Re: Asimov Site

["**** ****" <***@***.com>]

Roy and/or Janet Miller wrote in message <39A9B9EF.8E5357EC@inetnebr.com>...
>**** **** wrote:
>Name one national park that something like that has happened to. I'm
waiting.


Was making a joke, lighten up. Besides, it wouldn't be half as funny, if it
didn't seem like the big corporations would jump at the chance. If something
of the sort does happen, is it going to shock you? I don't think I'd even
blink at that one.

>LOL - what planet are you from? Where is the US is that done? Nowhere,
which, of
>course, is what Utopia means....


Again, it was a joke, so this doesn't exactly apply. Still, to show that it
isn't so much of a stretch, if #1 were to happen, some companies have
managed to trademark the shape of a building, or other oddities that don't
exactly conform to the trademark norm. Can you really argue this is
impossible, with all the money-hungry corporate lawyers trying to justify
their fat paychecks?

>>     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? How, if at all, does it bear
upon
>capitalism? Please supply facts and sources.


Ah. Nice way to change the subject. You see the flaws in capitalism, but
rather than acknowledge anything I say, you simply ignore that I said it.
Corporatism could be said to be the extreme of capitalism, as Stalinism
could be said to be the extreme of Marxism. In the most specific sense,
corporatism is the philosophy that not only should the law allow business
entities with no individual  accountability, but that these same
corporations are in some way arbitrarily superior to any other citizen. That
these corporations have unwritten privileges to negotiate their own taxes,
and an open door to the legislature that few citizens enjoy. Guess these
aren't facts though. Well, blind or stupid, you'll still hurt as much as the
rest of us. That kinda makes me feel better.

>> One day, physical items
>> will be just as easily copied as software is today. There might be
>> limitations, but one day it will happen, even fools should be able to see
>> that. Whether its 10 years from now, or 50,000 who can say? Should
today's
>> rules apply then?


>Been watching a bit too much of Star Trek I'd say.

What, that there will be a "50,000 years from now" ?? Or that there will be
such technology? If that is your response to the former, hell, you are even
more depressing than me. If it's the answer to the latter, then you aren't
only stubborn and mentally retarded, but lack a great deal of imagination.
Where do you come off even saying something like this? I am a skeptic
myself, so I don't buy into this stuff of "it will be reality by 2010", but
cmon! Microscopic robots might be difficult to manufacture, that first
bunch, but only that first batch is ever difficult. Afterwards, you have 2
things in your favor, traditional economics where a 1950/ $10mil computer is
less powerful than a 1999/$50 calculator, and an almost critical mass-like
ability to self-replicate. They'll have a much easier time of building
polymers and the associated plastics, but it is difficult to imagine them
not being able to shape metals and most alloys much more economically than
either cast metal, or die presses. This has to be some joke that I just
don't get, that someone speaking with me through a worldwide computer
network the likes of which science fiction never managed to predict, is
telling me that technology that is 99% an engineering problem is whimsical
thinking. Maybe you really did mean the former, and you're dead set on the
idea we'll still extinct ourselves. This, I could actually agree with as a
possibility.


>1. I don't think that capitalism "sucks", but some capitalists are rather
nasty
>people

Ah. The idea that all things exist to be bought and sold, is ok with you.
Even though it means people also, and discovered land whether or not there
are indigenous people on it (they are just another resource to be exploited
on said land anyway!). No, not "some" capitalists, MANY capitalists are
nasty people. A large minority at least, and that is being generous. I am
willing to bet that those who fall into your 'not nasty' category aren't die
hard capitalists either, just people living however seems the most
convenient. Capitalism is a BAD idea. I don't deny there are worse ideas
(communism, etc), and I don't have a clear BETTER idea as of the moment.

If people could somehow be taught to feel that they are caretakers, and not
owners.... of land, of possessions. If they could be taught to trust, and be
trustworthy. If they could be taught that you don't have to be compensated
for everything you do immediately, without it turning into usury, the world
would be a better place. The cool thing though, is that maybe, just maybe,
those things might not have to happen first. Maybe those are the effects,
it's the cause that we need to look for

>2. Feudalism. Fascism and it's mirror image Socialism. Anarchy. Theonomy.


You seem so competent at naming all the other failed and/or repulsive
ideologies. Can you actually think for yourself though?