Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - RE: [internetworkers] from the desk of Arianna Huffington

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

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

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tony Spencer" <tony AT tonyspencer.com>
  • To: "'Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/'" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: RE: [internetworkers] from the desk of Arianna Huffington
  • Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 00:15:52 -0400

Sorry. Should have been:

> "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 >living< more
comfortably than American's do.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Spencer [mailto:tony AT tonyspencer.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 12:13 AM
> To: 'Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/'
> Subject: RE: [internetworkers] from the desk of Arianna Huffington
>
> "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
> >
> >





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page