Re: virus: The Capitalist vs the Socialist.

chardin (
Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:30:30 CST+6CDT

> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 20:44:07 -0600
> From: Nathaniel Hall <>
> To:
> Subject: virus: The Capitalist vs the Socialist.
> Reply-to:

> > <Snip>
> Sodom responds:
> > This will be hard to follow because of all the breaks, but I'll
> > try to be succinct:
> >
> > Yes, the market will drive the prices up high enought to switch at
> > some point, however, prudence is valuable here. If you had to buy
> > water like you do gasoline, you would not wait til you were out to
> > replace it. You would be prepared long in advance. I know the
> > economics of it well, but the biggest reason it is not switched is
> > not the cost of changing, but the loss of money to the wealthy.
> Your perfectly free to buy a car that runs on say hydrogen but you
> know as well as I do the price of making a handful of such things.
> It is the cost of changing that keeps us from going somewhere else.
> For me it would mean getting rid of thousands of dollars in capital.
> (My car and my truck). It pretty much the same thing for your
> typical American. If someone came up with a car that managed to do
> 100 miles per buck it wouldn't matter that rich toes were being
> stepped on because other rich toes, (investment capitalists) , would
> be running to back such a thing if it existed. The wealthy only get
> wealth arbitrarily as the result of government tinkering. Otherwise
> they have to EARN it by giving us something of value in exchange for
> it.
> > Oil is power and just like politics,
> > people will not give up this power at ALL costs, including war and
> > destruction. We invaded Iraq not to insure democracy, or to save
> > Kuwaitis, but to insure our oil gets to us.
> This is true. But the butcher of Baghdad had it coming to him all
> the same. Too bad we did not have a man of principle at the helm at
> the time.
> >
> >
> > You are wrong in your facts about wealth and life expectancy.
> > There is a close correlation, and poverty does kill.
> Then why argue? You have just agreed with me.
> > But the longest lived people
> > in the world are the lower class Japanese who survive on rice and
> > vegetables. The U.S., which is wealthy, has the highest instances
> > of Obeciety, heart disease, cancer and a dozen other "rich"
> > diseases which keep our life expectancy lower than most other
> > industrialized nations.
> True but that only proves there are other factors besides wealth
> which increase life expectancy. That is not the point of this
> discussion.
> >
> >
> > AS for the car, NO, i do not own one, and I doubt I will ever own
> > a gasoline powered car again. They are too inefficient and costly
> > in my opinion. I do miss them greatly - very greatly, and do
> > occasionally rent a car if I have out of town guests, or classes
> > or something like that. My transportaion costs total about 80.00 a
> > month and I use public transportation every day.
> But you do miss the car! Are you still going to call it evil or do
> you like wishing for things you believe to be evil?
> > You seem to be a staunch capitalist, which although I do think
> > that capitalism is essential for a healthy freedom and growth, i
> > also think that it is prone to abuse by the greedy and selfish.
> > The U.S.A uses 1/4 of the worlds resources. I would gladly give up
> > a little of my "wealth" to help bring the overall standards up,
> > and i do not think that capitalism is interested in equality for
> > all humanity. i am interested in global equality, and unless the
> > U.S of A shows a little more "empathy and vision" i doubt it is
> > will change to a benevolent nation.
> >
> > Sodom
> There is much hope for you Sodom. You have already tossed out faith
> as a valid means to knowledge but you are still enamored with it's
> morality : Altruism. Let me ask you a simple question: Do you think
> you have to make some excuse for the fact that you exist? If you
> believe in altruism you do. Morality under that code means that
> sacrifice is the moral and the good and self interest the bad. Why
> is it that good? How come others have a right to use you but you
> cannot morally claim such a thing for yourself? You use the word
> "greed" as an example of evil, but does simply wanting the good
> things in life something which is bad in and of itself? In a
> sacrifice someone wins and someone loses, but in a fair trade both
> sides win or the trade does not happen. Something for something.
> Notice I said fair: as long as you are honest about what you have to
> trade, you and the other person who does likewise, you trade your
> rationality , your reason, your thinking MIND with that of the
> person you trade with. This is the proper morality of creatures such
> as we that live by THINKING. Far from an evil code rational self
> interest it is in fact the most moral way for people to deal with
> each other! You've thrown away their superstition: it is now time
> for you to throw away the whip they say you should be using on
> yourself! The Nateman : I have seen the meaning of life, and it is
> I !

Nateman, where do you get your sense of "fair"? From whence comes
your idea of what is "Good". You keep saying that it is "objective".
Do you mean you believe in some sort of ultimate "Good" like Plato's
ideas? Who invented it? Did it come into existence with the Big