The Hillary Spot on National Review Online
This is like someone who thinks that the the biggest threat to neighborhood peace is for that guy whose handicapped mother got raped and beaten up to go out and kill the man who did it after he got off on a technicality.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Saturday, February 17, 2007
God Bless Bill Cosby!
Pound Cake speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"I’m talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit. Where were you when he was two? (applause) Where were you when he was twelve? (applause) Where were you when he was eighteen, and how come you don’t know he had a pistol?"
"We cannot blame white people. White people (applause)... white people don’t live over there."
"Therefore, you have the pile up of these sweet beautiful things born by nature raised by no one. Give them presents. You’re raising pimps. That’s what a pimp is. A pimp will act nasty to you so you have to go out and get them something. And then you bring it back and maybe he or she hugs you."
"Brown v. Board of Education, these people who marched and were hit in the face with rocks and punched in the face to get an education and we got these knuckleheads walking around who don’t want to learn English."
"You can’t land a plane with “why you ain’t…” You can’t be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth. "
"We have to begin to build in the neighborhood, have restaurants, have cleaners, have pharmacies, have real estate, have medical buildings instead of trying to rob them all."
"Basketball players, multimillionaires, can’t write a paragraph. Football players, multimillionaires, can’t read. Yes. Multimillionaires. Well, Brown v. Board of Education, where are we today? It’s there. They paved the way. What did we do with it? The white man, he’s laughing, got to be laughing. 50 percent drop out, rest of them in prison."
"I’m talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit. Where were you when he was two? (applause) Where were you when he was twelve? (applause) Where were you when he was eighteen, and how come you don’t know he had a pistol?"
"We cannot blame white people. White people (applause)... white people don’t live over there."
"Therefore, you have the pile up of these sweet beautiful things born by nature raised by no one. Give them presents. You’re raising pimps. That’s what a pimp is. A pimp will act nasty to you so you have to go out and get them something. And then you bring it back and maybe he or she hugs you."
"Brown v. Board of Education, these people who marched and were hit in the face with rocks and punched in the face to get an education and we got these knuckleheads walking around who don’t want to learn English."
"You can’t land a plane with “why you ain’t…” You can’t be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth. "
"We have to begin to build in the neighborhood, have restaurants, have cleaners, have pharmacies, have real estate, have medical buildings instead of trying to rob them all."
"Basketball players, multimillionaires, can’t write a paragraph. Football players, multimillionaires, can’t read. Yes. Multimillionaires. Well, Brown v. Board of Education, where are we today? It’s there. They paved the way. What did we do with it? The white man, he’s laughing, got to be laughing. 50 percent drop out, rest of them in prison."
Friday, February 09, 2007
In Focus Article
In Focus Article
One of the most interesting paradigm shifts I underwent via Buddhism was the idea that the opposite of "Black" is not "White", it is "Not Black". This realization, I believe, actually has profound implications for how one views the world. Unfortunately, this principle has been interpreted (twisted?) and put into use by so-called Western Buddhists (who exhibit true Buddhist values about as much as Arlen Specter exhibits true Republican ones) to say something-to-the-effect of, "Hey, man! There is no Good. There is no Evil. It's all the same, man!" as they take another hit of the ganga pipe.
It is much easier to believe "it's all the same" and thereby remove any pangs of guilt, responsibility, and duty one might have to respect, among other things, the private property rights of others and, while this may have been what was taught to them at the "Benjamin Spock School for How to Raise Whiners", the Buddha didn't say that and, more importantly, it's not how reality works.
Unfortunately for the liberals who denigrate western achievement and individual material success, the fact that "Black's opposite" is not, "White" and "White's opposite" is not "Black" does not mean that "Black" and "White" are the same. They are, indeed, two different things and sometimes one is simply "Good" and the other "Bad".
One of the most interesting paradigm shifts I underwent via Buddhism was the idea that the opposite of "Black" is not "White", it is "Not Black". This realization, I believe, actually has profound implications for how one views the world. Unfortunately, this principle has been interpreted (twisted?) and put into use by so-called Western Buddhists (who exhibit true Buddhist values about as much as Arlen Specter exhibits true Republican ones) to say something-to-the-effect of, "Hey, man! There is no Good. There is no Evil. It's all the same, man!" as they take another hit of the ganga pipe.
It is much easier to believe "it's all the same" and thereby remove any pangs of guilt, responsibility, and duty one might have to respect, among other things, the private property rights of others and, while this may have been what was taught to them at the "Benjamin Spock School for How to Raise Whiners", the Buddha didn't say that and, more importantly, it's not how reality works.
Unfortunately for the liberals who denigrate western achievement and individual material success, the fact that "Black's opposite" is not, "White" and "White's opposite" is not "Black" does not mean that "Black" and "White" are the same. They are, indeed, two different things and sometimes one is simply "Good" and the other "Bad".
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Things I'd like to ask Socialists/Communists
What do you say about wealthy entertainers (who get paid millions of dollars for their acting) who are sympathetic (like Harry Belafonte, Danny Glover, and Susan Sarandon, etc.)? Are they considered capitalists or no, because they don't actually use "capital" to earn money. Under socialism/communism, what do you do with these people and their money?
How will what were management decisions be made at what used to be private businesses?
What about marketing? What would marketing look like (even exist?) under socialism? Socialists are big on saying that corporate Amerika manipulates innocent consumers into wanting things they wouldn't otherwise so are we to assume there wouldn't be marketing at all or just "non-manipulative" marketing?
I gots to find me some South Florida Socialists of whom to ask these questions...they keep me up at night.
How will what were management decisions be made at what used to be private businesses?
What about marketing? What would marketing look like (even exist?) under socialism? Socialists are big on saying that corporate Amerika manipulates innocent consumers into wanting things they wouldn't otherwise so are we to assume there wouldn't be marketing at all or just "non-manipulative" marketing?
I gots to find me some South Florida Socialists of whom to ask these questions...they keep me up at night.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Run (don't walk) to see this movie!
What do you say about a movie named eponymously for the philosophy embodied in the Declaration of Independence, in which Thomas Jefferson is spoken of with reverence and awe, wealth viewed as a good thing, and capitalism and hard work the means to achieve it?
What if in the same movie, rich successful white people are admired and portrayed as helpful fair-minded role-models rather than racist foils and the IRS is a heartless bankrupting bureaucracy?
And what if the person who holds these views is a homeless black man who somehow has realized that in life, the reason why you don't get what you want is usually not because some enemy (whitey, the po-leece, societal racism, etc.) thwarted you, but that you simply made poor decisions and didn't work hard enough?
Oh yes, and what if I told you it's based on a true story. (That you might have guessed since all of the viewpoints above are based on reality.)
Well, you say it's uniquely great and should win multiple academy awards.
It won't, but you should see The Pursuit of Happyness anyway. I'll see it more than once and make gifts of the DVD when it comes out.
What if in the same movie, rich successful white people are admired and portrayed as helpful fair-minded role-models rather than racist foils and the IRS is a heartless bankrupting bureaucracy?
And what if the person who holds these views is a homeless black man who somehow has realized that in life, the reason why you don't get what you want is usually not because some enemy (whitey, the po-leece, societal racism, etc.) thwarted you, but that you simply made poor decisions and didn't work hard enough?
Oh yes, and what if I told you it's based on a true story. (That you might have guessed since all of the viewpoints above are based on reality.)
Well, you say it's uniquely great and should win multiple academy awards.
It won't, but you should see The Pursuit of Happyness anyway. I'll see it more than once and make gifts of the DVD when it comes out.
Friday, December 15, 2006
What to Do in Iraq
What To Do In Iraq
Great article recommending we just "Go Roman" on the Iraqis. I'll say this: At this point we need to either do this or split the country up into three sections and only protect those areas who don't attack us from the inside or get the hell out. One of my justifications from the very beginning for invading Iraq was just that; to send a message to the world that if you fuck with us, someone (Saddam, Iraq, our enemies) is going to pay. What better way to send a message by leaving Iraq in chaos?
Quite simply, some people and situations respond better to positive reinforcement and some respond better to negative. While I think it is morally preferable to first treat someone who attacks you with kindness (in an effort to win them over as a friend), if they don't respond it makes logical sense (and its good psychology) to attack them.
I know someone who is concerned that if we leave Iraq in chaos, Iran (who hates us even more and is more dangerous) will swoop in and gain influence and power. When I say the answer to that is simply aiding their enemies and helping the entire region to become a raging Arab War he says the end result will be a more battle-hardened and experienced Arab fighting force, presumably a bigger threat to Israel (and us).
My response to that is: not if it's done right. Yes, a country's military can be improved by a some real war-time experience but if the country and military itself is devastated (infrastructures blown to hell, war-weary populace, etc.) then the military gain is offset by those other factors. Of course we'd have to make sure oil flow is not disrupted. Done right, a carefully crafted Arab War would see most of the countries (or at least our avowed enemies Iran and Syria) much weakened and with overthrown governments and the U.S. in control of some oil fields.
Great article recommending we just "Go Roman" on the Iraqis. I'll say this: At this point we need to either do this or split the country up into three sections and only protect those areas who don't attack us from the inside or get the hell out. One of my justifications from the very beginning for invading Iraq was just that; to send a message to the world that if you fuck with us, someone (Saddam, Iraq, our enemies) is going to pay. What better way to send a message by leaving Iraq in chaos?
Quite simply, some people and situations respond better to positive reinforcement and some respond better to negative. While I think it is morally preferable to first treat someone who attacks you with kindness (in an effort to win them over as a friend), if they don't respond it makes logical sense (and its good psychology) to attack them.
I know someone who is concerned that if we leave Iraq in chaos, Iran (who hates us even more and is more dangerous) will swoop in and gain influence and power. When I say the answer to that is simply aiding their enemies and helping the entire region to become a raging Arab War he says the end result will be a more battle-hardened and experienced Arab fighting force, presumably a bigger threat to Israel (and us).
My response to that is: not if it's done right. Yes, a country's military can be improved by a some real war-time experience but if the country and military itself is devastated (infrastructures blown to hell, war-weary populace, etc.) then the military gain is offset by those other factors. Of course we'd have to make sure oil flow is not disrupted. Done right, a carefully crafted Arab War would see most of the countries (or at least our avowed enemies Iran and Syria) much weakened and with overthrown governments and the U.S. in control of some oil fields.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Election Hypocrisy
Did you notice that after the last election (you know, the one in which the Democrats did well) there were absolutely no reports of any voting irregularities?
Friday, December 01, 2006
Philadelphia Inquirer | 11/24/2006 | The Economy | Revealed: Why understanding economics is hard
Philadelphia Inquirer | 11/24/2006 | The Economy | Revealed: Why understanding economics is hard
How the "Communal Sharing", "Equality Matching", "Authority Ranking" and "Market pricing" worldviews help (and hinder) us understand life situations, including economics.
It is unfortunately first a great irony that Buddhism made me more appreciative of "Authority Ranking" and perhaps secondly a testament to the tremendously (if I may use a technical term: "fucked-up-ness") mistaken interpretation of 99.99% of American so-called Buddhists who use Buddhism as an endorsement of moral relativism, laziness, and wealth redistribution that, unfortunately for them, simply doesn't match the way the world operates. As someone once pointed out, in its natural state a row of trees is beautifully diverse with each growing at a different speed, to a different height in a different direction. It is a most unnatural act to cut them so they all look (achieve) the same.
How the "Communal Sharing", "Equality Matching", "Authority Ranking" and "Market pricing" worldviews help (and hinder) us understand life situations, including economics.
It is unfortunately first a great irony that Buddhism made me more appreciative of "Authority Ranking" and perhaps secondly a testament to the tremendously (if I may use a technical term: "fucked-up-ness") mistaken interpretation of 99.99% of American so-called Buddhists who use Buddhism as an endorsement of moral relativism, laziness, and wealth redistribution that, unfortunately for them, simply doesn't match the way the world operates. As someone once pointed out, in its natural state a row of trees is beautifully diverse with each growing at a different speed, to a different height in a different direction. It is a most unnatural act to cut them so they all look (achieve) the same.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Gov. Bush gets rude welcome from Pittsburgh protesters: South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Gov. Bush gets rude welcome from Pittsburgh protesters: South Florida Sun-Sentinel
The only things that amazes me more than liberals, in the heat of battle, substituting violence, intimidation and ad hominem attacks for cogent arguments and reason are those away from the fray who praise their actions. Ah, yes. Where are the, at least intelligent, liberal icons of yore like Isaac Asimov who might have ironically been warning his own followers when he noted, “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent”?
What is there left to do but laugh when the rank-and-file shout, "Yes, more!" as the philosophy of supposed peace loving, non-violent, freedom-of-speech defending, respecting-of-diversity ivory-tower intellectuals becomes steeped in barbarism once it enters the public square. Perhaps there is something to the old adage about “theory” and “reality” being two different things, afterall.
The only things that amazes me more than liberals, in the heat of battle, substituting violence, intimidation and ad hominem attacks for cogent arguments and reason are those away from the fray who praise their actions. Ah, yes. Where are the, at least intelligent, liberal icons of yore like Isaac Asimov who might have ironically been warning his own followers when he noted, “Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent”?
What is there left to do but laugh when the rank-and-file shout, "Yes, more!" as the philosophy of supposed peace loving, non-violent, freedom-of-speech defending, respecting-of-diversity ivory-tower intellectuals becomes steeped in barbarism once it enters the public square. Perhaps there is something to the old adage about “theory” and “reality” being two different things, afterall.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Scholars for 9/11.......Bullshit?
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
A bunch of ivory tower academics, no doubt liberal Bush-hating types (see below), have got themselves a website to promote the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. I actually bothered to go to their website and see who some of them were, and I have to tell you, when you have not just luminaries, but academics whose fields of study and expertise match so closely with the subject matter of their hypothesis...why...who can doubt them? I got tired of listing members' credentials after "K" but you get the picture:
Kevin Barrett (FM) Folklore, UW-Madison; (Now HERE is a professor whose speciality IS matched to the topic!)
Anicha Bay (FM) Visiting Professor of English, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Korea (An Engrish teacher who can't teach in America.)
Tracy Blevins (FM) Bioengineering, Rice University (Perhaps Tracy has inhaled some hallucinogenic genetically altered wheatgrass)
Clare Brandabur (FM) Assistant professor of English Literature at Dogus University in Istanbul (Is it a coincidence that Dogus rhymes with Bogus? I think not.)
Larry Burk (FM) Radiology, Medical hypnosis (Self-medicating, are we Dr. Burk?)
John Bylsma (FM) French language and culture (This professor obviously knows a thing or two about collapses.)
Harriet Cianci (FM) Tunxis Community College, CT (Tunxis...Tunxis. A step below BCC?)
William A. Cook (FM) Professor of English, University of La Verne, Author of "Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East Policy" (An objective opinion can be had from Mr. Cook, no doubt.)
Richard Curtis (FM) Philosophy, Seattle University (Dr. Curtis should go back to contemplating his navel.)
Albert Dragstedt (FM) Classics and Philosophy, St. Mary's College, Oakland, CA (Dr. Dragstedt should go back to contemplating Odysseus' navel.)
Ted Elden (FM) Architect, Communicator (He lists his profession, "communicator". That's okay, I'm a "tricorder.")
Jeffrey Farrer, Ph.D. (FM) Director of Transmission Electron Microscopy Laboratory at BYU (Ah yes. Nothing qualifies someone to research conspiracies more than electron microscopy. Except maybe, cow milking.)
Michael Keefer (FM) English and theatre, University of Guelph (B-b-b-but, I was only....ACTING! Oh, the irony!)
A bunch of ivory tower academics, no doubt liberal Bush-hating types (see below), have got themselves a website to promote the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. I actually bothered to go to their website and see who some of them were, and I have to tell you, when you have not just luminaries, but academics whose fields of study and expertise match so closely with the subject matter of their hypothesis...why...who can doubt them? I got tired of listing members' credentials after "K" but you get the picture:
Kevin Barrett (FM) Folklore, UW-Madison; (Now HERE is a professor whose speciality IS matched to the topic!)
Anicha Bay (FM) Visiting Professor of English, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, South Korea (An Engrish teacher who can't teach in America.)
Tracy Blevins (FM) Bioengineering, Rice University (Perhaps Tracy has inhaled some hallucinogenic genetically altered wheatgrass)
Clare Brandabur (FM) Assistant professor of English Literature at Dogus University in Istanbul (Is it a coincidence that Dogus rhymes with Bogus? I think not.)
Larry Burk (FM) Radiology, Medical hypnosis (Self-medicating, are we Dr. Burk?)
John Bylsma (FM) French language and culture (This professor obviously knows a thing or two about collapses.)
Harriet Cianci (FM) Tunxis Community College, CT (Tunxis...Tunxis. A step below BCC?)
William A. Cook (FM) Professor of English, University of La Verne, Author of "Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East Policy" (An objective opinion can be had from Mr. Cook, no doubt.)
Richard Curtis (FM) Philosophy, Seattle University (Dr. Curtis should go back to contemplating his navel.)
Albert Dragstedt (FM) Classics and Philosophy, St. Mary's College, Oakland, CA (Dr. Dragstedt should go back to contemplating Odysseus' navel.)
Ted Elden (FM) Architect, Communicator (He lists his profession, "communicator". That's okay, I'm a "tricorder.")
Jeffrey Farrer, Ph.D. (FM) Director of Transmission Electron Microscopy Laboratory at BYU (Ah yes. Nothing qualifies someone to research conspiracies more than electron microscopy. Except maybe, cow milking.)
Michael Keefer (FM) English and theatre, University of Guelph (B-b-b-but, I was only....ACTING! Oh, the irony!)
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Hollywood Coming Around?
Hollywood Coming Around?
Shocking to find out there are powerful people out there in Hollywood who actually will be publicly anti-Hizbollah.
Hat tip to: Indolentmick
Shocking to find out there are powerful people out there in Hollywood who actually will be publicly anti-Hizbollah.
Hat tip to: Indolentmick
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Why a real war on terrorism brings out the best in us. By Robert Wright - Slate Magazine
Why a real war on terrorism brings out the best in us. By Robert Wright - Slate Magazine
An article in Slate, surprisingly dead on the mark regarding how we should change our foreign policy in the Middle East. To use a piece of lingo from the "new age human potential movement", we need to "hold both." Supporting dictatorships in the Middle East is morally wrong, regardless if they are "our dictatorships", and gives terrorists a reason to hate us and an excuse for why their societies are so backwards. Support should be withdrawn from them. At the same time we should kick Bin Laden's ass.
An article in Slate, surprisingly dead on the mark regarding how we should change our foreign policy in the Middle East. To use a piece of lingo from the "new age human potential movement", we need to "hold both." Supporting dictatorships in the Middle East is morally wrong, regardless if they are "our dictatorships", and gives terrorists a reason to hate us and an excuse for why their societies are so backwards. Support should be withdrawn from them. At the same time we should kick Bin Laden's ass.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Why the left HATES, DESPISES, AND CAN'T STAND, Bush, Cheney, and Ashcroft.
Cheney, Bush, and Ashcroft represent the "bullying jocks" who harassed the "liberal stoners" with whom the far-left identifies with today. When the left sees Ashcroft, et. al., they see the football coach-cum-phys.ed.-teacher who made them run laps and do pushups when they just wanted to "chill". And while they escaped the intolerant authority figure who looked down at everything from their hair to their clothes to their music to their lack of study habits by graduating (or dropping out)...where can they go now...because now their old gym teacher RUNS THE FUCKING COUNTRY!
Poor sad liberals.
Poor sad liberals.
Inherit the Wind: an historical analysis
Inherit the Wind: an historical analysis
Man, after reading this, I was so glad that this movie was just a vague memory, I had seen it so long ago. I will NEVER watch it again. What crap. Liberals have NO shame. Period.
Man, after reading this, I was so glad that this movie was just a vague memory, I had seen it so long ago. I will NEVER watch it again. What crap. Liberals have NO shame. Period.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Good Evening, Iraq!
John Derbyshire on Iraq on National Review Online
I love 95% of what he says. The only thing I would be concerned about is Iran arming the Shiites in Iraq and having them take over and abuse the rights of the Sunnis. I'd feel some sort of obligation to protect them and also it would be bad for the region (and our interests) for Iran to get so powerful.
I love 95% of what he says. The only thing I would be concerned about is Iran arming the Shiites in Iraq and having them take over and abuse the rights of the Sunnis. I'd feel some sort of obligation to protect them and also it would be bad for the region (and our interests) for Iran to get so powerful.
Friday, August 18, 2006
WSJ.com - Aiming for Diversity, Textbooks Overshoot
WSJ.com - Aiming for Diversity, Textbooks Overshoot
Just another example of how liberalism is a mental disorder which is correlated to an inability to face reality.
Just another example of how liberalism is a mental disorder which is correlated to an inability to face reality.
Thursday, August 10, 2006
WSJ.com - Lamont's Win Hurts The Dems in the Long Run
WSJ.com - Lamont's Win Hurts The Dems in the Long Run
I'm reminded of the cocaine-snorting slick would-be-terrorist-negotiator from the original Die Hard movie whose arrogance was only matched by his strategic incompetence. I'll be delighted to see liberals in power after the '06 and '08 elections. After another taste of the fruits of limp-wristed foreign policy (aka "the Jimmy Carter school") , which I think will be two more successful 9/11 scale attacks, we won't have to deal with a democrat in office for another 20 years.
I'm reminded of the cocaine-snorting slick would-be-terrorist-negotiator from the original Die Hard movie whose arrogance was only matched by his strategic incompetence. I'll be delighted to see liberals in power after the '06 and '08 elections. After another taste of the fruits of limp-wristed foreign policy (aka "the Jimmy Carter school") , which I think will be two more successful 9/11 scale attacks, we won't have to deal with a democrat in office for another 20 years.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Rebel Alliance Forums -> Honest Question
Rebel Alliance Forums -> Honest Question: "I happen to be a capitalist but am intrigued at the idea of socialism. It sounds like a great idea but I don’t think it would work as a practical matter unless people’s freedoms were taken away from them - something which I agree with socialists would be a bad thing. I have a series of questions ask that you kindly tell me know if you know of a more appropriate forum to ask this. My question is as follows:
Let’s assume one day that we woke up in a socialist society where all “means of production” were owned/controlled by the people in general. I’m assuming that there is private ownership of property, like homes, stereos, furniture and lawn equipment.
What is to stop the following scenario from happening?
Let’s say that one enterprising woman who happens to own a lawn mower (she bought it originally to mow her own lawn) realizes that there are lots of people who don’t like to mow their lawn -- they’d rather watch football or do something else on a Sunday -- who would be willing to pay her to mow their lawn so they don’t have to. This woman starts mowing lawns (she charges $30 per lawn) and making extra money by working on weekends.
If that would be allowed, then what’s to stop the next scenario from taking place?
This woman is particularly industrious and enterprising and realizes that there are more people who would like her to mow their lawns than she can mow. So she saves up her extra money and buys a second lawn mower. She finds somebody who does not have a lawn mower (they live in an apartment and have no need for one) and says to them, “Hey, if you want to, I’ll let you use my lawn mower to mow peoples’ lawns and we can split the money. You can get $15 and I’ll take $15, because I’m letting you use my lawn mower.” The person accepts and starts mowing people's lawns for $30 and give the woman who owns the lawn mower they're using $15 each time.
If this would be allowed, then what’s to stop the next scenario from taking place?
The woman who owns two lawn mowers starts saving more and more money and buys more and more lawn mowers. She finds more and more people who don’t have lawn mowers themselves (and don’t want to buy them) but are willing to mow a lawn using one of her and split the $30 - the woman who owns the lawn mower getting $15 and the “worker” who actually does the mowing getting $15. Pretty soon she has so many lawn mowers and people mowing lawns giving her half their pay that she decides to stop mowing lawns herself and just take care of the maintenance of the lawn mowers - replacing blades, keeping the engines tuned, etc.
If this would be allowed, then what’s to stop the next scenario from taking place?
Eventually, she has so many lawn mowers, that she decides to rent a warehouse (she can’t keep them all in her garage) and hire someone (who happens to an even better mechanic than she) to maintain them. Now, she doesn’t mow lawns or do the grunt work of maintaining them - she just focuses on making sure everybody has enough work, advertising, and paperwork.
Unless something stops this kind of thing from happening (and the only thing I can think of is some kind of force/violence being used to prevent adults from freely agreeing to do thing for/with each other for something in exchange) I think any socialist society would find small businesses like these sprouting up all over, in all kinds of industries. I think you would just find that some people are either more hard-working, enterprising, or just lucky in some cases and would start to accumulate wealth/ownership of "means of production". These small business would grow bigger and bigger until eventually you would have the same kinds of disparity of income/wealth distribution we find in society today.
I would love to know if I missed something in my prediction and welcome your feedback.
Let’s assume one day that we woke up in a socialist society where all “means of production” were owned/controlled by the people in general. I’m assuming that there is private ownership of property, like homes, stereos, furniture and lawn equipment.
What is to stop the following scenario from happening?
Let’s say that one enterprising woman who happens to own a lawn mower (she bought it originally to mow her own lawn) realizes that there are lots of people who don’t like to mow their lawn -- they’d rather watch football or do something else on a Sunday -- who would be willing to pay her to mow their lawn so they don’t have to. This woman starts mowing lawns (she charges $30 per lawn) and making extra money by working on weekends.
If that would be allowed, then what’s to stop the next scenario from taking place?
This woman is particularly industrious and enterprising and realizes that there are more people who would like her to mow their lawns than she can mow. So she saves up her extra money and buys a second lawn mower. She finds somebody who does not have a lawn mower (they live in an apartment and have no need for one) and says to them, “Hey, if you want to, I’ll let you use my lawn mower to mow peoples’ lawns and we can split the money. You can get $15 and I’ll take $15, because I’m letting you use my lawn mower.” The person accepts and starts mowing people's lawns for $30 and give the woman who owns the lawn mower they're using $15 each time.
If this would be allowed, then what’s to stop the next scenario from taking place?
The woman who owns two lawn mowers starts saving more and more money and buys more and more lawn mowers. She finds more and more people who don’t have lawn mowers themselves (and don’t want to buy them) but are willing to mow a lawn using one of her and split the $30 - the woman who owns the lawn mower getting $15 and the “worker” who actually does the mowing getting $15. Pretty soon she has so many lawn mowers and people mowing lawns giving her half their pay that she decides to stop mowing lawns herself and just take care of the maintenance of the lawn mowers - replacing blades, keeping the engines tuned, etc.
If this would be allowed, then what’s to stop the next scenario from taking place?
Eventually, she has so many lawn mowers, that she decides to rent a warehouse (she can’t keep them all in her garage) and hire someone (who happens to an even better mechanic than she) to maintain them. Now, she doesn’t mow lawns or do the grunt work of maintaining them - she just focuses on making sure everybody has enough work, advertising, and paperwork.
Unless something stops this kind of thing from happening (and the only thing I can think of is some kind of force/violence being used to prevent adults from freely agreeing to do thing for/with each other for something in exchange) I think any socialist society would find small businesses like these sprouting up all over, in all kinds of industries. I think you would just find that some people are either more hard-working, enterprising, or just lucky in some cases and would start to accumulate wealth/ownership of "means of production". These small business would grow bigger and bigger until eventually you would have the same kinds of disparity of income/wealth distribution we find in society today.
I would love to know if I missed something in my prediction and welcome your feedback.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
