Eva Durant wrote: (snip)
> Because they think without the intrusion of govrnments,
> the winners/losers separation would be more perfect
> for them. So that they can blame then every ill
> on just their "inefficiently evolved" victims.
Are you saying it is like the Christian who blames Christians for the failure of
Christianity and not Christ?
> (snip)
> you lost me here. Just because they haven't competed,
> doesn't mean we cannot draw conclusions, even scientific
> conclusions.
How can you be logical about something that is simply theory? Don't youneed real
data before you can call it scientific? The military option that I
mentioned pollutes the test of the integrity of the systems IMO. Your
statement is an example of the assumptions that make an evaluation
difficult. Suppose we begin with just the theory and then the data as to
the success of that theory. Everything else is philosophy or prejudice, yes?
> Your examples that I deleted show the shortcomings
> of the competitive setup for sustainability and R&D.
They weren't examples but questions that I would like to discuss.Theoretical problems
to be explored.
> Even just these two problems cannot be solved
> based on market compotition system and there are more
> such fatal flows.
I am not tied to the market as the only system although considering themarket as one
of the systems is a good idea IMHO.
> So surely, you try to achieve
> a society without these flaws.
Actually I'm much too practical to believe in systems without flaws.But exploring
practically the future of work, the growth of both individuals
and systems and individual evolution fascilitated by an environment
that allows for all of the human endeavors, is in my mind, a worthy
exploration.
> I find Marx's analysis scientific, because he manages
> to point out the features of capitalism that
> are unable to achieve a balanced economical
> and social development. It makes sense to leave
> them out from a future structure. This
> is what he proposed with very good reasoning, using all
> the historical and scientific data he had.
> That he had also had the philosophical support of
> dialectic materialism is just an extra plus.
This sounds much like the comments that I hear about Hayek on the right
and his science. I'm not an expert on him but I certainly have heard a lot
about him from our Libertarian right wing. Can both be truly scientific and
diametrically opposed? Can we draw any conclusions about that without
the input of competitive data? minus the military option?
REH
