: : Perhaps you remember a little social experiment a few years back. I seemed like a good idea at the time, yet in the end, it blew up in the faces of those who said it would work. What was that called? Hmmm, I can't seem to remember. Oh, let's see, could it have been the Soviet Union? That's right, now I remember.: Funny, I could have sworn it was called "Reaganomics". Maybe you're right, on the other hand - you couldn't call Mad Ron "social" by any yardstick.
: Hmm. "Soviet Union"... The only thing I can think of was a totalitarian state set up in Eastern Europe at the end of WWI that fell prey to the heirarchical nature of the power base in it (i.e. the bosses creamed off the profits for themselves, as usually happens in capitalist systems).
Reaganomics didn't work the way Reagan thought that it would - you're right. In fact that's about the only thing you say through this entire capitalism smear campaign that is right. Trickle down economics does not appeal to me simply because of its supposed practical benefits, but more because of its moral ones. The very idea that the poor and middle class are entitled to the money that has been earned by the upper classes is disgusting. This is why communism and socialism are the most selfish economic forms. Under communist and socialist regimes, the very first and basic principle is that a certain class of people have the right to the fruits of the labor of other classes. Is it not selfish for me to say, "Give your money, just because! No you don't owe to me for any reason, I just want it because i don't have any, so GIVE IT TO ME! I want, I want, I want!"?
: : Communism, Socialism, Marxism, what ever you want to call it, just doesn't work. It has been proven.
: That's an impressively sweeping statement, of a size inversely proportional to the number of neurons that fired to produce it.
: Firstly, each of the terms defines a separate ideology. Ask Ashley.
: (go ahead, make his day...)
: Secondly, not even the most incompetent of scientists would say that the results of a single flawed experiment "proved" or "disproved" a theory.
: Thirdly, your tone would suggest that it does not work not because of any failing on its own part, but merely because you disagree with it. Sorry, you're no more important than any of us.
While it is hard to discern someone's tone from something they have written, you obviously seem to pull it off, so I won't question your ear. Your assertion that she is wrong simply because she thinks she is right is no more proof than her "sweeping statement" indicating that communism is wrong because it failed once. Now let us have some solid proof. Forget communism in Russia. Communists are always saying it failed because "the wrong people were in charge," so we'll allow that example to be discredited simply for the sake of argument. Now lwt's look at some others. North Korea - land of the happy? I think not. Cuba - land of the wealthy? Again I think not. Oh, but these examples too must be discredited, once again because there are a certain group of people in charge who are corrupt and therefore it screws up the whole system - one that would work if it weren't for these people. Fine. Has it ever occured to any one that the very reason communism fails is that because under such a system it ALLOWS power hungry tyrants to rule countries? Did anyone ever think that this isn't a factor that ruins communism, BUT A VERY SYMPTOM OF COMMUNISM? Of course not. So now let's turn to the most important "real world" example of the failure of communism.
In the early part of the seventeenth century a group of religious pilgrims came to what is no the United States to escape religious persecution. These people were very hard-working "Christian" types who simply wanted to get away from the oppression of the "old world." While they were travelling on thire ship, THE MAYFLOWER, they wrote a charter for a new government in which all the people would compile their profits (agricultural at the time) into a common store. No tyrants would run this system, it would be completely voluntary and that way everyone would get the same amount of food and no one would go without. Perfect. Commmunism in its purest form. No power-hungry rulers to screw up the equation. Then you must ask, my liberal friend, "did it work?" No, just the opposite. Half of the poeople starved to death in the first year. Not in the winter, either, in the SUMMER, when food was abundant. Why then did they die? Because these hard-working people became lazy and greedy thinking that everyione else would do the work for them. Why should they work when everyone else would and they could just feed off fof them.
: : Humans are selfish and greedy by nature, it can't be changed.
: Again, spoken with all the force and conviction of a deity. I bow to your superior wisdom; your immense brain has obviously examined in depth every possible future for the entire human race.
Let me ask: How is your "tone" of superiority any different from hers, my radical friend? Admit it, you don't agree with her so you fabricate an image of her being all superior and thinking that she knows everything. I know Cara, and she is none of these things.
: : An econimic system must be designed that can accomodate the needs of the human race.
: An economic system must be designed that can accommodate the needs of the entire planet. Not one that accommodates the whims of the richest 10% for about 250 years before destroying the planet's life-bearing weave. Oh, for your information, the 250-year glut started about 220 years ago.
Do you think this country is destroying the earth? Let me explain something: Under the CAPITALIST/DEMOCRATIC system which the United States now operates, the purity of the air and water in the United States has improved 25% over the last 20-some years. That's right, the Environmental protection act, sponsored by strong Capitalist believer RICHARD M. (EVIL) NIXON has worked! Under communist Russia (yes, I'm using them as an example again, I don't know where I got this brain damage or, what, precisely, is wrong with me) pollution and environmental degradation was 10 times worse than it ever qwas in the United States. Farmland was destroyed by the acre, not because of the evil people at the top, but because of the low class who wer supposed to benefit from the system. The reason the situatio was so bad was because people did not own the property they were given to look after. What did they care if the land was destroyed? Then they just A) would be given another piece of land by the all loving PEOPLE (government) or B) they would no longer have to work becasue there was no land to work on! YIPPEE! Why would they care if land/air/water was destroyed of they didn't own it. One absolute in life that even you cannot deny is that ownership breeds responsibility.
: Define "The Real World".
: The "real" world, as I understand it, is a rocky satellite of a middle-of-the-road star and is host to various carbon-based life forms. These life forms exist in a balance, such that harmful materials are processed out of the system. If one species becomes dominant and produces enough in the way of toxins, the balance may well change.
Oh neat - a scientist. You must admit, my tree loving friend, that such a thing as INSTINCT does exist. Or wait, maybe that is just one of those things we are fed from birth. Man would not exist if he/she did not have built in behaviors for survival, such as the need to reproduce. One of these instincts is to look out for him/herself first. I know what makes me happy. I know best how to keep myself alive best. Therefore doesn't it make the best sense to let me run my life however I want and keep the benefits of that work and allow you to do the same? Please agree, it would make me happy.
: We don't know what it will do. It may change the balance to cope with the pollutants the species (humanity) is producing. Which will make life difficult, in that human-produced pollutants are, on the whole, harmful to humans. Alternatively, the balance could shift to eradicate the polluting species entirely, producing a species extinction, if you subscribe to Lovelock's theories.
Let me ask you something - what would be the consequences of human extinction? List just one for me. Would it make you unhappy? I don't think so, YOU'RE DEAD!
: Human nature is not "real" in any conventional sense. Human pollution is. Guns are a more immediate threat to me than divine retribution.
Really? Why then do we have sexual attraction if it is not human nature to continue the species. I guess it's just something Hugh Heffner made up so that he could make a buck in this evil, malevelolent, capitalist nation we know as the United States of America. Sorry about all the typos, Im in a hurry.
Michael Owens
Future President of the United States
