From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10261c,90121986704b5776 X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 10c950,90121986704b5776 X-Google-Attributes: gid10c950,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: billg@jk.pst.com Subject: Re: Your english sucks, mine is better. Date: 1997/12/01 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 294321144 References: <65ab3u$v07$1@news.nyu.edu> <3479B4F1.D575BEFC@SomewhereElse.com> <01bcf94a$43fbc1c0$LocalHost@default> <65dsjd$6gq@netra.montana.edu> <65patf$fma@netra.montana.edu> <65s1u8$8kj@netra.montana.edu> Organization: IDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso,comp.lang.pascal.misc Date: 1997-12-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <65s1u8$8kj@netra.montana.edu>, ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net says... > billg@jk.pst.com wrote in message ... > >In article <65patf$fma@netra.montana.edu>, > >ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net says... > >> billg@jk.pst.com wrote in message ... > >> > >All said, I think those judgements occur because it is realized that the > >business owners in general attain much of their money via the labor of > >others and should forfeit (give it to its rightful owners) some of it. > > > So morons who misuse products are "the rightful owners" of wealth? You missed it. My point was that there is some recognition of the classification of society by those who have some control over the system and that that classification occurs because some choose to manipulate the system at the expense of others (in other words, behave unethically). The actual incident has no bearing then on the judgement but is made rather on more abstract (unwritten, grey) concepts to balance the scales a bit. > I meant to say "rightfully outraged" (re: South Africa). But it was silly to > get so upset about SA because it was whites vs. blacks when there was _much_ > worse black vs. black violence (tribe vs. tribe, actually) in a lot of other > countries that was just _ignored_. Perhaps the black vs. white battle was seen as based on a more trivial and baseless concept? So what then do you see as "the other equally important issues" relating to what we are discussing? > > >I don't have enough information on the the other systems and I don't have > >to live with them directly either. > > Well, you _should_ get to know them. You might find the alternatives to be > far worse than what you've got... I made no inference that would suggest replacing the current system with any other _existing_ system. > > >Capitalistic behaviour is exploitive- > >-and the more you are willing to (are able to) exploit (and extort) the > >more "successful" you will become. The model is best exampled by the > >scenario where eastern slave-labor produces products for a garment > >company who then sells them at unheard of markups for the owner's > >benefit. The mainstream (capitalistic company) is more subtle but those > >characteristics are always there. The IT agency model is based on the > >same exploitive principles, and that one really hits home. > > This is just beautiful. The clothiers are more evil than the government that > enslaved the workers in the first place (and are making a tidy sum of money > themselves)... Stop making assumptions that imply we have potential high-level political (government) control. The issue is the greedy capitalist who does have some control, by choosing his sources of production, chooses to exploit to make a buck and hopes no one will notice the crimes he is helping to proliferate. He, the capitalist, in this instance, should be subject to forfeiture. Not only after the fact when consumers boycott the products but also in retroactive enforcement: seizure of capital gained from the exploitation, and distribution of the funds to those who oppressively labored. billg