- Capitalism and Alternatives -

BTW- Po's the Red One... ;)

Posted by: Red Deathy ( Socialist Party, UK ) on July 19, 1999 at 13:55:11:

In Reply to: rabbits posted by Gee on July 15, 1999 at 23:00:12:

: Its not ducking, its focussing on what you would actually have to do in order to alter it, the need to alter parents decisions (even in economically equal families) and to overcome resistence, as well as to show that the childs circumstances must be chnaged without his.her culpibility or deservedness in either case.

What do we need to do? Exactly the same as when someone who once lived near a convientient bus stop finds the routes been moved, we just change the basis of the system, removing their privellege outright, and they have to alter their choices from there on in. And you are ducking, badly.

: You either rely on reforming via ever increasing state intrusion like various state socialists and greens which achieves very little in anyones favor or overcome said resistence, not just from a few millionaires but just about every family in Europe, America and the far east.

Why should we have to Overcome all those people? Our solution would be to abolish state recognition of property rights, and to co-operate world wide to raise everyones standard of living. I can easilly see us getting substantial majorities for that. Why is there an opposition betweeen ourselves and the poor world, there is none.

: Will you accept that a child experiences privilage as naturally as genetics? Only we ,outside looking in, are making 'its not fair' judgements. Babies dont like you to take candy, whatever the next baby has - theyre right to perceive that they are being lowered from their viewpoint. boo hoo, they go.

And babies cry, thats their job, our job is to see justice done, they'll get over it. We cannot rationally discuss the world from a babies eye view.

: And who gets to decide who needs it? Circular isnt it.

The humans who need it.

: And a new one every week I hear your lottery advertise! The above leaves the ethiopian worse off than the lancashire family, whose house, nearby school etc makes them privilaged by comparison. That kind of inequality acceptable?

No, but the difference is that the Ethiopians, with access to resources provided by us, will be able to develop quickly to be able to equal those resopurces. Since we've abolished money, what're we gonna do, move the school buildings?

: Thats turning it around and strictly speaking, yes it is. Its logical extreme is imprisoning newborns incase they might one murder, so as to stop that from being possible. unless Ive grasped the wrong end of the stick in terms of meaning.

Its logical absurdity, more like. However, since children are dying of poverty, is it authoritarian to prevent that murder, by changing the economic system. You've accepted that economic systems are the result of human agency, thus it is murder, not accident.

: In the babies case by virtue of parents productivity and choice to bestow such on child, in burglars case by the theft of anothers product.

Both of which points are irrelevent to my point, unless I can have just unearned rewards through another's efforts. And those parents who worked only earned as muych as they did, because of their positioning in the total social structure of production- if indeed they earned at all. In terms of Justice, tehre is no difference between the baby and the wife.

: Consider the Ethiopian example, even the 'lowliest' working man in Spain is far better off than the average Ethiopian, and is (to an Ethiopian) very much priviliged. The resistence wouldnt be from 6 million millionaires, but about 1-2 billion Americans, Europeans and Asians who live at 'western' standards even while being 'poor'. As you have correctly occluded national socialism you must persuade these near 2 billion to forego their privilige to make things even with the 3rd world.

And that privellege is possibly to go work there and help them use their resources to provide for them, to share access to necessary resources, and allow them to develop for themselves- once the inhibitting factor of the market is removed.

: He found it. Kid 2 didnt. Oh dear. Kid 2 says 'therefore I deserve half of it', a leap from what happened to what kid 2 thinks ought to happen.

He didn't find it, it was, as with an economic system or a bus route, just left near him, and Kid two has a point, why doesn't he have what their sibling has?

: a non inclusive democracy? Like a revenge.

No, they get a vote, we just out-vote them.

:Whats the acceptable percentage, i once read a novel in which an imaginary government had to have a 90% vote for an issue even to be discussed - not many laws were passed. Same 90+ for you?

No, just an overwhelming majority, I won't put a figure on it, because someone always goes, but what about when n -1% support you? It'll be an overwhelming majority.

: All systems do that, even 'equal' parents can bestow different things on their children with the outcome that one is better prepared for life than the other.

Well, if they ahd equal access to resources, then thats fair, and just, but if one parent is poor (both in resources and time for their children), because of an economic system, thats injust.

: You demand enough food and shelter to save the world and businesses line up to compete for your effective demand. And you know its affordible, if people only wanted to do that!

No, because production is geared:
1:To high profit.
2:Towards them as have billions of dollars.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup