I'm not saying that pre-industrial life was a rosy wonderland, but in some of my darker moments I think the Amish might have the right idea (toss out this bLasted computer and go back to my family farm). But I do believe we could at least make it available as an option, but in today's world an independant samll scale farmer cannot compete with the mass-production farming of today. But the farming practices of today don't yeild any more food per acre then those methods of yester-year. They may do it with less man power (and they use 4 times more water) and therefore cheaper for those that can afford massive expensive Combines and the like.
I like the bucolic backgound of where I live compared to the slum I grew up in. I'll take the smell of manure over a garbage strewn street anyday. I'm also happy I don't have to live off the land like my forbears did back in the "old country" and that a sytem of combines and distribution systems allow me to take the fruits of my labor (paycheck) and trade it in for a decent life (no mini-mansion or Lexus' for me, thanks). Anecdotal info: the Amish produce more food per acre than any modern mechanized farming process. I've visited them and I prefer electricity and the computer I play SE4 on.
But Capitalism really doesn't reward the average Joe/Jane, it only appears to... It rewards the large businessman who can produce items cheaper than any small scale operator. Thus money tends to flow upwards towards to richest people who control all their many conglomerates buying out the common man. Sure some people get lucky and provide just the right service at the right time and make it rich. They then go on to buy up competetor's and form another conglomerate. And Socialism in practice is a different creature than Socialism in theory. I believe that a true Communist or Socialist government doesn't reward 'sloth' it gives everyone a fair deal, an even playing field and lets everyone stop worrying about whether the steel plant is cutting back.
Except that Socialism and communism in theory is just that.. theory, just like pure capitalism. Human "frailties" (human nature) will prevent that proposed ideal from ever becoming reality. In even the most stringent Marxist construct, hierarchies will arise complete with elites calling themselves the "proletarian intelligentsia" or the "politburo". When it does level the playing field, the net effect is to appeal to the dullard which eventually becomes the supportable standard which over time deteriorates from the weight of the masses the state is to support at a roughly equal level. Capitalism is not fair as it will not transfer that which those who work diligently have attained to those who are not as diligent, thus eliminating any incentive to achieve. Obviously we don't live in a purely capitalistic constuct any more than we do in caves.
Now keep in mind that I don't agree with the Communism that has actually been put in practice because they have been Dictatorships claiming Communism. Every attempt at true Communism on a large scale (can't speak for any small tries, Kibbutz, Communes etc) has been ruined by the greed of those in power, similar to what is happening now. To really work you need people willing to sacrifice that second car so the Jones' down the street can afford to pay their gas bill... and sadly that seems to be lacking in America. Can you really argue with Health Care for everyone, food for everyone?
It depends on why they can't pay the gas bill. Is it because they lost their job? Or didn't have one? Were they living beyond their means and fell on bad times? Did they gamble and lose?
Yes I can argue it when it's viewed as an entitlement that everyone has a god-given right too without the reasonable expectation that they contribute positively to society themselves. Personally, my family and I tend to live frugally and have passed up opportunities for more money, bigger house etc. in favor of a more fiscal security. And yet I'd have to pay more to support someone who didn't care enough to plan responsibly.... and that's where the crux of the matter is: accountability for one's actions, seemingly an anachronism.
I believe these to be a part of our human rights (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness) And somewhat as a responsiblity we have to help all human beings. All the current system does is deprive the majority of people in the world of the products of their labor so a few can live in luxury. It has been estimated that if everyone in the world lived in the same style as American's are accustomed to, we would need 4 planet Earths to provide the resources.
Provide a good example for the rest of us to follow and surrender the technological gizmos you're using to type your response on and play SE4...
Rather than receding towards the level of those whom we blithely "steal" from, perhaps the evolution of technology spurred by consumerism will eventually provide the resources of those 4 earths of your example so that eventually everyone will be as well fed and educated as they'd like to be. The metaphor is there everytime you play SE4. Do you honestly believe that doling out resources evenly to all we'd ever have a hope of getting off this rock in less than a millenium?
Can you tell I didn't have my coffee?
[ 09 April 2002: Message edited by: wr8th ]
Re: OT: Our Economy (US)
Threaded Mode