John Korber writes:
> [useful model deleted]

But if the claim is that capitalism causes people to behave this way,
then I disagree.  Bad morals and ethics are bad in both systems.  Free
will functions in both systems.  Evil doesn't become good under
socialism.  Maybe I should have stated that free will is one of my
most basic assumptions.  If we don't agree on that, we won't agree on
much of anything.

> The possibility of socialist and capitalist systems coexisting
> ignores the evidence of history.

It doesn't ignore it.  I recognize the evidence of history.  Changes
need to be made.

> Plenty of communal or communistic cultures have been destroyed by
> capitalisms constant need for expansion.

From that pommie dictionary: capitalism - an economic system based on
the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and
exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or
manage their property for profit in competitive conditions.

Nothing about a need for expansion.  In fact, "need" used in this
context is a metaphor.  Either that or it is a category error.
Capitalism can't have needs.  The need, in this case, is the greed of
people.  Many people have a need, or perceive something that feels
like a need, to satisfy their greed.  Greedy people don't suddenly
become generous when they find themselves in a socialist world.  They
look for a way to get what they want.  You're going to have to have
structures in place to prevent such people from causing damage.  You
don't have to call those structures government, if you don't want to,
but I will.

> One could only hope that the lad in the tub was cagey enough to
> avoid letting on where he came from, and just returned home with his
> toilet very quietly in the night. Even with that, you could more or
> less count on Tasmania eventually finding itself under siege.

You haven't yet demonstrated that capitalism can't exist without
growth.  But there have been periods of negative growth, yes?  What
do you call capitalism during a period of negative growth?

> Socialism of any honest variety aims to build solidarity not to lay
> the cost of something like a "public" transportation system on the
> backs of the working class who get to enjoy being doubly taxed, and
> taxed regressively when they pay their fare. People standing
> together, working together, sharing weal and woe, is the best thing
> you can experience in life. Whenever you're ready. I understand
> being ready isn't always easy.

I've said many times here that I refuse to spend my life fighting a
fight I believe cannot be won.  So if I were to spend my life
"standing together, working together, sharing weal and woe," I would
*only* be doing it to experience this alleged best of all possible
feelings, a sort of socialist beta endorphin high.  That's what I have
claimed you guys are actually doing.  From my POV, then, it would be
unethical for me to join you, especially given that I think there *is*
a way to achieve the socialist goal, which is consistently, and
predictably (by Chomsky's model), ignored.

martin

Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701