Obama with Brown this morning

[byu71]

I tend to agree that the potential for violence is both understood and somewhat calculated. This is a movement intent on overthrowing capitalism, which these people see as a totally illegitimate and reckless force in the world. I tend to agree with their outlook about capitalism, but I have no stomach for violent revolution. I guess that just makes me feckless.

Just curious. What system do you think would be better for allocating assets. Since you say you don't like violence, I would guess taking assets by force isn't your cup of tee.

Do you just think the allocation should be done by most the intelligent people among us.

[YOhio]

Well, at least he's having tea with the queen. Add that to his having a fleet of helicopters, an airplane, and a resort in the Catoctins, and life is pretty cool.

And an iPod for her royal highness...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/04/01/barack_obamas_gift_for_the_queen_an_ipod_your_majesty

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I tend to agree that the potential for violence is both understood and somewhat calculated. This is a movement intent on overthrowing capitalism, which these people see as a totally illegitimate and reckless force in the world. I tend to agree with their outlook about capitalism, but I have no stomach for violent revolution. I guess that just makes me feckless.

To the extent these people actually ever took over nations, we would just have more North Koreas in the world. If they are so pissed about their lifestyles and governments, then they ought to go live the good life for awhile in North Korea so they can take a little bit of rest from protesting.

I think its funny that people are so outraged at capitalism in general when even the poorer classes in this country- one of the most capitalistic in the world- have cell phones, cars, TVs, indoor plumbing etc. I don't see what's so damn inequitable that it causes these people to go off the deep end.

[RobinFinderson]

Just curious. What system do you think would be better for allocating assets. Since you say you don't like violence, I would guess taking assets by force isn't your cup of tee.

Do you just think the allocation should be done by most the intelligent people among us.

I don't have a problem with limited capitalism, but popular capitalism has a way of making commodities out of things that shouldn't be commodities -- like real estate. Land is as much a necessity for people to live as air and water, which tend to be allocated by governments. As a public commodity, all real estate should be lent to people for the duration of their life. If people aren't making good use of the land, it should be lent to someone else.

In my own private Utopia, I would allocate a certain quantity of arable land to every citizen in the country. The size of this land would be based on the population, but at a minimum would consist of enough land so that if worked it would provide food, clothing and shelter for that individual. Folks wouldn't literally work this land. For most people they would let the government hold it in a trust, so that farmers who wanted to work a LOT of land would essentially lease it from the government. Every year each citizen would receive compensation for their land based on the cumulative income from all developed lands divided by the population. People would always have the option of applying for their land, at which point a suitable parcel would be identified, and the person(s) could go homestead that patch of dirt. It would be a New Agrarian system that would be more just than current capitalist systems.

But if we aren't talking about pie in the sky Utopianism, some of the European Democratic Socialist models appeal to me.

[RobinFinderson]

I think its funny that people are so outraged at capitalism in general when even the poorer classes in this country- one of the most capitalistic in the world- have cell phones, cars, TVs, indoor plumbing etc. I don't see what's so damn inequitable that it causes these people to go off the deep end.

I think you have touched on something correct here - capitalism derives its legitimacy in direct measure to its ability to 'buy off the poor.' But once the system is no longer able to provide an endless supply of gadgets, the poor begin to question its legitimacy, and then you get to the point where heads might roll.

[RobinFinderson]

And an iPod for her royal highness...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_ha...d_your_majesty

At first the gift of DVD's to PM Brown bothered me... it seemed inappropriate. But the idea of giving our worthless capitalist shit to a string of international leaders and dignitaries is starting to grow on me.

[byu71]

I don't have a problem with limited capitalism, but popular capitalism has a way of making commodities out of things that shouldn't be commodities -- like real estate. Land is as much a necessity for people to live as air and water, which tend to be allocated by governments. As a public commodity, all real estate should be lent to people for the duration of their life. If people aren't making good use of the land, it should be lent to someone else.

In my own private Utopia, I would allocate a certain quantity of arable land to every citizen in the country. The size of this land would be based on the population, but at a minimum would consist of enough land so that if worked it would provide food, clothing and shelter for that individual. Folks wouldn't literally work this land. For most people they would let the government hold it in a trust, so that farmers who wanted to work a LOT of land would essentially lease it from the government. Every year each citizen would receive compensation for their land based on the cumulative income from all developed lands divided by the population. People would always have the option of applying for their land, at which point a suitable parcel would be identified, and the person(s) could go homestead that patch of dirt. It would be a New Agrarian system that would be more just than current capitalist systems.

But if we aren't talking about pie in the sky Utopianism, some of the European Democratic Socialist models appeal to me.

So you have faith in the elected officials of the government. There is a scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants that is right on. It isn't right on just for religious people. It basically says it is the nature of man when they get a little power they excercise unrighteous dominion. You can see it happen all the time. Good people get in gov't and for the most part most of them become people I wouldn't let manage my 10 ft square piece of allocated land.

It becomes a system of catering more and more to those who can keep them in power.

It sounds like the answer for you would be a society based on religion being in power. At least those in power would have pure motives in how they allocated assets. You would have done well with Brigham Young.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

I think you have touched on something correct here - capitalism derives its legitimacy in direct measure to its ability to 'buy off the poor.' But once the system is no longer able to provide an endless supply of gadgets, the poor begin to question its legitimacy, and then you get to the point where heads might roll.

The poor aren't doing the protesting, they're too smart for that.

[RobinFinderson]

The poor aren't doing the protesting, they're too smart for that.

I disagree. While a lot of those protesters might have had enough privilege in their life to develop anti-capitalist sentiments, many of them are practicing what they preach. Even here in the US there are all kinds of Utopian Socialist experiments taking place out in the hills. Those people are poor, typically work low-paying jobs that offer flexibility for their activism, and find happiness in non-material things. There are lots of these folks.

[il Padrino Ute]

I disagree. While a lot of those protesters might have had enough privilege in their life to develop anti-capitalist sentiments, many of them are practicing what they preach. Even here in the US there are all kinds of Utopian Socialist experiments taking place out in the hills. Those people are poor, typically work low-paying jobs that offer flexibility for their activism, and find happiness in non-material things. There are lots of these folks.

There called hippies.

[byu71]

There called hippies.

Didn't Charlie Manson and his group live kind of like that. They were violent, but it was against the rich. Perhaps if through capitalism those people hadn't got rich, Charlie and his clan wouldn't have killed them.

Charlie should have used the "capitalism" defense.

[YOhio]

At first the gift of DVD's to PM Brown bothered me... it seemed inappropriate. But the idea of giving our worthless capitalist shit to a string of international leaders and dignitaries is starting to grow on me.

Why is that?

[il Padrino Ute]

Didn't Charlie Manson and his group live kind of like that. They were violent, but it was against the rich. Perhaps if through capitalism those people hadn't got rich, Charlie and his clan wouldn't have killed them.

Charlie should have used the "capitalism" defense.

That's a good point - killing a capitalist isn't really killing as apparently, capitalists are not people.

Which raises the question: Does capitalism begin when the first dollar is raised or when the first dollar is earned?

[RobinFinderson]

Why is that?

I appreciate the symbolism of what it says about our country, its place in the world, our 'common values,' etc. I see some poetic honesty in it.

[Tim]

Didn't Charlie Manson and his group live kind of like that. They were violent, but it was against the rich. Perhaps if through capitalism those people hadn't got rich, Charlie and his clan wouldn't have killed them.

Charlie should have used the "capitalism" defense.

Seriously, 71, seriously... I'm seriously asking you here... do you really mean to be this sensationalistic? Do you really, REALLY equate hippies with Manson? Please tell me you're not really that shallow.