> wrote: > > I find it interesting to view this entire process as an interesting game > in how humans go about redistributing units of wealth across the planet. > > > > The entire process, the mechanisms currently installed to initiate “wealth > distribution” has become so incredibly convoluted and obfuscated > (intentionally so, I might add) that it’s easy to lose site of the fact > when you really boil this process down to its most primal level, it’s just > about how one individual, group, or organization goes about getting (or > stealing if they can get away with it) more gummy from their neighbor. > It’s all based on an illusion that there are a fixed number of gummy bears > in the BIG POT. As such it behooves you to acquire as many gummy bears as > you can before your neighbor does the same to you. Well… we are competitive > creatures by nature. On a monthly basis, I play a board game called “Game > of Thrones” with my friends. It's based on the popular George R.R. Martin > books and spin-off TV series. I feel fortunate if I can make it through the > afternoon without my cattle being raped. > > > > It is perhaps naive of me to believe this but it remains my hope that as > our society continues to evolve in the direction a highly networked, > responsive global civilization more and more of the population will begin > to clearly see the abject hypocrisy and injustice all these little gummy > bar games we now perform against each other does. We will begin to see how > such self-serving injustices induce great harm upon on vast swatches of > society and end up needlessly devaluing many of their ability to make > incalculable contributions to the common good. > > > > I suppose I sound like an evil socialist, or worst, a communist. However, > in my view, as technology, robotics, and AI continues to advance, robbing > many of us of our jobs and identities, it may turn out to be the case that > some form of high-tech modernized communism that revolves around enforced > distribution of goods and services amongst all the population will > eventually be recognized as the fairest and most humane. It will ensure the > fact that we all get the essential basics of what need in order to survive > in a modern civilization. It will ensure that all of society benefits, and > not just those who know how to play the Game of Thrones game board better > than their neighbor. If not, I will probably end up being repeatedly raped > along with my cattle. > > > > Regards, > > Steven Vincent Johnson > > OrionWorks.com > > zazzle.com/orionworks > > > > > ------------------------------ > [image: Avast logo] <http://www.avast.com/> > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > www.avast.com > >
