Re: Asimov Site

[pausch@saafNOSPAM.se (Paul Schlyter)]

In article <39A9B9EF.8E5357EC@inetnebr.com>,
Roy and/or Janet Miller  <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote:
 
>> Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote in message <39A8848F.3D78FA28@inetnebr.com>...
>>
>>> Take nothing but photos, leave nothing but footprints - and try not to
>>> leave even those.
>>
>>     Until of course 7 Eleven pays the park service $50mil to get it renamed
>> "7 Eleven's Petrified Forest" after which the 'look and feel' of it will be
>> a trademarked.
>
> Name one national park that something like that has happened to. I'm waiting.
 
There's none yet .... but just wait 20 years or so.....
 
>> Roy, it might suprise you, but you can still remain a non-marxist, and
>> see the flaws in capitalism, especially corporatism. \
> 
> What is corporatism? Where does it prevail?
 
In the US car industry, for instance, where General Motors is buying one
car manufacturer after another.....
 
> How, if at all, does it bear upon capitalism?
 
Capitalism is here used as a tool.
 
Democracy says (among other things): "One man - one vote!".
Capitalism says something different: "One dollar - one vote!", where
the "voting" is done everyday everywhere on the market.  Basically this
means if you have enough money, you can buy almost anything you want.
 
A few years ago I suggested (ironically -- I never expect this to
actually happen) a rationalisation of the US justice system: whenever
a case is brought up to court, the judges shouldn't bother with the
case itself.  Instead the judges should simply examine which one of
the two parts have the most money, and then let that part win the
case.  This means none of the parts will have to pay these expensive
lawyer costs.  And the trial will be much cheaper, which means the
losing part will make the largest economical gain.  And the outcome
will be the same anyway, since today you win a case if you can afford
the best and therefore most expensive lawyer.  There are really only
two objections to this scheme: 1. the lawyers object, quite
naturally, because this would make a lot of them lose their jobs.
And 2. this scheme would make people lose their illusion that the
current system is a system of actual justice.....
 
 
 
>> Now, is capitalism sucks, and marxism sucks, what else is there?
> 
> 1. I don't think that capitalism "sucks", but some capitalists are
>    rather nasty people
> 2. Feudalism. Fascism and it's mirror image Socialism. Anarchy. Theonomy.
 
I live in a country, Sweden, which currently has a Socialist
government.  Does that mean you think our governemnt could as well
have been a Fascist government?
 
Please be a little more careful to distinguish Socialism from
Communism.  Also, please remember that both of them were born as a
reaction against the Capitalism of the 1800's and earlier -- a
Capitalism which didn't have to "carry the burden" of democracy.
 
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter,  Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40,  S-114 38 Stockholm,  SWEDEN
e-mail:  pausch at saaf dot se   or    paul.schlyter at ausys dot se
WWW:     http://hotel04.ausys.se/pausch    http://welcome.to/pausch