Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Tony Spencer" <tony AT tonyspencer.com>]

"Capitalism, by it's very nature, concentrates wealth and power into the
hands of a very few, and those few are loathe to give it up."

I'm dumbfounded by this statement.  Name one nation in this world that has a
greater percentage of its population more comfortably than American's do.



T O N Y  S P E N C E R
Notsleepy LLC
6512 Six Forks Rd.
Suite 502-B 
Raleigh, NC 27615
Phone: 919.848.0691
Mobile: 415.637.6481
tony AT tonyspencer.com 

  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: internetworkers-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org 
> [mailto:internetworkers-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf 
> Of Alan MacHett
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:01 AM
> To: internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [internetworkers] from the desk of Arianna Huffington
> 
> Okay, I was painting in broad strokes here, folks.  Although 
> I was speaking of Don Rua as an individual, I referred to 
> Republican, Free Market, and Socialism as the overarching 
> terms they are.  Allow me to demonstrate by rephrasing one of 
> your statements:
> 
>   ...which was that /Christianity/ does not ensure
>   that individuals act in an unselfish manner, and /Satanism/
>   does not ensure that individuals act purely out of greed
>   and selfishness.
> 
>   That is, I don't see the incompatibility between someone
>   describing themselves as a /Christian/ (or /Jew/) and
>   an advocate of /oppression/ and /bigotry/, and promoting
>   behavior such as...
> 
> Which suddenly becomes a ridiculous statement because we all 
> know that, yes, individuals act however the hell they desire, 
> but the broad descriptor is supposed to function in a 
> particular fashion.  Christianity, at its core, is supposed 
> to be good, but of course there are poorly behaved 
> Christians.  So of course there are charitable Capitalists.
> 
> However, we all know that the core of Capitalism is the 
> accumulation and reinvestment of wealth.  In Capitalism one 
> is supposed to do what's best for oneself or one's company.  
> Whereas in Socialism --
> 
> No, let's forego that word.  It doesn't mean what I want it 
> to mean.  In most connotations and denotations, Socialism 
> equals Communism.  I dislike Communism.  I support private 
> ownership.  I support entrepreneurism.  But mostly I support 
> a relatively equitable society in which people take care of 
> each other.  So let us use the word Egalitarianism.
> 
> Phillip said, "One of the reasons that Libertarians maintain 
> that government charity is not needed, is the belief that in 
> the absence of it, private charity would take it's place."  
> Eh?  What history books have you Libertarians been reading?  
> The whole reason the social support system came about is 
> because in the absence of "government charity" whole swaths 
> of the public (workers, the impoverished, non-Whites, women, 
> etc.) were being screwed.  They're still being screwed.  
> Capitalism, by it's very nature, concentrates wealth and 
> power into the hands of a very few, and those few are loathe 
> to give it up.
> 
> I applaud Don Rua for his actions and beliefs.  If everyone 
> acted thusly, then we might very well live in an Egalitarian 
> society.  But he is an anomaly.  Capitalism does not teach 
> fairness and charity.  On the contrary, nearly every lesson 
> and practical application of Capitalism involves greed.  To 
> wit: Capitalism does not teach one to set a *fair* price for 
> one's goods, rather you should set the price to *fair market
> value* , which isn't fair at all (notice the coopting of the 
> word 'fair')
> -- it means set the price to whatever you can get away with.  
> For example, someone I know recently began making a product.  
> She brought samples to show and told everyone that she 
> planned to sell them for X amount.  She believed that to be a 
> fair price; it covered the cost of her materials (and 
> labor?), plus a little extra for profit.  Everyone was shocked. 
> That's all!?  They told her that she could sell them for at 
> least twice that amount, 2X being "fair market value", or 
> what they'd become accustomed to being the cost of such a 
> product.  So of course that's the cost she sells them at, not 
> the cost she initially calculated as fair, but the cost she 
> can get away with.  That is just one example.
> 
> Again, if everyone thought like Don (or me (ha!)) then we'd 
> all be happy. 
> But we've been living with this system for so long that 
> nearly everyone buys into it.  And then there's the problem 
> of sheer numbers.  We need government intervention for the 
> very reason we need government in the first place -- there 
> are too damn many of us.  In small societies there is no 
> government per se.  Small groups are self-governing, and for 
> the most part everyone takes care of everyone else -- no one 
> is allowed to fall by the wayside, and no one is allowed to 
> get too greedy.  [This, by the way, is an *extremely* 
> condensed version of an Anthropology class I recall.] But 
> when a population reaches a certain point, mechanisms must be 
> set in place to ensure that everything happens as expected -- 
> !voila!...government.
> 
> Now (to bring this around again) if Libertarians think that 
> charity will happen in the absence of government, do they 
> also think that government will happen in the absence of 
> government?  Are Libertarians really Anarchists in disguise?  
> As a test we could, say, do away with speed limits, right?  
> We'll all self-regulate; everyone knows speeding is dangerous 
> and wastes fuel.  In the absence of speed limits everyone 
> will drive sensibly anyway, right?  (That's an oversimplified 
> example; don't take me too literally.)
> 
> Anyway, my point is that we should all do well by each other, 
> but there are too many of us to be trusted in mass; so we 
> need Government to step in and offer a helping hand.
> 
> And, just to round it all out and really make this a mess of 
> a discussion, I'd like to add that I'm all for less Federal 
> Government and more State Government (states' rights), but 
> what I'd very much like to see is for the real power in the 
> country to be handed down to local or regional governments 
> (getting back to that Anthropological, small-society concept)...
> 
> -Alan
> 
> In reference to Phillip Rhodes's messages:
> [2]
> > OK, fair enough.  That doesn't really have anything to do with my 
> > overall point, which was that "socialism" does not ensure that 
> > individuals act in an unselfish manner, and capitalism does 
> not ensure 
> > that individuals act purely out of greed and selfishness.
> >
> > That is, I don't see the incompatibility between someone describing 
> > themselves as a Republican (or Libertarian) and an advocate of 
> > capitalism and free-markets, and promoting behavior such as paying 
> > "rank and file" employees more than management or giving 
> back to the 
> > community.
> >
> [1]
> > Why not? Capitalism and Free Market aren't about individuals not 
> > giving back to the community, etc.  "Socialism" (at least as it's 
> > commonly
> > understood) is about government based charity.  One of the reasons 
> > that Libertarians maintain that government charity is not 
> needed, is 
> > the belief that in the absence of it, private charity would 
> take it's place.
> >
> > The relative greed and self-centeredness of individuals is really a 
> > completely separate issue from whether  you live in a socialist or 
> > capitalistic society.  In Soviet Russia during the height 
> of Communism 
> > (the ultimate form of Socialism?) where there not individuals who 
> > managed to accumulate great wealth while others went hungry?
> >
> > Capitalism and "Free Market" economics do not *necessarily* equal a 
> > selfish, "me first" attitude on the part of everyone 
> involved. Those 
> > attitudes transcend political and economic affiliations, IMHO.
> >
> 
> ---
> Come and play at the InterNetWorkers Web site!  
> http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/
> You are currently subscribed to InterNetWorkers mailing list 
> To unsubscribe visit 
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/internetworkers
> 
>