From: alexander.russell@telus.net   
      
   J.H.Boersema wrote:   
   > Alex Russell  wrote:   
   > [...]   
   >> What would you replace capitalism with? Communism? socialism? If one of   
   >> those how do you plan to deal with freeloaders? How do you plan to deal   
   >> with communities that prefer capitalism?   
   >   
   > When will people start to differentiate Trade from capitalism ?   
   > Get your head out of the American-USSR propaganda war.   
   > "Socialism" does not imply a plan-economy just because everyone says so.   
      
   I'm perfectly aware of the difference between trade and capitalism.   
      
   >   
   > Communities that prefer capitalism are no problem at all, never were.   
   > The only problem is that the dictators that they will bring to power   
   > must not be allowed to attack other countries, and that they should   
   > restrict their financial gambling system that breeds abusive conditions   
   > to within their own borders. You want capitalism, then you pay the   
   > price. Capitalists that start manipulating other markets have their   
   > funds seized, and may face charges if caught in a democratic and   
   > anti-capitalist free market country.   
      
   So you are going to FORCE people be socialists within your country? I'd   
   be happy to let socialists set up communes, villages, even cities if   
   they can get it to work in my capitalist country.   
      
   >The problem with capitalist   
   > countries is that they will not likely be able not to attack other   
   > countries (openly and secretly), because attacking other countries   
   > is what the criminals that will come to control capitalist countries   
   > do.   
      
   You don't have to be a criminal to be a capitalist. Just like you don't   
   have to be a free-loading hippy to be a socialist.   
      
   Capitalist countries will perhaps need to be closely monitored as   
   > to their weapons build up, and have their excessive weapons seized and   
   > destroyed before they are able to launch war. War is the nature and   
   > effect of private capitalism, whether one is not paying "the working   
   > poor" their fair wage, or whether one is attacking another country to   
   > seize control of its oil, it is essentially both war, with the same   
   > results. (To reiterate again and again:) Private capital invests in   
   > dictatorial and abusive companies, therefore abusers of people will   
   > increasingly dominate positions of economic power, financial and   
   > industrial (implies media), which will eventually extend into the   
   > state/government. At that time, the country will be under a leadership   
   > that is so amoral that it is very likely to go to war, which is not   
   > only a natural extension of the obsolete animal instincts that rule   
   > these leaders, it is also political opportunism/strategy. *)   
      
   Capitalism is not the root cause of the problems you outlined with   
   certain countries abusing their power. Dictatorships, communists, even   
   the odd country calling themselves socialist have all abused power. I   
   would say the problem lies with apathetic voters, and a system so   
   corrupt and twisted that only power mongers even want to run for office.   
      
   But behaving the same way: "have their excessive weapons seized and   
     destroyed before they are able to launch war" with a preemptive war is   
   hardly the high road.   
      
   >   
   > Freeloaders ? There is nothing to load, you have to work in order   
   > to have something to trade with. Nobody gets something for free in   
   > principle, and that especially extends to the private investors.   
   > Capitalism will be replaced by free trade and democracy.   
      
   Free-trade generally implies property rights, strong property rights,   
   which are a cornerstone of capitalism.   
      
   If that   
   > sounds like a contradiction, that is because of the pro-capitalist   
   > propaganda war who has planted its distortions. It makes that people   
   > have a one-switch mind: either it is `private capitalism with companies   
   > in a trading context', or it is `planned economy'.  Try to add another   
   > switch to your options list: `companies in a trading context with   
   > distributed resources and non-profit political investment'. Now you   
   > have 3 options.   
      
   So who owns these non-profits, and why do I want to work hard for no profit?   
      
   Actually, most countries are mixed economies. Even the usa has   
   socialized fire departments, education, police, justice, and transportation.   
      
   >   
   > *) For this reason the Communist revolution to be global, because of   
   >    the imminent threat of violence from Capitalist countries, which   
   > 	 of course came out exactly true: Capitalist countries never seize to   
   > 	 attack anti-capitalist countries, it is a matter of principle for them.   
      
      
   Could you elaborate on how you envision your "free-trade" economy. I   
   don't think you mean just lowering inter-nation trading barriers.   
      
   Alex Russell   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)