|I just re-read my article. I mistakenly mislabeled the game tables! Fixed now. :)|
I appreciate your interest. It sounds like you are interested in promoting Capitalism, which I'm very pleased with. Please don't take my fierce arguments as a personal attack. For now, I will show you more respect than you have shown me. Welcome to RoR. Maybe you would like to post your analysis? Particularly, "the second one showing an advantage (productivity) to communism".
"In my opinion, in any given system, for the system or group as a whole to advance, there has to be a balance between individual "reward or wealth" and the groups wealth."
"Groups wealth"? The group's wealth can increase by individuals in the group being productive and owning the products of their labor. Your wolf example left out the production side of the situation, and only talked about distribution. Optimal wolf pack:
The alpha doesn't withhold food from others in the pack to weaken the others. What portion has(/will) each member of the pack contributed(/expected to contribute) towards the success of the pack? This should determine the portion of the food to divy up to each member. Given there is enough food for the members, any member could become the alpha (given they actually have the genes/ability/motivation to be alpha). Alpha male is chosen by the females as their mate, because they want their children to be the most successful (acquiring the genes/ability/motivation of the alpha).
"Individuals don't evolve, populations do."
Not sure what you mean by this, or what your point is with this sentence.
"P.S. And Dean plz! Tribbling? Productivity related to genetics? Even if it were true, and even if your distorted vision of welfare would allow unproductive people to have more children, the reality of all the factors on how our populations shift is much more complex.
Hah, sounds like we have some strong disagreements of what is reality! Debate points:
1. Productivity is related to genetics. For example, compare a human to an ape... difference in learning ability mainly explained by differences in genetics. Or compare me to my classmates in high school. I'd listen to the lecture, assist the teacher when he made mistakes, not study, and get 100% on the psychology/math/science exam. My classmates were unable to identify when the teacher made a mistake, spent hours studying, and get 70-90% on the exam. You want to argue that the difference between the human and the ape, or me and my classmates, is not due to genes?
2. Welfare allows unproductive people to have more children, and prevents productive people from having more children. "distorted vision", sounds like a personal attack on me. For me to be wrong, you must claim that starving children in Africa would have the same success independent of whether the charities & US gov send them food and supplies. You must claim that when a poor woman takes her dying child to a hospital, and the hospital is required by law to save the child, even if the woman is unable to pay for the services... that the child did not somehow gain by this. You must claim that I haven't started a family yet because of some reason other than that I'm taxed 40% of my income and hence cannot accomplish both of my goals of starting a business and starting a family.
3. "All of the factors" are complex, and impact society's shift. I've singled out the wealth redistribution factor. Is this a suggestion that wealth redistribution is good given some other factor? Elaborate?
"Reason (and therefore education) is the path to a successful AND productive society."
Now we get into arguing about how to accomplish one of my greatest dreams, which is how to create a more capitalist society. My favorite subject!
I think others on RoR can attest to my change in position on this subject over the last few years. I started out thinking that educating the socialists maybe could work. Now I think educating the socialists is futile. Hence my carelessness in being Politically Correct (PC) in my posts, having little care of whether I insult the leeches. Sorry Ashley, its not "educate the beast". Its "starve the beast".
If*** producers want to reduce the amount of leeching, they need to either defend the products of their labor from the masses of leeches, or stop producing so much. Here education may come worthwhile, where we teach producers that productivity is a virtue, generosity is a vice, and the concept of "Sanction of the victim".
*** "If" because it may not actually improve a person's life if they increase security or decrease production. For one, human producers are very vulnerable to the leeching masses. In the US, if a producers is caught in not submitting his income to the leeches (taxes), his wealth is confiscated he is thrown in jail. With current technology, its much easier for leeches to discover producers who do not submit to taxes than it is for a producer to hide the discovery. With current technology it is much easier for the leeches to destroy the producer after such a discovery, than it is for the producer to evade. With the current level of leeching, for an entity like Microsoft, more is gained by Microsoft to continue being very productive despite the leeching.
"Posts like these are what give capitalism a bad name, and is one of the reasons why china is going to kick us in the ass."
A bad name eh? I'll just take that as an invalid argument and a personal attack. Which I have no time for. If china is going to "kick us in the ass", then its because they have a more efficient economy, hence a more capitalist one, and I'll move there. In points of social economic history, China is coming out of a phase of wiping out their leech population, while the US is maybe just now reaching its maximum percentage capacity of leeching individuals.