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

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

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
> > 
> >