Healthy soil and sustainable growing

[Dan Conine <dconine@bertramwireless.com>]

John D'hondt wrote:

> Now take a situation that you see a small child fall in one meter deep water 
> where it is drowning.
> Are you a capitalist who does not want to make his pants wet when there is no 
> profit in it for you?
> Or are you a communist who has the ability to save that child (in need of 
> help) and you do so without a second thought?
>
> I think it is high time that we define these loaded words, anarchy, communism 
> and capitalism from time to time so that we keep understanding one another. 
> Maybe the NSA can learn something from it.
> John
I could go on this topic all day, John.
My latest concern is that what is being promoted as "capitalism" (using 
money to determine demand/value) is really not. What we have for the 
most part is something else; the basis of Imperialism, which is 
Consumerism. Consumerism is a belief that the act of consumption is 
regulated by the Invisible Hand (capitalism at least gives a nod to the 
production of the money by government as a regulating mechanism), but 
even that belief is flawed, and we end up with unfettered rapacity 
because the Invisible Hand is only a myth.

I think that what you defined as communism is really socialism (the good 
of the society over the individual), where communism "from each 
according to ability, to each according to need" is a flawed idea that 
doesn't consider the needs of our future selves, only the present. 
Socialism is Humanism writ large, and as such, is also flawed (the 
belief that the needs of people overrides everything else). Humanism is 
flawed because people are dependent on their environment, and cannot 
survive for long if humans are allowed to consume the resources that 
their future selves will need (unmoderated activities). A true 
capitalist would save the drowning child because the child is a future 
resource to be exploited economically (an investment), whereas a 
socialist might think the child is one more mouth for the community to 
feed. I guess it depends on my attitude today, because I can argue the 
opposite, too.
A true environmentalist would rescue the child as another servant of the 
environment (assuming it is a community of real environmentalists, not 
the capitalist-parasite kind we usually see).

In the long run, it is our generosity toward the environment which will 
determine if we persist or go extinct. We can even apply capitalism 
toward that goal, but the bullies who own the means of production will 
not go quietly. The opposite of capitalism isn't communism or socialism, 
though. The opposite of capitalism is a a sales tax. In the U.S., the 
majority of campaign and lobby levers have set their fulcrum upon the 
income tax code. The FairTax proposal attempts to eliminate the income 
tax and replace it with a 23% sales tax, and a "prebate" that pays 
everyone for the tax cost of basic living expenses. This is not to be 
confused with the Flat Tax plan, that is just another income tax break 
for the rich.
The sensible thing for socialists and communists to do is to adopt the 
FairTax plan and raise the rate until the air and water are clean 
(reduce consumerism) and raise the prebate until everyone has enough for 
basic living expenses.
As long as we are living in a capitalized democracy (one dollar, one 
vote), then the voters should be paid ALL of their dollars and given the 
real costs of the goods they buy. The main alternative to sales taxes is 
the black market, which is a more localized economic model than the 
corporate/military market we have now.
When the sales tax on things is 50% or so, then people will think a 
little more about whether to buy those "safe" foods from a corporation 
or to grow their own (or barter with a neighbor).
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer because the rich have the 
tools to convince the poor to work for them and buy their stuff. The 
government follows the money, which is telling the economists that 
people WANT to be poorer and work for the rich.
It really is pretty bizarre, especially when all of the pro-economic 
systems we use are designed to destroy our own future. Debt is a promise 
to consume future resources. Income tax breaks encourage more debt. The 
vicious circle is accelerating as government uses debt to increase 
resource consumption ("grow the economy").
Meanwhile, the climate seems to be telling us to become nomads and give 
up on fixed farming except maybe in the tropics. We've already consumed 
a critical resource that was taken for granted: stability.

Dan C.
Belgium, WI