[Pax]

Originally posted by PvK:
To answer you're oh-so-polite question about whether I am a communist or a socialist, I wouldn't say so, but I have received that question (usually voiced as an accusation...) from people who well, I'll just say I guess you'd probably get along with better than I would. Is there something that offends or threatens you about discussing better systems of ecomony and law than the current ones? Nor would I call myself a "capitalist" - would you?

PvK

There's nothing wrong with beign a communist or socialist -- though I tend to think such systems, taken as-is, have their OWN set of inherent flaws.

As for myself -- I consider myself a pragmatist. I know the current system isn't perfect, however, I consider it to be, generally speaking, close to the instinctive ideal of human behavior. And I don't think trashing the whole thing is a workable premise (the soviets found out that total communism just didn't work that well).

I tend to think a hybrid of the various economic models might function best -- a semi-free market socialism, if you will. Socialist models for such things as basic health care, education, mass transit, public utilities like power water and heat, and construction/maintenance of roads, bridges, and other publicly-used structures.

All else ... somewhere between a free market (at the smallfry end of the spectrum) to a planned economy (at the big-fish end of the spectrum). With the whole, preferably, ecologically "friendly".

I support the creation, maintenance, and enforcing of laws which do indeed promote the public weal; OTOH, I also support the concept of minimist government: do the most governing with the least intrusive measures.

IP is one of the things I think should be zealously guarded and protected. Elsewhere in this thread, someone -- I don't know if it was you or someone else -- suggested a return to the older ways, where wealthy families supported artists as a prestige symbol.

Which would only mean that art would, inherently, reflect only the ideals and aims of the rich; that the only artists whoc oudl afford to devote themselves to their work, would be those who were friends with wealthy people ... or were wealthy themselves.

I cannot accept that; art should belong to all of society, in terms of being valued. In order to encourage it's creation, and promote a never-ending effort to better the art produced by each artist ... protected IP and a free market economy for art is important. Artists then can feel safe making art that reflects their own views; if need be, they can also churn out schlock that the wealthier people will pay for, in order to fund their "real" art -- if there's a difference, ofc.

Protecting IP protects art from plagiarist theft; since "art" is defined individually by ech of us -- one man's trash is another's abstract art -- we must protect all IP, without prejudice.

The only real problems I see WRT copyright laws are (a) the ever-extended periods of protected status, and (b) the fact it is a civil, and therefor purely monetary, issue.

As for asking if you were communist or socialist ... your position is very strongly pro-socialist or pro-communist WRT economics; it's the whole "down with the evil corporations, up with the individual people" thing; I figured it couldn't hurt to ask.

Lastly -- the question of wether or not discussing "better" economic models offends me: not at all. When someone presents to me a truly better economic model, which will work in the real world, I'll step right up to support them in "spreading the word" ...

That has yet to work, though; socialism and communism trade some old problems, for some new problems -- all you do is shuffle around who gets screwed and who doesn't; who's happy and who isn't; who has opportunity and who doesn't. You don't improve the whole, only those parts with which the proponent (in this case you) most closely identifies.

So of course, corporate bigwigs support capitalism (it lines their pockets and makes their lives better); small folks who've been burned by capitalist corporations support a more socialist economy (it lines THEIR pockets and makes THEIR lives better); and so on.

All of it is about redistribution of wealth, and none of them are lily-white perfect-and-fair systems. None of them.