Tao, I tracked you to here via the member search facility. I have been off-line for quite a while and do not wish to contribute to this particular discussion. I just wanted to reach you to alert you to a book which I feel should be read by all individuals professing an interest in their fellow man. It is "Whats left. How liberals lost their way" by Nick Cohen.
You have previously advised me to extend my horizons by reading certain books and I am now returning the favour. Let me know what you think after reading it in its entirity. I do not want an in depth critique just your overall response and whether it has resulted in any change in your outlook.
Regards
Logical?

Cuba? ROFL You mean that country, where everyone risks their
lives to escape, where a dual economy exists. Those who
can make some illegal dollars by being say hookers for tourists,
they thrive, the rest just get pesos. Now now Rob, get serious
please. Funny how private enterprise is coming back into Cuba.
Perhaps even old Fidel realises what a failure Cuba has been.

Regarding the fire service, I can and do choose to give what
I want, when I want. If I disagreed with how money was spent,
I could simply withdraw. Its my choice, thats the issue.
My point remains, when people do things freely and willingly,
it often makes them feel good to be altruistic, so they assist.
When compelled by the state and forced, they will rebel.
Taxation versus philanthropy is a typical example.

You are clearly a young whippersnapper, or you would know
the history of the PC and how Bill Gates got rich. In
the early 90s there were two choices, MS-DOS or Apple.
Apple cost a fortune, MS-DOS was unusable for normal people,
so few owned computers. Gates brought out Windows 3 for about
$46.50, which any computer could use, not just Apple.
The nett result was 100s of millions of PCs were suddenly
sold, so he got rich. He got rich by destroying Apple's
greedy monopoly, consumers benefitted, including me.
Why should I be upset by that?

My point remains, you are free to be a hippy and go and
live in a commune somewhere, if you prefer that to bridges.
You choose to work.

In communist systems there certainly is denial of liberty.
Govt officials decide what you will do and what you will earn.
I prefer to choose myself thank you. I also prefer to let
consumers decide what they want to buy, not the State.
What is your problem with market economics? Jealousy of
the rich?

TRTL
“"The major objection to communist type economic systems seems to be that people are not allowed to amass huge amounts of private wealth" Actually, no…the problem with capitalism is it allows people to gather more money than they possibly need.”

?

Yabby,
I thought the neo-con song of Cuba was that everybody loved Cuba and Castro
so much because he had brain-washed them. You can't have it both
ways or do you just change tune according to which
argument you are trying refute?

Family businesses have been privately owned there continuously since the revolution.
It is only that the size of the business was limited.
I would argue that the fact that Cuba has survived in the global economy under brutal embargoes
from not only the most powerful economic force in the world
but also its closest neighbour is a testament to the resilience of its structure.

Are you really happy with the way the money is spent in the Rural Fire Service?
I was very disappointed that they decided not to provide fire-proof cells
in the trucks but then a mate of mine was cooked in the cabin of his truck
along with 3 of his mates in the Waterfall fires of 1978.

My problem with market economics is that it is a ‘survival of the fittest’ system
and the fittest to survive in a competitive market economy tends to be
the most ruthless and unscrupulous exploiters of other people’s labour,
eg sweatshops in Asia (or Lakemba).

Just as we have state control of personal behaviour through laws enforced by police
to stop the ruthless and unscrupulous members of the culture exploiting everyone
else so we also need state control of business for exactly the same reasons.

I would love to be rich and I have a number of times in my life been in
a position to get rich if only I sacrificed my principles. Unfortunately I am
afflicted with the belief that my principles are more important than
money – sad, I know.

Rob - reread my post. You'll see that the one thing I agree with you that is good in socialism is the idea of preventing too much wealth accumulating into fewer hands.

The 'Actually no' refers to the fact that you say this is everyone's problem with socialism.

It isn't the problem. It's the one good thing, the aim of socialism. It is everything aside from that aim that is flawed.

That goal sounds nice in theory. In theory only.

The bad thing about socialism is that it is totally impractical - nobody can tell me how they would introduce it to Australia.

Rob, I have no idea what the neo con song is, for I don't follow their
ideas or opinions, I form my own, issue by issue. But then on another
thread somebody suggested that I was a left wing preacher, so there
you have it :)

Cuba basically survived because of Russian subsidies. When they were
cut, it was a disaster. I actually think the Americans made a big
mistake. If they had not boycotted Cuba, old Fidel would have been
shot long ago, by one of his countrymen.

Our fire service works quite differently to yours. If we relied
on the Govt, fires would regularly destroy our countryside nearly
every year, due to lightning strikes. They have some State fire
trucks, but relying on them would not be much chop. So most farmers
around here own their own dedicated fire truck, equipped and ready
to go. Mine is a 4wd with a 1200l tank, which does virtually nothing
else for 6 months of the year, but be ready for the next fire.
I paid for it and maintain it, thats my contribution. I also attend
any fires where I am required. Its the fact that hundreds of vehicles
like mine are around this area, that stops fires. We farmers then
all chippped in to buy a huge pump, so we can refill somewhere near
the scene of the fire. Paddling our own canoe on this one is far
more effective then anything the Govt can do.

We don't really have a "survival of the fittest economy. There
are all sorts of rules, protecting consumers and workers. But yup,
the greedy will keep trying to invent ways to outsmart them. The
same people would spend their lives trying to be in charge of
a communist system, for that would mean the most benefit for
them.

Unlike you, I have no desire to be rich, but just to be comfortable
and happy. I don't need expensive toys to be happy and no need
to impress anyone, so wealth itself as a goal is not my goal.

Ludwig,

With regard to heaping you on the junkpile with the rest, it does look that way, so I apologise. I think you are at least trying to come to some truth, but I seriously have my doubts about Shorbe. (This is not to suggest that I think I have the monopoly on truth, just that, having been through all the arguments and logic over and over, I have not yet seen a better explanation than Marxist-theory).

““The-only-solution-is-to-change-the-economic-system-to-one-in-which-human-need-is-the-driving-force,-not-profit.”

Yes.-But-does-this-mean-embracing-socialism-or-adapting-capitalism,-or-what-precisely?-I-am-particularly-interested-in-the-Australian-situation.-I-can’t-imagine-a-radical-departure-from-capitalism,-but-I-can-envisage-a-significant-refocusing-of-primary-principles.-But-not-before-a-major-catastrophe.-“

In the final-analysis, capitalism cannot be “adapted” or reformed. Where the primary principle of the economic-system is profit, everything else must be subjugated to that principle. Any “reforms” that are made in the interest of human-need or the environment, apart from the fact that they take so long and so much struggle to be implemented and are never the full measure required, are only temporary, and will give way in the face of pressure brought to bear in the future.

Take for example uranium-mining and the ALP’s no new mines policy – enough pressure has been brought to bear on them by those wanting to profit from uranium-mining that they have caved – and so has Peter Garrett for chrissake – it is sickening watching him explain their environment policies – this is a guy who formed his own anti nuclear party. Now, uselessly, they are saying they are happy to open more mines, but oppose nuclear power in Australia. How long until they cave on that one? Your guess is as good as mine.

The Greens are no better because ultimately, all they end up doing is “pressuring” the major parties, and because they don’t challenge the profit system itself, must eventually cave in to the profit motive.

Now, I make no judgement about uranium-mining and nuclear-power and whether we should be using it – although my instinctive response is that we shouldn’t – because the information we are provided with about all energy forms is limited, conflicting, and influenced by the various competing interests of different players. And these interests are ultimately affected by the drive for profit.