Never did anybody other than retarded atheists with nothing else to do claim that christians or jews say the earth is 6000 years old.
There are plenty of Young Earth Creationist Christians who believe the earth was created in 4004 BCE, making the earth 6000 years old. By saying atheists all came up with it you're showing your ignorance.
As for political, yes, it has changed the face of politics for good.
Burning witches on the stake was good? The crusades were good? Queen Isabella of Castile forcibly making Jews and Muslims either convert or leave Spain was good? The persecution of Gnostic Christians by the church was good? If you mean religion brought us democracy and liberty, you're wrong there too. Democracy and liberty came out of the Age of Enlightenment which was preceded by the Age of Reason in Europe. Both were rebellions from church authority. Among the Founding Fathers of the USA, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamen Franklin were supporters of Enlightenment, which gave rise to Classical Liberalism, meaning liberty and small governemnt.
Where is compassion without christianity or judaism I ask you?
However the FCC didn't apply any of those to the Janet Jackson Wardrobe Malfunction. Which was not a malfunction, Justin Timberlake intentially exposed her breast. I don't think any of the prongs can be applied in this case. However under the Bush admin all it takes is a few Christian Conservatives to complain to the FCC to issue a fine or for there to be hearings on something they consider indecent.
Upward mobility in the US is significantly worse than much of Europe for example and the American dream of "work hard and become rich" is just that, a dream.
It's more than just a dream. My parents were low income yet my two sisters and I went to college. My older sister and I went into the military then when we got out we both attended college. She is now a nurse. My younger sister got financial aid and worked her way through college. She got her BA then her Masters and now runs her own accounting firm. She also owns some rental property. From a low income my older sister now enjoys a medium income while the younger one enjoys a higher medium if not upper income.
Are we economically or socially equal if because of my inheritance I never have to work and simply live off the interest you and others pay me to "borrow" money so you can buy a home? Do you have the same opportunity I do?
You're equating outcome with opportunity, but yes people can move from a low income to a high income in the US. See both of my sisters.
But it still has less impact on normal people's lives than who their parents were.
Only if they let it hold them back. Most people can get financial aid in the US, or work part tyme while attending college. As I said earlier I went into the military, to save money to go to college. I wanted to be a Computer Engineer, so I enlisted in the Army and saved money to attend college after getting out. If I had been smart I also would have taken college classes while in the Army, they will pay some of your tuition. With all of your expenses paid, most people should be able to save money to take classes. I recall one Sargent in my unit, it took him 8 years but he finally earned his BA degree. And the day he got it was the happiest day I ever saw him. He could have gotten out and got a job earning a lot more money than he made in the Army, but he stayed in wanting to retire from the Army. He said something to the effect that only in America could someone go from growing up poor to being able to make a lot of money. Oh, also the military will help someone married buy a home, that's how my parents bought their home. My dad was in the Air Force, from which he retired, and they made it easy for my parents to qualify for a mortgage. Having said that, if there were one thing I could do to change how it works now what I'd do is have the military, er government, pay for one year of college for every year someone served in the military. Then I'd expand it to include civil services like the Voluntary International Service Assignments, VISA. Or the Peace Corp, which was based on VISA. The Forestry Service could start one where youth can work in the forests, I think there was one once.
"Extreme capitalism" refers to an economy where privately controlled industry is so much greater of a force than either socialism or communist cells, such that it causes the wealth to consistently consolidate into the hands of people who inherit wealth.
Ok, thanks for sharing what you mean by "extreme capitalism". However studies show the US has a high rate of mobility. While the discrepancy between what the top 10% and the bottom 50%, or whatever, has in income and wealth has widened even those at the bottom still have an easier life than just 100 years ago. Everyone is getting wealthier though the top is getting more, which I have no problem with.
So? How is growing the population through immigration a problem?
I don't see immigration as a problem, actually I believe in open borders. No, I really believe in getting rid of man made lines. My point was that without immigration most European nations would be experiencing a reduction in populations. Oh, and immigration as currently practiced is causing problems. Look at what some, mind you I don't want to paint with a broad brush, Muslims in Northern Europe have done. The murder of Theo van Gogh for instance. Or take the riots by Muslim youth in France a few years back.
Great, so religious wackos are breeding rapidly in the US and not so much in Europe
I don't know how fast they are breeding but religious fundies typically have more children than others. That may, or may not, be a potential problem in Europe too.
and you think that is a sign that the US society is healthier?
Now where in the world did you get the idea I think the US is healthier? If anything in some respects I think it's worse.
Theoretically a corporation serves the common good [alternet.org] or public good.
That hasn't even been theoretically true since the US was founded.
Ergo Thomas Jefferson's warning.
Many of those in the US who do not have medical coverage do not want it.
I don't believe this is a significant portion of the uninsured. Please provide a citation.
I don't have a citation, or the numbers, all I know is that some people don't want health insurance.
Whether you consider it good or evil, socialized healthcare in most places taxes the rich more and gives back to everyone equally, thus resulting in wealth being redistributed from the top to the bottom. This helps to stabilize a runaway, extreme capitalist economy by partially mitigating wealth condensation.
It's also bad for research. Though by no means all research is done in the US a lot is done here. And the US basically subsidizes the rest of the world. Whereas a drug may cost hundreds or thousands of dollars in the US, elsewhere the cost may be a lot lower. Bulk purchases can lower costs, like Walmart is doing. They're using their leverage to purchase drugs in hugh bulk volumes and selling them cheap, Walmart has pledged to sell a lot of drugs at or lower than $10. And many people complain about Walmart, including me.
Ahh, so you're arguing that socialized healthcare will increase your costs?
Yes, socialized medicine will increase my cost. I don't have medical insurance but if I'm forced to have some I will be forced to pay. Look at Massachusetts, the state passed a law requiring all residents to have medical insurance, and some can't afford it. The state helps some pay for it, however it doesn't help everyone who needs the help, and those who don't have coverage will be fined by the state. People will either have to pay for something they can't afford or they will pay a fine.
If you want everyone in the US, er those who want it, to be able to afford to have medical insurance then you have to change tax codes. During World War II the US passed Wage and Price Control Laws. Without the ability to pay employees more employers had trouble getting and keeping workers. After breaking free trade, to "correct" employers' problems, the government allowed them to offer employees fringe benefits such as health insurance, and neither employers nor employees had to then pay more in tax. However by allowing employers to pay employees more without raising tax for either, say letting an employer pay an employee $3600 a year more but not raising either one's taxes the employee could then take that $3600 and buy health insurance on their own. With so many more people able to get their own insurance insurance issuers will lower insurance premiums so more could afford it, it's called competition.
Hold on, I'm not finished. Change zoning laws to allow mixed use and let neighborhood clinics open up in them, without heavy and expensive regulations, as well as allowing people to start businesses in their homes. Allow alternative and complimentary medicine to be practiced. And encourage more home births. Most babies can be delivered safely at home, and such deliveries cost less. Delivery in a hospital can cost thousands of dollars whereas home births with a midwife may cost only a few hundred, if that. Also in hospitals many unnecessaryCaesarean sections are done rai
The garbageman's time is not as valuable as a doctor's. The garbageman went out one day and got a job that anyone can do
While true in a sense, not many want to be a garbageman. There's plenty of demand for garbagemen but there's not many who want to be one. At least not Americans, now ask an "illegal immigrant" to take the work and at least some will be happy.
what you're not taking into account is that your ability to study and work and make money is tied very strongly to the wealth of your parents. The primary determining factor for wealth is not how hard you work, but how wealthy your parents were.
And what you're not accounting for, at least in the US, is everyone has the opportunity. Opportunity is what counts for equality not outcome. What they do with that opportunity has a big impact on how their lives will turn out.
The main problem with extreme capitalism is "it takes money to make money."
And where does this "extreme capitalism" exist? And what is it?
The main problem is wealth is also power and so laws are changed and rewritten primarily by the wealthy, who tend to favor their own interests and constantly undermine said process without regard for the economic and societal collapse it eventually brings about.
Now this, with one change, I agree. Change "wealthy" to "corporate aristocracy".
Thomas Jefferson, 1812:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
The US Declaration of Independence declares rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Rights are tricky to define, but I think one facet of them is that they apply to everyone equally.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence that's what he wrote, that every had the same rights even slaves, of course he opposed slavery, and women. Unfortunately some who were going to sign the DOI believed in slavery and some thought women's rolls was to do what they were told to do. So he had to remove those parts in order to get the signatures.
That is the evil of Communism, when you think everything belongs to everyone, individuals have nothing and the government owns everything. Anarchic Communism is even worse, because everyone thinks they have the right to everything, and without any government to keep the order, we'd be in a constant state of war.
Actually anarchist don't like communists as much as you don't. Anarchists don't believe in government but communism requires big government. During the Russian revolution there were 2 different groups fighting against the Czar, communists or Bolshevik and anarchists. After they won the Bolsheviks turned on the anarchists, who were outspoken critics, though some did join the Bolsheviks.
I would suggest that for the average person from the gutter through the upper middle class, their wealth is proportional to their effort.
It's good you said "average person". Years ago I worked through a day labor pool, as a student it allowed me to work when I could, and I met quite a few homeless people who also worked through the labor pool. While a couple of them may of been lazy or shiftless, some were among the hardest working people I've met.
Food is non scarce today. Plenty of food is grown so nobody has to starve.
It's all about money and power over others when it comes down to it.
This is why so many people die from lack of food daily. There are 3 things working against the hungry, all rooted in money, politics, and or power. First there's conflict, such as in the Congo. Farmers take risks farming in conflict zones, if they themselves aren't killed they may find it hard to grow food. Then if they do they may find it stolen from them. Politics has damaged a lot of farming areas as well. Zimbabwe used to be the breadbasket of southern Africa, now it's a basket case. When President Robert Mugabe came to power he kicked a lot of farmers, many Whites, off their farms. He then gave those farms to his cronies, and those cronies didn't know how to farm. So the farms sat fallow, little if anything was grown on them. Next is money. Europe, Japan, and the US have subsidized their farmers to the tune of billions of dollars. In the US alone, congress approved a farm bill that would give US agricultural businesses almost 300 Billion US taxpayer dollars. With the large subsidies they will get, companies like Archer Daniels Midland, ADM, and Cargill can ship corn to Mexico and Central America and sell it cheaper than it costs farmers there to grow corn. And the US isn't the worst offender, the EU gives it's farmers a lot more whereas Japan gives them a little more.
Property Rights are just our backwards rationalization trying to solve complex problems and jusfify ou dominance over others in a world of scarcity, prejudice and mutual distrust and stupidity.
And it would be hard to eat if no body owned property.
Any property someone owns they did not create, they merely re-organized what already existed.
They made the land more valuable by, for instance, growing food on it.
You could say wealth & resources are available to anyone who works hard enough
You could say that, but you'd be wrong.
Equal opportunity != equal outcome. While some may not "make it", become wealthy or whatever, no matter how hard they try and work some do make it. My family's a good example. Though our parents never did make much money, we were low income, our mother taught my two sisters and I that if we tried and worked hard enough we could do almost anything we wanted. My older sister went to college and is a nurse now. My younger sister went to college and now runs her own business as well as owns some rental property. Me, I went to college, majoring in Computer Engineering. Unfortunately my college career basically ended when I had an accident wherein I survived a disabling injury.
Intellectual "property" is rapidly reaching the same state.
Yea, unfortunately IP is getting really idiotic. People shouldn't be granted patents willie-nillie. And copyright terms are ridiculous.
The government theoretically serves the people and realistically does to some degree. Private industry theoretically and realistically serves only the shareholders.
Theoretically a corporation serves the common good or public good. When the first corporations were granted corporate charters, their one purpose was to improve the common good. The first corporation to be chartered was the Dutch East India Company in 1602, and the second, Honourable East India Company. Both were shipping companies and shipping was a dangerous business to be in. A ship could be hit by a storm like a hurricane and sink. Or it could be attacked by pirates or another nation's navy, actually nations paid pirates to attack the ships of other nations. When the ship's cargo, or the ship itself, was lost the owner of the ship was liable for that loss. The owner of the cargo had to be compensated for the value of the cargo, and if any crew was lost the family of the crew had to be compensated as well. Not many investors were willing to risk everything they had on an investment in ships. So the British and Dutch crowns granted those who wanted to invest in a ship a limited liability. Investors could get together to form a corporation that owned one or more ships. Then if anything happened the most a stockholder could loose is what they invested.
The problem today is that governments have not held to the requirement that a corporation serve the common good. Instead, as Thomas Jefferson warned of, "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of the moneyed corporations, which dare already challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country", corporations have gain control over people and government.
and all of them have access to it instead of the huge numbers of people in the US who are without access
Many of those in the US who do not have medical coverage do not want it. When did it become good to force those who don't want health insurance to pay for it? Or those who lead a healthy life style pay for those who don't exercise, do smoke, and have poor diets?
Except that Europe is slowly dying. The population on the continent is in sharp, seemingly irreversible decline.
Umm, not according to all the numbers I've seen. Last I saw both the US and Europe were growing in population, both due primarily to immigration. Got a link to back up your assertion?
Ah, the key is "immigration", if there were no immigration in Europe it's population would be declining, the replacement rate of live child births (fertility rate) is 2.1, yet the countries of Europe have a rate that's lower. In Italy, because of it's declining population a village major threatened to levy a tax on singles. Which would have the oppose effect, it would just drive them away. While it's also declining in the US, because some religious communities "multiply", it's population isn't shrink quite as fast.
And like Europe, Japan and some Asian countries also have declining populations. In China it's estimated there will be more elderly than there are workers by 2050. Actually the only places where population isn't declining is Africa and Muslim countries.
Who is better off, you, living in a country where most people who are killed with guns are killed with their own gun, and the police are (reasonably) too cautious to help you when your life is threatened, or me, living in a country where no-one has guns and the police aren't scared?
Me, that's who. Armed citizens lowers crime rates studies have shown. When Florida passed a concealed carry law in 1987 while anti-gun supporters claimed crime would go up, it actually went down. Up until 1997 although 370,000 permits were issued only one person with a permit was convicted of homicide. Meanwhile Washington DC with a total ban on handguns, until the US Supreme Court strikes the law down, is the most dangerous jurisdiction in the US.
At the end of the day, the victor is the owner. Others may feel that they are the "rightful" owner, but if they're not in possession of the property, they're not the effective owner and of little to no consequence.
So if someone steals your car they are the rightful owner?
Unfortunately, US foreign policy is heavily skewed by special interest groups who are interested in picking sides, to the detriment of the rest of the nation.
Yeap, it's unfortunate but all too true. On both the right and left. Well maybe "right" isn't right, corporate aristocracy is better. They get their political puppets to give them hugh tax breaks if not massive subsidies. They also get the politicians to pass laws and regulations to limit competition. And the Christian conservatives want to tell people how to live. Then the leftists want to tax people and business to death. And they want those who live a healthy life style to pay for the health care of those who care for their health. Both of them want to limit what a person can do on their own even when they aren't harming anyone else.
Native Americans didn't even have calculus when they were discovered, and couldn't even make cast iron, let alone steel.
Native American may not of had calculus but Europeans didn't have "zero".
and couldn't even make cast iron, let alone steel.
American Indians were mining copper before the Americas were "discovered". In 1848 a copper mine was found showing mining was done as early as 3000BC on the shore of Lake Superior in Wisconsin.
Hmmm, that could be plausible, but then, if my use of the land produces economic growth, then, you would have to weigh his desires with the desires of the society as a whole. Like, what if I built a factory that employed 1,000 people with good, high paying jobs and raised up a people in my community into the middle class?
Let's make a little change there, what if the workers take over the property? That's what's happened in South America. Someone who owns a factory closes shop and fires all the workers, the Chinese work cheaper. So the workers occupy the factory and restart the assembly lines.
Wait - you do realise that Macs and PCs use the same kinds of hard disk?
The same type but not the same manufacturer and some are better than others.
You do also realise that there is more than one make of PC motherboard, so your anecdotal "evidence" is useless without knowing which manufacturer it was?
So what, you said I was happy with Apple as if PC were better. I point out I've had Mac hardware last years without problems but had hardware problems with 3 out of 4 PCs.
And yet you're happy to buy Apple. How many replacement logic boards did some (several thousands) people's Powerbooks go through?
I have had two hardware problems with Macs. The first one was when the floppy drive on a Mac SE30 I bought used in 1992 failed in 2000. I had it 8 years without a problem, that is other than it not being expandable. The second problem was when a Power Macintosh 7300/200 I bought a couple of months later used refused to bootup in 2006. I used it 6 years. I got 2 used Macs that lasted years.
On the other hand I bought 3 new PCs, two with Windows and one with Linux preinstalled, and the mobo died on each one in the first year, and the hdd on the Windows PCs died within a few months. I have not had hardware trouble on only one PC I bought new. Unfortunately it has a DEC Alpha CPU and though it runs Windows NT4, and Redhat Linux, I could only install a few Windows programs on it.
Two used Macs lasted me years whereas 3 new PCs had hardware fail in the first year.
Slashdot Mirror
Never did anybody other than retarded atheists with nothing else to do claim that christians or jews say the earth is 6000 years old.
There are plenty of Young Earth Creationist Christians who believe the earth was created in 4004 BCE, making the earth 6000 years old. By saying atheists all came up with it you're showing your ignorance.
As for political, yes, it has changed the face of politics for good.
Burning witches on the stake was good? The crusades were good? Queen Isabella of Castile forcibly making Jews and Muslims either convert or leave Spain was good? The persecution of Gnostic Christians by the church was good? If you mean religion brought us democracy and liberty, you're wrong there too. Democracy and liberty came out of the Age of Enlightenment which was preceded by the Age of Reason in Europe. Both were rebellions from church authority. Among the Founding Fathers of the USA, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamen Franklin were supporters of Enlightenment, which gave rise to Classical Liberalism, meaning liberty and small governemnt.
Where is compassion without christianity or judaism I ask you?
Compassion is partially what Buddhism is about. Specifically Buddhism is about eliminating suffering. The Four Noble Truths focuses on suffering. Islam too deals with compassion and suffering.
FalconHowever the FCC didn't apply any of those to the Janet Jackson Wardrobe Malfunction. Which was not a malfunction, Justin Timberlake intentially exposed her breast. I don't think any of the prongs can be applied in this case. However under the Bush admin all it takes is a few Christian Conservatives to complain to the FCC to issue a fine or for there to be hearings on something they consider indecent.
FalconUpward mobility in the US is significantly worse than much of Europe for example and the American dream of "work hard and become rich" is just that, a dream.
It's more than just a dream. My parents were low income yet my two sisters and I went to college. My older sister and I went into the military then when we got out we both attended college. She is now a nurse. My younger sister got financial aid and worked her way through college. She got her BA then her Masters and now runs her own accounting firm. She also owns some rental property. From a low income my older sister now enjoys a medium income while the younger one enjoys a higher medium if not upper income.
Are we economically or socially equal if because of my inheritance I never have to work and simply live off the interest you and others pay me to "borrow" money so you can buy a home? Do you have the same opportunity I do?
You're equating outcome with opportunity, but yes people can move from a low income to a high income in the US. See both of my sisters.
But it still has less impact on normal people's lives than who their parents were.
Only if they let it hold them back. Most people can get financial aid in the US, or work part tyme while attending college. As I said earlier I went into the military, to save money to go to college. I wanted to be a Computer Engineer, so I enlisted in the Army and saved money to attend college after getting out. If I had been smart I also would have taken college classes while in the Army, they will pay some of your tuition. With all of your expenses paid, most people should be able to save money to take classes. I recall one Sargent in my unit, it took him 8 years but he finally earned his BA degree. And the day he got it was the happiest day I ever saw him. He could have gotten out and got a job earning a lot more money than he made in the Army, but he stayed in wanting to retire from the Army. He said something to the effect that only in America could someone go from growing up poor to being able to make a lot of money. Oh, also the military will help someone married buy a home, that's how my parents bought their home. My dad was in the Air Force, from which he retired, and they made it easy for my parents to qualify for a mortgage. Having said that, if there were one thing I could do to change how it works now what I'd do is have the military, er government, pay for one year of college for every year someone served in the military. Then I'd expand it to include civil services like the Voluntary International Service Assignments, VISA. Or the Peace Corp, which was based on VISA. The Forestry Service could start one where youth can work in the forests, I think there was one once.
"Extreme capitalism" refers to an economy where privately controlled industry is so much greater of a force than either socialism or communist cells, such that it causes the wealth to consistently consolidate into the hands of people who inherit wealth.
Ok, thanks for sharing what you mean by "extreme capitalism". However studies show the US has a high rate of mobility. While the discrepancy between what the top 10% and the bottom 50%, or whatever, has in income and wealth has widened even those at the bottom still have an easier life than just 100 years ago. Everyone is getting wealthier though the top is getting more, which I have no problem with.
FalconSo? How is growing the population through immigration a problem?
I don't see immigration as a problem, actually I believe in open borders. No, I really believe in getting rid of man made lines. My point was that without immigration most European nations would be experiencing a reduction in populations. Oh, and immigration as currently practiced is causing problems. Look at what some, mind you I don't want to paint with a broad brush, Muslims in Northern Europe have done. The murder of Theo van Gogh for instance. Or take the riots by Muslim youth in France a few years back.
Great, so religious wackos are breeding rapidly in the US and not so much in Europe
I don't know how fast they are breeding but religious fundies typically have more children than others. That may, or may not, be a potential problem in Europe too.
and you think that is a sign that the US society is healthier?
Now where in the world did you get the idea I think the US is healthier? If anything in some respects I think it's worse.
FalconTheoretically a corporation serves the common good [alternet.org] or public good.
That hasn't even been theoretically true since the US was founded.
Ergo Thomas Jefferson's warning.
Many of those in the US who do not have medical coverage do not want it.
I don't believe this is a significant portion of the uninsured. Please provide a citation.
I don't have a citation, or the numbers, all I know is that some people don't want health insurance.
Whether you consider it good or evil, socialized healthcare in most places taxes the rich more and gives back to everyone equally, thus resulting in wealth being redistributed from the top to the bottom. This helps to stabilize a runaway, extreme capitalist economy by partially mitigating wealth condensation.
It's also bad for research. Though by no means all research is done in the US a lot is done here. And the US basically subsidizes the rest of the world. Whereas a drug may cost hundreds or thousands of dollars in the US, elsewhere the cost may be a lot lower. Bulk purchases can lower costs, like Walmart is doing. They're using their leverage to purchase drugs in hugh bulk volumes and selling them cheap, Walmart has pledged to sell a lot of drugs at or lower than $10. And many people complain about Walmart, including me.
Ahh, so you're arguing that socialized healthcare will increase your costs?
Yes, socialized medicine will increase my cost. I don't have medical insurance but if I'm forced to have some I will be forced to pay. Look at Massachusetts, the state passed a law requiring all residents to have medical insurance, and some can't afford it. The state helps some pay for it, however it doesn't help everyone who needs the help, and those who don't have coverage will be fined by the state. People will either have to pay for something they can't afford or they will pay a fine.
If you want everyone in the US, er those who want it, to be able to afford to have medical insurance then you have to change tax codes. During World War II the US passed Wage and Price Control Laws. Without the ability to pay employees more employers had trouble getting and keeping workers. After breaking free trade, to "correct" employers' problems, the government allowed them to offer employees fringe benefits such as health insurance, and neither employers nor employees had to then pay more in tax. However by allowing employers to pay employees more without raising tax for either, say letting an employer pay an employee $3600 a year more but not raising either one's taxes the employee could then take that $3600 and buy health insurance on their own. With so many more people able to get their own insurance insurance issuers will lower insurance premiums so more could afford it, it's called competition.
Hold on, I'm not finished. Change zoning laws to allow mixed use and let neighborhood clinics open up in them, without heavy and expensive regulations, as well as allowing people to start businesses in their homes. Allow alternative and complimentary medicine to be practiced. And encourage more home births. Most babies can be delivered safely at home, and such deliveries cost less. Delivery in a hospital can cost thousands of dollars whereas home births with a midwife may cost only a few hundred, if that. Also in hospitals many unnecessary Caesarean sections are done rai
The garbageman's time is not as valuable as a doctor's. The garbageman went out one day and got a job that anyone can do
While true in a sense, not many want to be a garbageman. There's plenty of demand for garbagemen but there's not many who want to be one. At least not Americans, now ask an "illegal immigrant" to take the work and at least some will be happy.
Falcon
what you're not taking into account is that your ability to study and work and make money is tied very strongly to the wealth of your parents. The primary determining factor for wealth is not how hard you work, but how wealthy your parents were.
And what you're not accounting for, at least in the US, is everyone has the opportunity. Opportunity is what counts for equality not outcome. What they do with that opportunity has a big impact on how their lives will turn out.
The main problem with extreme capitalism is "it takes money to make money."
And where does this "extreme capitalism" exist? And what is it?
The main problem is wealth is also power and so laws are changed and rewritten primarily by the wealthy, who tend to favor their own interests and constantly undermine said process without regard for the economic and societal collapse it eventually brings about.
Now this, with one change, I agree. Change "wealthy" to "corporate aristocracy".
Thomas Jefferson, 1812:
Falcon"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
The US Declaration of Independence declares rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Rights are tricky to define, but I think one facet of them is that they apply to everyone equally.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence that's what he wrote, that every had the same rights even slaves, of course he opposed slavery, and women. Unfortunately some who were going to sign the DOI believed in slavery and some thought women's rolls was to do what they were told to do. So he had to remove those parts in order to get the signatures.
FalconThat is the evil of Communism, when you think everything belongs to everyone, individuals have nothing and the government owns everything. Anarchic Communism is even worse, because everyone thinks they have the right to everything, and without any government to keep the order, we'd be in a constant state of war.
Actually anarchist don't like communists as much as you don't. Anarchists don't believe in government but communism requires big government. During the Russian revolution there were 2 different groups fighting against the Czar, communists or Bolshevik and anarchists. After they won the Bolsheviks turned on the anarchists, who were outspoken critics, though some did join the Bolsheviks.
FalconI would suggest that for the average person from the gutter through the upper middle class, their wealth is proportional to their effort.
It's good you said "average person". Years ago I worked through a day labor pool, as a student it allowed me to work when I could, and I met quite a few homeless people who also worked through the labor pool. While a couple of them may of been lazy or shiftless, some were among the hardest working people I've met.
FalconLand is without value until a human does something with it.
Land has value before humans do anything to it, whether any one recognizes it or not.
Moving a boundary stone was punishable by death!
A boundary could also be something else, say the distance a horse could travel in a set period of tyme, or the area an ox could plow in a day.
FalconFood is non scarce today. Plenty of food is grown so nobody has to starve.
It's all about money and power over others when it comes down to it.
This is why so many people die from lack of food daily. There are 3 things working against the hungry, all rooted in money, politics, and or power. First there's conflict, such as in the Congo. Farmers take risks farming in conflict zones, if they themselves aren't killed they may find it hard to grow food. Then if they do they may find it stolen from them. Politics has damaged a lot of farming areas as well. Zimbabwe used to be the breadbasket of southern Africa, now it's a basket case. When President Robert Mugabe came to power he kicked a lot of farmers, many Whites, off their farms. He then gave those farms to his cronies, and those cronies didn't know how to farm. So the farms sat fallow, little if anything was grown on them. Next is money. Europe, Japan, and the US have subsidized their farmers to the tune of billions of dollars. In the US alone, congress approved a farm bill that would give US agricultural businesses almost 300 Billion US taxpayer dollars. With the large subsidies they will get, companies like Archer Daniels Midland, ADM, and Cargill can ship corn to Mexico and Central America and sell it cheaper than it costs farmers there to grow corn. And the US isn't the worst offender, the EU gives it's farmers a lot more whereas Japan gives them a little more.
FalconProperty Rights are just our backwards rationalization trying to solve complex problems and jusfify ou dominance over others in a world of scarcity, prejudice and mutual distrust and stupidity.
And it would be hard to eat if no body owned property.
Any property someone owns they did not create, they merely re-organized what already existed.
They made the land more valuable by, for instance, growing food on it.
FalconNo, in other words Might Makes Right.
FalconYou could say wealth & resources are available to anyone who works hard enough
You could say that, but you'd be wrong.
Equal opportunity != equal outcome. While some may not "make it", become wealthy or whatever, no matter how hard they try and work some do make it. My family's a good example. Though our parents never did make much money, we were low income, our mother taught my two sisters and I that if we tried and worked hard enough we could do almost anything we wanted. My older sister went to college and is a nurse now. My younger sister went to college and now runs her own business as well as owns some rental property. Me, I went to college, majoring in Computer Engineering. Unfortunately my college career basically ended when I had an accident wherein I survived a disabling injury.
Intellectual "property" is rapidly reaching the same state.
Yea, unfortunately IP is getting really idiotic. People shouldn't be granted patents willie-nillie. And copyright terms are ridiculous.
FalconThe government theoretically serves the people and realistically does to some degree. Private industry theoretically and realistically serves only the shareholders.
Theoretically a corporation serves the common good or public good. When the first corporations were granted corporate charters, their one purpose was to improve the common good. The first corporation to be chartered was the Dutch East India Company in 1602, and the second, Honourable East India Company. Both were shipping companies and shipping was a dangerous business to be in. A ship could be hit by a storm like a hurricane and sink. Or it could be attacked by pirates or another nation's navy, actually nations paid pirates to attack the ships of other nations. When the ship's cargo, or the ship itself, was lost the owner of the ship was liable for that loss. The owner of the cargo had to be compensated for the value of the cargo, and if any crew was lost the family of the crew had to be compensated as well. Not many investors were willing to risk everything they had on an investment in ships. So the British and Dutch crowns granted those who wanted to invest in a ship a limited liability. Investors could get together to form a corporation that owned one or more ships. Then if anything happened the most a stockholder could loose is what they invested.
The problem today is that governments have not held to the requirement that a corporation serve the common good. Instead, as Thomas Jefferson warned of, "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of the moneyed corporations, which dare already challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country", corporations have gain control over people and government.
and all of them have access to it instead of the huge numbers of people in the US who are without access
Many of those in the US who do not have medical coverage do not want it. When did it become good to force those who don't want health insurance to pay for it? Or those who lead a healthy life style pay for those who don't exercise, do smoke, and have poor diets?
FalconExcept that Europe is slowly dying. The population on the continent is in sharp, seemingly irreversible decline.
Umm, not according to all the numbers I've seen. Last I saw both the US and Europe were growing in population, both due primarily to immigration. Got a link to back up your assertion?
Ah, the key is "immigration", if there were no immigration in Europe it's population would be declining, the replacement rate of live child births (fertility rate) is 2.1, yet the countries of Europe have a rate that's lower. In Italy, because of it's declining population a village major threatened to levy a tax on singles. Which would have the oppose effect, it would just drive them away. While it's also declining in the US, because some religious communities "multiply", it's population isn't shrink quite as fast.
And like Europe, Japan and some Asian countries also have declining populations. In China it's estimated there will be more elderly than there are workers by 2050. Actually the only places where population isn't declining is Africa and Muslim countries.
FalconThe property rights begin at the point that society couldn't be maintained any other way. They are a social tool that in general makes society work.
Go to Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota, some day to see how things are. Shannon County, the county it's in, is one of the US's poorest counties.
"About 400,000 American Indians whom live on reservations, have the highest rates of poverty, unemployment and disease of any ethnic group in America."
FalconWho is better off, you, living in a country where most people who are killed with guns are killed with their own gun, and the police are (reasonably) too cautious to help you when your life is threatened, or me, living in a country where no-one has guns and the police aren't scared?
Me, that's who. Armed citizens lowers crime rates studies have shown. When Florida passed a concealed carry law in 1987 while anti-gun supporters claimed crime would go up, it actually went down. Up until 1997 although 370,000 permits were issued only one person with a permit was convicted of homicide. Meanwhile Washington DC with a total ban on handguns, until the US Supreme Court strikes the law down, is the most dangerous jurisdiction in the US.
FalconAt the end of the day, the victor is the owner. Others may feel that they are the "rightful" owner, but if they're not in possession of the property, they're not the effective owner and of little to no consequence.
So if someone steals your car they are the rightful owner?
Unfortunately, US foreign policy is heavily skewed by special interest groups who are interested in picking sides, to the detriment of the rest of the nation.
Yeap, it's unfortunate but all too true. On both the right and left. Well maybe "right" isn't right, corporate aristocracy is better. They get their political puppets to give them hugh tax breaks if not massive subsidies. They also get the politicians to pass laws and regulations to limit competition. And the Christian conservatives want to tell people how to live. Then the leftists want to tax people and business to death. And they want those who live a healthy life style to pay for the health care of those who care for their health. Both of them want to limit what a person can do on their own even when they aren't harming anyone else.
FalconNative Americans didn't even have calculus when they were discovered, and couldn't even make cast iron, let alone steel.
Native American may not of had calculus but Europeans didn't have "zero".
and couldn't even make cast iron, let alone steel.
American Indians were mining copper before the Americas were "discovered". In 1848 a copper mine was found showing mining was done as early as 3000BC on the shore of Lake Superior in Wisconsin.
FalconHmmm, that could be plausible, but then, if my use of the land produces economic growth, then, you would have to weigh his desires with the desires of the society as a whole. Like, what if I built a factory that employed 1,000 people with good, high paying jobs and raised up a people in my community into the middle class?
Let's make a little change there, what if the workers take over the property? That's what's happened in South America. Someone who owns a factory closes shop and fires all the workers, the Chinese work cheaper. So the workers occupy the factory and restart the assembly lines.
FalconWait - you do realise that Macs and PCs use the same kinds of hard disk?
The same type but not the same manufacturer and some are better than others.
You do also realise that there is more than one make of PC motherboard, so your anecdotal "evidence" is useless without knowing which manufacturer it was?
So what, you said I was happy with Apple as if PC were better. I point out I've had Mac hardware last years without problems but had hardware problems with 3 out of 4 PCs.
FalconAnd yet you're happy to buy Apple. How many replacement logic boards did some (several thousands) people's Powerbooks go through?
I have had two hardware problems with Macs. The first one was when the floppy drive on a Mac SE30 I bought used in 1992 failed in 2000. I had it 8 years without a problem, that is other than it not being expandable. The second problem was when a Power Macintosh 7300/200 I bought a couple of months later used refused to bootup in 2006. I used it 6 years. I got 2 used Macs that lasted years.
On the other hand I bought 3 new PCs, two with Windows and one with Linux preinstalled, and the mobo died on each one in the first year, and the hdd on the Windows PCs died within a few months. I have not had hardware trouble on only one PC I bought new. Unfortunately it has a DEC Alpha CPU and though it runs Windows NT4, and Redhat Linux, I could only install a few Windows programs on it.
Two used Macs lasted me years whereas 3 new PCs had hardware fail in the first year.
FalconMy point is that as long as there are legitimate uses for something it shouldn't be blocked or outlawed.
And as for laws there's a good flowchart on "Should there be a law".
Falcon