[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Asimov Site
In article <39AB530C.A5697EDE@inetnebr.com>,
Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> No, Paul, that isn't Capitalism. Capitalism has to do with putting money
> to work, as well as brains and backs.
No -- Capitalism is about making your capital grow. "Putting money to work"
is one way, and the best way, but not the only way. Another way is
speculation: e.g. buy a piece of real estate where you think there will
be a lot of demand in the future, then wait until the prices of real
estate there rises, and finally sell it. This will make the Capitalist's
money grow, but nothing is put to work.
> With using money to build instead of hiding it in the form of gold in
> your backyard, as the French have done for centuries.
If the price of gold should rise, this too will be a profitable way
of Capitalism.
Capitalism isn't opposed to put money to work, it's merely indifferent
to it -- it wants the capital to grow as much as possible, that's all.
Therefore Capitalism sometimes closes down big industries and puts
a lot of people out of work -- because more profit can be made on the
capital elsewhere.
>> 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.....
>
> And when was the last time YOU were in an American court with business
> before the bar?
I wasn't even aware there is a bar in US courts. But perhaps the judges
enjoy being half-drunk during the trials, I don't know... :-))))
> I've been there, and I saw justice everytime, even when I was the one
> paying a fine.
BTW what do you thin about the O.J. Simpson case? <g>
>>>> 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?
>
> Mirror image. Check out the meaning of the terms Mirror Image, and Fascist.
> Or do you need me to supply them to you?
So you're claiming I'm living in a dictatorship, with little freedom of speech?
Or do you use the term "mirror image" as something completely opposite? Well,
I could agree with that.....
>> Please be a little more careful to distinguish Socialism from
>> Communism.
>
> I was careful. I did distinguish them. but if you want a pithy summary,
> it's Lame and Crippled.
Thanks for your very balanced view... <g> now, is Socialism the Lame
one, or the Crippled one? :-)))))))))))))))))))))
>> 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.
>
> In the United States, in the 1800s, we had both Capitalism and a democratic
> republic.
That's when your forefathers abducted black people from Africa to
sell as slaves, right? And they killed off native americans too......
is that your view of democracy?
Perhaps you view Nazi Germany as a good democratic example too? They too
had racism -- and Hitler got to power by a democratic election, in 1933...
(don't take this last sentence too seriously -- it was intended to be
heavily ironic. I'm not suggestiong you actually have nazi sympathies)
> Even Great Britain was developing a democratic element to it's constitution.
To have "democratic elements" and to "be a democracy" is not quite
the same thing. Ancient Greece had some "democratic elements" and is
often considered the birthplace of democracy, but since that society
officially endorsed slavery, it cannot be considered a democracy in a
modern sense.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
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