<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 9/10/10 6:24 AM, Tim Halterman wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTinL7Om=LzZCUr3_wPnC-dgcH4ipB6Yi20-4jBzQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2010/9/9 samantha <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:sjatkins@mac.com">sjatkins@mac.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div class="im">On 9/9/10 6:55 AM, Tim Halterman wrote:
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204,
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left:
1ex;" class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><span>Really,
what do you make of this?</span></font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"><span></span></font><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
No current system is perfect and everlasting,
communism, capitalism or otherwise. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
Why? What makes them fail? Are some better than others? In
what ways. </div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>The fact that governance is requried. As long as there is
a human in authority there will likely be envy and certainly
inequality. This is imperfect. And sure I find some better
than others.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
What is and is not legitimate in the way of "governance"? Why is
inequality a problem? People are not fungible items as much the
same as peas in a pod. No amount of governance will make them so
or should try. Nor is everyone entitled to the same outcomes as
they are different beings with different skills, values, ambitions,
determination and character. So people envy. So what? I don't
see that is some problem for "governance" to resolve.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTinL7Om=LzZCUr3_wPnC-dgcH4ipB6Yi20-4jBzQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div class="im">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>I don't think any system which requires people to
do something they don't wish or relies on exploiting
another being as a permanent solution. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
Laissez faire capitalism requires neither. </div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>I'd say produce or starve is a flaw. Capitalism requires
people to do something they possibly may not wish to do, or
even have the ability to do.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Actually, it is a system where people freely interact to trade the
values they produce for the values produced by others. It is the
only system utterly based on freedom and especially on economic
freedom of association. In point of fact far less people starved
in societies that were closer to laissez faire capitalism than
others. For instance many millions starved in the USSR. If you
produce no values that are valued by others for trade then you
survive off savings or off the kindness of strangers (not coerced
pseudo-charity accomplish by legalized taking from some against
their will to give to others). Seems very humane and not at all
flawed. Especially compared to the alternatives.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTinL7Om=LzZCUr3_wPnC-dgcH4ipB6Yi20-4jBzQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>These systems are simply biding their time until
technology advances to a point that a true communism
is possible.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
BARF. Communism is utterly broken by design. <br>
<div class="im"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> Communism in that sense being a society where
individuals are free to do as they wish and do not
require the exploitation of others to do so. I
think Marx felt this way, although specific quotes
elude me (It's been a number of years since I read
his work).<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
That is not communism. In communism the collective owns
everything and the individual owns nothing. "From each
according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is
a common slogan of communism at its most idealistic. That
is utterly unworkable. When everyone owns everything and
nothing no one has the right to do with anything at all what
she wishes. </div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>The ideal communism I speak to does not contain the word
"own" nor does it take anything from each. And yes I've read
Atlas Shrugged.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
So you abolish the word? Who or what owns the "means of
production"? What can an individual own? Nothing? Everything?
Do they have the right to make their own decisions in all areas of
their life? Some areas? Economic areas?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTinL7Om=LzZCUr3_wPnC-dgcH4ipB6Yi20-4jBzQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);
margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"
class="gmail_quote">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div class="im">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>I always looked at the Soviet Union as simply
picking a model close to a hopeful end-state. Had
technology progressed at a faster rate I'm not sure
the collapse would have been inevitable, they could
have simply evolved. I see the most technologically
advanced societies the closest to achieving true
communism.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
A state that killed tens of millions on its own citizens on
purpose is held up as an ideal and just before its time?
This is utterly abhorrent. <br>
<br>
- samantha</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>I'm not going to defend the Soviet Union, that wasn't
really my point. I will say however that unless you live on
another planet we're all pieces on the same game board. Until
a day comes when not one person goes hungry the same day a
resource is spent on the defense or offense of one nation
against another I'm not going to participate in
finger-pointing. We all pay taxes, we all own a piece of a
gun.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Irrelevant. We don't all starve tens of millions of our own
citizens on purpose. Nations, just like people are not "all the
same". It is a matter of justice, not to mention rationality, to
acknowledge and act according to differences. Taxes are
involuntary takings so no person can be held responsible for uses of
those takings that she did not explicitly endorse.<br>
<br>
- s<br>
</body>
</html>