Egalitarianism: critics and features - Hi-Desert Star: Letters To Editor

Egalitarianism: critics and features

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 5:30 am

Many critics will agree with some egalitarianism features  — see below. Some try to use history against egalitarianism, but no history serves that purpose. Egalitarianism is a unique system, not yet set in stone.

Communism, or socialism, come as close to our system as to egalitarianism. Those systems used private profit motive with its disparity of wealth in an atmosphere of scarcity.

No system has offered equal income for all its citizens. Illogically, some critics use historically corrupt systems as arguable proofs against egalitarianism. They fail to see how collective profit motive can replace private profit motive, without the sacrifice of one’s characteristic individualism. They fail to realize that equal income solves many of the problems they only imagine would exist.

Limited list:

Equal income, with a higher standard of living for 90 percent of our citizens. Honesty in government — all levels. Qualified leaders, selected by qualified committees chosen by the people. People vote on issue affecting them. Instant recall is available to all. Periodic elections for changing government system. A rational environment control. No taxes. No domestic loans, and no domestic, or foreign debt. Full employment with annual vacations. Early, full-pay, retirement.

Best possible economy of scale industries, and state of the art capital property. New and maintained infrastructure . Practically all property crimes eliminated.

Balanced trade. Peaceful diplomacy, and no aggressive wars, nor war profiteering. Free quality health care. Free quality education, at all levels. On-job-training where needed and desired.

Qualified job mobility. Personal choice residence, with commensurate rent.

No private property in land and capital equipment. No wealth inheritance. Reasonable ownership of personal belongings Free access to media. No economic elitism.

And much more.

© 2016 Hi-Desert Star. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

More about

More about

More about

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion


Commenters are welcome to write about the topic of the letter and other commenters' written responses. Personal remarks about the other commenters are not allowed. Write about the ideas, not the people expressing them. If someone makes a personal remark about you, please do not respond in kind; report it and the comment will be removed if it violates the policy. We reserve the right to remove any comments with abusive, vulgar, obscene, defamatory or prejudiced language or innuendos.

66 comments:

  • Dave Peach posted at 6:40 am on Fri, Oct 5, 2012.

    Dave Peach Posts: 2998

    ""Huh?" - frequent response at another newspaper's website." - Could it be that you are not finishing sentences over there either?"

    Volunteering as a toy makes playfulness as difficult to resist as it is easily accomplished.

    Don't get mad, just get back to your usual website. The host shares your outlooks and will encourage you to feel superior rather than abnormal.

     
  • Mike posted at 6:12 pm on Thu, Oct 4, 2012.

    Mike Posts: 704

    As I said.

     
  • Dave Peach posted at 1:42 pm on Thu, Oct 4, 2012.

    Dave Peach Posts: 2998

    Mr. Hawkins, unless you're busy concentrating on formulating a fourth afterthought, do you by chance recall the M.A.S.H episode that showed Charles unwittingly being upstaged by the son of a butler?

    While you're equally befuddled by clear, concise and complete sentences as by detailed explanations, you'd probably fit in better at the other newspaper's website.

    Consider also: expansive farm fields and highly isolated hollows.

    *Disclaimer: My dad was a mechanic and likewise graduated after as many years of schooling as Jethro Clampett. Conversely, I was a dropout.

    As a consolation, you have my sympathy. But perhaps you'd prefer some corn pone or chitlins?

     
  • Mike posted at 8:34 am on Thu, Oct 4, 2012.

    Mike Posts: 704

    I’ll bet the good folk over at the other newspaper’s website don’t enjoy trying to interpret his purposely convoluted and often unfinished sentences either. Why can't he just skip the insults and make the clarification I asked for? It's a little game he plays, that's why. It makes his day when someone complains. It gives him a chance to tell the world how smart he is!

     
  • Mike posted at 8:14 am on Thu, Oct 4, 2012.

    Mike Posts: 704

    "Mike , Mr. Peach is a good man. I'm hoping he doesn't think he's better than us hicks." - No he's not and yes he does!

     
  • Mike posted at 8:07 am on Thu, Oct 4, 2012.

    Mike Posts: 704

    ""Huh?" - frequent response at another newspaper's website." - Could it be that you are not finishing sentences over there either?

     
  • Dave Peach posted at 7:53 pm on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    Dave Peach Posts: 2998

    Summary: Communism is too restrictive. Capitalism is too risky. Socialism rocks!

    Mr. Worksmart, you don't qualify as a dimwit or a hick, especially because you vary your sources of information. And evidence exists (including long, convoluted explanations) to prove that I'm not better than anyone, including myself. (figure that out)

    But please do put away the banner. "If nominated, I refuse to run..." And if not, I still won't.

    And thanks.

     
  • worksmart posted at 1:11 pm on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    worksmart Posts: 75

    C'mon Dave please dumb it down for us dimwits .I watch FOX news and MSMBC news.They're both guilty of seeing things through their prism, aka bias. I like to read Briebart, Huffington post and Reason mag. You can speak ill of this hick and still get my respect, but I'm putting away my " Dave Peach" banner.

    Now can we all play nice ?

    Mike , Mr. Peach is a good man. I'm hoping he doesn't think he's better than us hicks.

     
  • Dave Peach posted at 11:31 am on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    Dave Peach Posts: 2998

    "Huh?" - frequent response at another newspaper's website. Participants here are generally more intelligent and better informed than the droves of hicks and hillbillies the other publication must pander to for survival. See also: Fox news.

    Equal pay for unequal contributions stymies individual initiative and achievement. "Excessive inactivity" often results.

    Per republican but progressive President Theodore Roosevelt, "isolated concentrations of wealth" aren't conducive to widespread progress and prosperity. Remaining wealthier and more privileged is generally more enticing to misers and users than the overall betterment of society, and themselves.

    As was case just prior to many violent revolutions, usually brought on by unfair privilege and "undue neglect", monopolies can be quite perilous to everyone.

    Substantial individual free rein plus collective contributions such as infrastructure and other government subsidies, for people who are "blessed" with the traits, talents and resources required for foresight, leadership and progress, affords more innovation and advancement than otherwise available. Resulting "debts to society" repaid through progressive taxation, secures "safety nets" for other segments of society. "Safety nets" allow many others to also attain such "blessings".

    "Handouts" shouldn't become confused or interfere with "hand ups". Darwinism affords neither and only results in monopolies and monarchies or oligarchies.

    Better widespread advancement than widespread inactivity, or overwhelming dependence on relative handfuls of "blessed job creators".

    "Win/win" has obvious advantages over "winners and losers" and reduces the incidence of unfair, undue and unnecessary suffering, and resulting deadly riots.

     
  • Mike posted at 7:42 am on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    Mike Posts: 704

    “Mitigating disparities sufficiently to assure necessities precludes atrocities, whether resulting from excessive inactivity, undue neglect or violent reaction.”

    What?

     
  • Dave Peach posted at 9:28 pm on Sun, Sep 30, 2012.

    Dave Peach Posts: 2998

    Neither egalitarianism nor monopoly are sustainable systems, for obvious reasons. Mitigating disparities sufficiently to assure necessities precludes atrocities, whether resulting from excessive inactivity, undue neglect or violent reaction.

    Mao Tse Tung incorrectly stated that, "All rights are derived from the barrel of a gun." Societies have always agreed upon and incorporated rights, of one sort or another, but guns were only recently available. Neither is the threat violence requisite. But given the periodic threat of violence, not to mention natural disasters ("acts of God(s)") and inevitable mortality, all rights can certainly become alienated.

    God(s) and/or Mother Nature and/or *declarations of independence assure only 'abilities', Mike. 'Privileges' require permission, which could be that of a wild animal or a guard dog. Absent any or adequate interference, unobstructed 'freedom and liberty' are available. Within the confines of civilizations, those require 'agreements'.

    Agreements such as 'contracts', which by law (ours, in particular) can be codified by a "meeting of the minds", afford "rights". Threats of violence can entice rights. Wolves and bears regularly afford rights to one another so as to avoid conflict and injury. Violating rights generally results in penalties and punishment, but escape, avoidance and forgiveness are also optional. As is voluntary compliance, such as is most frequent.

    "Human rights" promoted by Jimmy Carter, and "inalienable rights" such as the NRA regularly advertises and often 'alienates', are very often unavailable outside of particular jurisdictions, which we most often no control over. Hence, both forms of propaganda are "complete nonsense".

    Conversely, "prove it".

     
  • worksmart posted at 10:56 am on Sun, Sep 30, 2012.

    worksmart Posts: 75

    Egalitarianism in theory is a great idea. In practice what you have is an ant coiony. Sorry Mr. Eales I realize I'm over simplifing your ideas but humans will never cast of enough of their " self interest " to make your theory work. Ex. "tragedy of the commons"

     
  • Mike posted at 10:49 am on Sun, Sep 30, 2012.

    Mike Posts: 704

    That illustrious document declaring our independence from Great Briton is not “the source” of our unalienable rights, just as Mr. Peach affirms, and that it is not - is properly explained in said document.

    The Declaration of Independence did, however, remind the king that man is “endowed” with such rights and served formal notice that the colonies would be “exercising” them.

    God Bless America

     
  • Dave Peach posted at 6:44 am on Sun, Sep 30, 2012.

    Dave Peach Posts: 2998

    Mr. Hawkins, you're absolutely correct.

     
  • Mike posted at 8:17 pm on Sat, Sep 29, 2012.

    Mike Posts: 704

    Mr. Peach asks a question he could answer himself with a little thought.

    He asks - “What was the source of "unalienable rights"? Our declaration of independence or the preamble to our constitution?” –

    Well by definition Mr. Peach, it can be neither can it?

     
  • Dave Peach posted at 4:37 pm on Sat, Sep 29, 2012.

    Dave Peach Posts: 2998

    *Censoring "homoerectus" and "homogargantuan" indicates clerical intervention.

    See: Anthropology and human evolution.

     
  • Dave Peach posted at 4:34 pm on Sat, Sep 29, 2012.

    Dave Peach Posts: 2998

    Mr. Hawkins, uhhhhh.... tell it to the judge.
    (flashbacks of a mocking fighter pilot: "Uh... You're clear for takeoff." "Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, roger") Sorry, but it was your fault.

    What was the source of "unalienable rights"? Our declaration of independence or the preamble to our constitution?

    Ponder: constitutional amendments, rebellions, slaves, prisoners, executioners, enlisted personnel, children, marriage certificates, wrestling holds, dictatorships, border checkpoints, chronic ailments (presently, boy howdy), global warming, epidemics, nuclear weapons, mortality,...

    Unless ratified and protected (or perhaps avenged), "rights" are meaningless.

    See: Mother Nature. Did you also suppose that wild game and fish also have "rights"? Or were you counting on divine intervention? Say your prayers and good luck.

    *Do you reckon "unalienable rights" also apply to atheists, agnostics and other countries and religions? Review: e.g. The Great Wall.

    See also: Australopithecus, neanderthal, troglodyte, dinosaurs, amphibians, blue green algae, big bang...

    What was the source?


     
  • Mike posted at 1:23 pm on Sat, Sep 29, 2012.

    Mike Posts: 704

    Uh... I would think one could consider the right to pursue happiness as pretty unalienable, eh Mr. Peach?

     
  • Dave Peach posted at 4:33 am on Sat, Sep 29, 2012.

    Dave Peach Posts: 2998

    Going in circles has much in common with going nowhere.

    Mr Hawkins, "propagation" requires procreation. Any economic system will do. Egalitarianism or any other economic system wouldn't preclude the ability to "capitalize" on prom dates. But that's still impertinent to Ben's argument.

    "Neither egalitarianism nor darwinism have been demonstrated as superior or sustainable within human societies." *Especially darwinism. *Darwinism was replaced with higher forms of civility. See: socialism.

    Examples of reversion are readily apparent. Compare: Tea Party and other primitive forms of social interaction and/or repulsion and isolation.

    Other examples remain unmentioned and unsubstantiated: "....that some rights are simply unalienable in that they cannot be given away nor can they be taken away."

    Both evolution and revolution remain effective at doing so. See also: nuclear arsenals and other epidemics. Conversely, please name one. Pretty please?

     
  • Mike posted at 5:11 pm on Fri, Sep 28, 2012.

    Mike Posts: 704

    “Mike, regarding procreation as an investment is accurate, but capitalism certainly isn't required - unless money is all you have to offer.”

    Can everyone hear me screaming? Even after being corrected Mr. Peach insists that Mr. Hawkins used the terms “procreation” and “capitalism”. I assure you he did not! I have it on good authority that in fact Mr. Hawkins intentionally avoided the use of either of those terms specifically because of the confusion Mr. Peach is so practiced at generating. Further more, Mr. Hawkins is describing a far broader concept than Mr. Peach’s continued references to money would infer.

    Mr. Hawkins

     
  • Dave Peach posted at 9:57 am on Fri, Sep 28, 2012.

    Dave Peach Posts: 2998

    Mike, regarding procreation as an investment is accurate, but capitalism certainly isn't required - unless money is all you have to offer.

    CEO, pacifism and predatory flimflam have obvious limitations. Various other investments and quite a few regulations remain prudent. Conversely, your house and our country would collapse.

     
  • CEO posted at 8:00 am on Fri, Sep 28, 2012.

    CEO Posts: 393

    Some individuals can not understand the following eight words:

    1- Live and let live. 2- Let's make a deal.

    It's in all aspects of life, including marriage. Ask John Carry, the marriage entrepreneur.

    Ben might have a committee for that also, "Equal Marriage for all Committee", he might even be a member of that committee.

     
  • Mike posted at 11:13 pm on Thu, Sep 27, 2012.

    Mike Posts: 704

    "Your cash ain't nothing but trash to many organisms, particularly insects.” – Who could have guessed?

    “Capitalism isn't a necessary aspect of supply and demand.” – No?

    “Barter, theft, charity and threats were obviously overlooked.” – Can’t imagine why!

     
  • Mike posted at 10:57 pm on Thu, Sep 27, 2012.

    Mike Posts: 704

    “Neither egalitarianism nor darwinism have been demonstrated as superior or sustainable within human societies. Particularly the latter. Except that it naturally succumbed to superior forms civilization.”

    Now that there is one confusing paragraph, I don’t care who you are!

     
  • Mike posted at 10:49 pm on Thu, Sep 27, 2012.

    Mike Posts: 704

    Capitalize, verb; to take advantage of - to profit by.

    I simply said capitalizing on opportunity is essential to the continued propagation of life. Mr. Peach can’t seem to get his head around that. Go figure.

     
  • Dave Peach posted at 2:42 pm on Wed, Sep 26, 2012.

    Dave Peach Posts: 2998

    Re: Mike Hawkin's false and unfounded conclusions...

    Whether a Holy Ghost, a *Helluvan Angel, or natural forces and compounds kick started this surreal chemical process isn't yet possible to determine or refute. But many fairy tales are easily discounted as such. See: The Book of Genesis.

    Capitalization certainly isn't requisite to procreation, per Mike's observations regarding social insects. "Your cash ain't nothing but trash" to many organisms, particularly insects. Capitalism isn't a necessary aspect of supply and demand. Barter, theft, charity and threats were obviously overlooked.

    Many of the founders would disagree with Mike's characterizations of the founders. John Adams was about the only founder who would have supported his notion regarding still unsubstantiated "god-given rights". Again, name one. None seem to have been incorporated into the Constitution. Merely asserting that they exist isn't anymore convincing than regarding the supposed source.

    Neither egalitarianism nor darwinism have been demonstrated as superior or sustainable within human societies. Particularly the latter. Except that it naturally succumbed to superior forms civilization.

    Conversely, evolution should be obvious. Regardless, proof is easily provided.

    *Assuming profanity, many preachers appear to be *dammed. Regardless, actually.

     
  • Mike posted at 12:06 pm on Wed, Sep 26, 2012.

    Mike Posts: 704

    Re. desertben’s article…

    It’s second nature to capitalize on opportunity. It too is essential to the continued propagation of life. It is, in fact, why such diverse life forms have evolved. The laws of supply and demand were hard at work sorting it all out long before Ben got a wild hair.

    Nevertheless I think nature does provide some examples of the egalitarian like society Ben describes. The best examples might be found in those hoards of insects whose individual thought processes are limited by brains no greater than a tiny knot at the end of a microscopic spinal cord yet they survive by collectively devoting a limited but redundant service to the common good of a group, i.e. colony, hive etc.

    It should be noted, however, that even these mindless devotees are happy to serve only because they would be eliminated otherwise and for all that seems like peace and goodwill on the home front, warm and fuzzes are never extend to peers beyond. Harmony does not exist between these individual groups. They are all mortal enemies as they compete for their place in the sun or in the marketplace as it were. So it seems there really is no utopia after all and at the end of the day, all God’s creatures will remain capitalists in one form or another. But that’s ok by me, Ben’s idea, no matter how impossible, sounded kind of boring anyway.


     
  • Mike posted at 7:53 am on Wed, Sep 26, 2012.

    Mike Posts: 704

    Re. David Peach’s comment…


    That David Peach is atheist and I am not is academic and non sequitur.


    While I am not in total disagreement with his last post I do believe, as did our nations founders, that some rights are simply unalienable in that they cannot be given away nor can they be taken away. Something Dave appears to argue.


     
  • Mike posted at 7:32 pm on Tue, Sep 25, 2012.

    Mike Posts: 704

    Ben should do just one month of military service and learn what the heck he is asking for!

     
  • Dave Peach posted at 6:39 am on Tue, Sep 25, 2012.

    Dave Peach Posts: 2998

    No, those came of "god (loose interpretation) given 'abilities'", Mr. Hawkins.

    Our president and ourselves don't always see eye-to-eye, wouldn't you agree? The rights hammered out by the founders were derived from experiences, conceptions and compromises, and remain subject to interpretation and amendment. They tend to vary, often considerably, with "rights" agreed upon by others. "Rights" contrived by Nazis were unlikely to have been heaven sent, just as many of our have been quite "evil".

    Mongol hordes pouring through the (not so) Great Wall exercised their "rights". Chinese defenders did the same, but weren't as "blessed" with guidance from a ruthless warlord. Everyone has "abilities", which vary more than any sets of "rights". Regarding those as "rights" defies compulsory ratification or any semantic sense. Conversely, cite any one you suppose to be resulting from any spirit(s) (alcohol aside, which was surely originally influential), while proffering any proof.

    Olivia O' de Haulleville provided this "prayer". 'Resolve and dissemination' seems more appropriate and productive:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3SEEsjWvAM

     
  • Mike posted at 3:30 pm on Mon, Sep 24, 2012.

    Mike Posts: 704

    Yes, “God given rights” Mr. Peach!

    Per your pal, and our President, in a speech to our armed forces at the Whitehouse this last 4th of July – “You serve under our proud flag. You and your families sacrifice more than most of us can ever know--all in defense of those God-given rights that were first put to paper 236 years ago…”

     
  • sampups posted at 9:52 am on Mon, Sep 24, 2012.

    sampups Posts: 28

    Bunk! And no I don't mean beds.

     
  • Dave Peach posted at 8:47 am on Mon, Sep 24, 2012.

    Dave Peach Posts: 2998

    "God given right"?

    In the absence of laws that establish and protect rights, divine intervention is unlikely to afford much protection. Wild animals are afforded the same 'privileges' by Mother Nature, as are vigilantes and/or murderers and/or opportunistic or retaliatory warlords.

    Multinational capitalists such as are attempting to sell us out to the highest bidder were afforded fewer protections, and should have less "freedom of speech" than the current supreme court and various imaginations seem to suppose.

     
  • Mike posted at 1:19 pm on Sun, Sep 23, 2012.

    Mike Posts: 704

    Hot Flash - Americans are Capitalists!

    In response to desertben’s article above, here is my partial list…

    AMERICAN capitalists have the absolute RIGHT to freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition, to privacy and probable cause regarding search and seizure of our persons and property, to own property, to due process of law, to a trial of our peers, to confront our accusers. We cannot be compelled to incriminate ourselves. Double jeopardy is prohibited as is cruel and unusual punishment. Governmental power is issued forth only from “We the People” and can be reclaimed at will.

    And there’s much more, including the right to bear arms in order to insure our God given right to these freedoms.

    How ironic is it? We have only one life to give and many Americans chose to give their precious live so Ben is free to express his contempt for them doing so. Ironic too is that if Ben actually got what he is asking for, it would be necessary that he loose the very right to so freely criticize.

    But if promoting this egalitarianism nonsense is how Ben wants to squander his life, well… IT’S A FREE COUNTRY ISN’T IT?

    So enjoy it Ben because the cost of your continued freedom will be what the market can bear and your fellow Americans, the capitalists, will pay it gladly. It’s a bargain!

     
  • Mike posted at 9:00 am on Sun, Sep 23, 2012.

    Mike Posts: 704

    Life is short, fish are biting and I don’t need Ben’s permission to go!

    Give it a break Ben, enjoy your freedoms they were hard won!

     
  • Mike posted at 8:20 am on Sun, Sep 23, 2012.

    Mike Posts: 704

    “Reasonable ownership of personal belongings” - Wow! Does that mean I can have my very own toothbrush?

    “And much more” - My goodness, what more could there be?

     
  • Bob Mateski posted at 8:51 pm on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.

    Bob Mateski Posts: 314

    Ben you pitch this garbage theory about once every three months, go back and look at all the negative responses that you have gotten in the past year and you will see that you are alone.
    Try pitching something that people might be interested in considering, it sure beats this junk you think is a workable solution and in my opinion compares to the one the Nazis called the final solution.

     
  • CEO posted at 5:58 pm on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.

    CEO Posts: 393

    Impossible to answer, because egalitarianism is imossible to implement.

     
  • Desertben posted at 4:31 pm on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.

    Desertben Posts: 426

    CEO

    Your sincerity is outstanding. You ask a question that is impossible to answer, and can only be assumed. Then, receiving the best possible explanation, you claim that all is a hoax. You don’t want an answer, you want merely to think what you wish to think.


    Selling? Has anyone asked you to join something, or become a member to anything? You might join a “ Build” a Strawman organization,” in it, you would be tops.

     
  • CEO posted at 3:31 pm on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.

    CEO Posts: 393

    "Let me be as explicit as I can be. First off, nobody can name the amount,"-Ben

    That's the exact point, you don't know, and a committee of 12 tenured bureaucrats don't know either. It's impossible for one or 12 chosen people to know what 300 million different people what at any given time and any given place.

    If I don't agree with the committee's decree on equal pay to me personally, how is that dispute handled. This is where it gets totalitarian. Injecting reality into your dream world, turns it into a nightmare.

    "Industry would be run at full employment.'-Ben
    Say's who? You just admitted that you don't know.

    "All industry would operate at top economy of scale."-Ben
    Say's who again? You just admitted that you don't know.

    "Now then, the state distributes all the money, after deducting your rent, which is extremely reasonable" - Ben
    Say's who? Your system is full of bureaucratic committees making decisions for individuals, over 300 million just in the USA. That works if your on the committee.

    Your response is full of promises somewhere over the rainbow. I'll stop trying to get something of substance out of this discourse, it seems that a direct non-response to questions is what's being offered. Better luck next time on your egalitarianism sales pitch.

     
  • Desertben posted at 1:34 pm on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.

    Desertben Posts: 426

    Dave,
    Russia did advance quickly, and considering their climate and their agrarian beginnings, they made a whopping advance. Their progress was similar to our own, in that workers under the leash of capitalists had to fight back with unions and other methods. The Russians were under the yoke of a dictatorial state with Stalin as its head.

    Good Grief, what a far cry from Catherine the Great and Peter. I remember reading where Catherine, who considered herself an “enlightened despot,” called the serfs together and asked them what they wanted most. Their reply was that they wanted serfs for themselves.
    The fact is that while we accuse Russia of advancing on the sweat and blood of her mistreated Russian people, our capitalists were doing approximately the same thing here in America during our early industrial period.

     
  • Desertben posted at 12:48 pm on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.

    Desertben Posts: 426


    Dave,

    “Various education and jobs bills allowed more productive pursuits than illiterate cotton-pickers, or laggard cotton pickers, are generally afforded.”


    Quite right, and oddly enough, Hoover, as Sec. of Commerce, was largely reponsible for that improvement.


    CEO

    Let me be as explicit as I can be. First off, nobody can name the amount, but let us try.

    Industry would be run at full employment. All industry would operate at top economy of scale. All people would either work at various jobs, be students, sick (mental or physically),
    New and improved infrastructure would facilitate production.

    Now, compare that to what we have today. If you see no tremendous increase in production, then you did not witness the full employment during WWII, and that was hampered with all the drawbacks that capitalism affords.

    Besides the tremendous increase in production, that production of junk goods would not exist. Advertisements would be honest.
    Now then, the state distributes all the money, after deducting your rent, which is extremely reasonable, and any savings for vacation funds (over and above your monthly income–for you and your friends might want to go together and rent a resort location, or whatever). Your income is time-limited, and what you don’t use may be returned to the state. Egalitarian leaders make no more income than any other citizen.

    Now then, I have written an Egalitarianism Handbook. If you are sincerely interested, I will see that you get it free of charge. I would need a home, or PO address. It is approximately 100 pages,
    the handbook is linked for quick access. and is in e-book Pdf format. My e-nail address is desertben1@aol.com
    (Mark subject “Egalitarianism” so I catch it the e-mail)

    I will add this: I am thoroughly against any form of autocracy, or dictatorship, but I do not think “mobocracy” is a solution, nor a wealth-run democracy.


    =

     
  • CEO posted at 10:16 am on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.

    CEO Posts: 393

    I'm addressing Ben's statement below. If you agree with him then you two have something incommon...

    "First off, everyone works for the state. Regardless of the job, all receive like income." -Ben

    Again what is the equal pay? A dollar amount is what I want to see, you are on the "Equal Pay for All Committee" after all.

    "First off, everyone works for the state."

    So, the head coach for the San Diego Chargers works for the state, all the players work for the state, just as Edwin Chin who owns the Chinese restaurant works for the state.
    Do you really think that works?

    "Equal pay is a more than adequate income"

    Say's who? Again, what is the pay dollar amount? What is adequate income?

     
  • Dave Peach posted at 9:03 am on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.

    Dave Peach Posts: 2998

    CEO, "working for the state" has worked out well for many people and many states. See: public roads and available education. Russia went from a backward agrarian society to superpower status more rapidly than ourselves. Individualism was overly restrained, which became unsustainable. Anarchy and reliance upon unregulated, marauding capitalists are yet less accommodating or realistic.

    Ben, John Deere largely caused the sudden and dramatic migrations into cities, where "distribution of wealth" is more easily hustled than among rows of corn and inanimate farm implements. (All capitalists pursue "redistribution of wealth, despite accusations and other nonsense to the contrary. Transactions require and assure wealth redistribution. Nobody ever became wealthy or survived any society without it) Few contemporaries would have agreed that anyone "was forgotten".

    Various education and jobs bills allowed more productive pursuits than illiterate cotton-pickers, or laggard cotton pickers, are generally afforded.

     
  • CEO posted at 7:37 am on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.

    CEO Posts: 393

    It's understandable why Ben does not want to get specific about his planned society, because when he does it sounds like a totalitarian society. The capitalism you despise is more like crony capitalism or fascism, big government in bed with big business, I too despise that relationship. Big government bailouts of big business has to stop, but I suspect you are in favor of the auto industry bailout among others. My be your a fan of crony capitalism and just don't know it. However in my opinion the market better allocates resources compared to a central committee.

    If you have time and if you can possible stop with the name calling (un-witty) for a minute, try and elaborate on your scheme for me. I'm not looking for promises somewhere over the rainbow. Substance...

    Again what is the equal pay? A dollar amount is what I want to see, you are on the "Equal Pay for All Committee" after all.

    "First off, everyone works for the state."

    So, the head coach for the San Diego Chargers works for the state, all the players work for the state, just as Edwin Chin who owns the Chinese restaurant works for the state.
    Do you really think that works?

    "Equal pay is a more than adequate income"

    Say's who? Again, what is the pay dollar amount? What is adequate income?

     
  • Desertben posted at 2:53 am on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.

    Desertben Posts: 426

    Dave,

    Unfortunately, FDR’s reform Farm bills made large farming profitable, but did little for the small farmer. “The forgotten man” was truly forgot. Very likely just as well, if we had to go back to the methods of the small farmer nowadays, we would no doubt die of starvation. We are still kowtowing to the farm block in Congress, and paying large farmers for not planting. We are also subsidizing corn to keep the price of meat low as it is. It is no news to you or to me that price, not production is the thing.

    Also, I recall, years ago, when Howard Scott, the then head of Technocracy, predicted machine gun barricade at all filling stations. “Oh no, we will never run out of oil!” That was the word from the conservatives then.

    They may have been “Technocrazy,” but many of the ideas have come about and their ideas regarding industry are still right. But their ideas about government, I thought too autocratic.

     
  • Desertben posted at 2:24 am on Fri, Sep 21, 2012.

    Desertben Posts: 426

    Bob M.

    A few question may help : Was the Vietnam War your idea? Was the war in Iraq and Afghanistan also your decision? Was this depression another of your ideas?

    Did you make any large amounts of money due to these things?

    Not only are your larger decisions made for you, but you are also caught up in the hegemony of your culture. If you continue to learn more, as I feel sure you will, you will eventually come to realize that regardless of ones physical, or mental power, it is money that determines much of whatever you may do. There are several forms of freedom, one of the hardest to achieve is economic freedom.

    I think that Egalitarianism is beyond our collective reach today, but it comes closer, than other government forms I have studied. to being less autocratic and free from the evils of capitalism.

    You are wrong about autocracy in Egalitarianism, but if you want to believe that, it is your privilege. After all, you are an American, and you don’t have to bother yourself with the knowledge pf what you say.
    That is known as freedom of speech. It is also called prejudice.
    Keep up the zeal, Bob, and remember this: the world belongs to the dissatisfied.

     
  • Dave Peach posted at 10:31 pm on Thu, Sep 20, 2012.

    Dave Peach Posts: 2998

    Ben, unlike now, farming families comprised a very significant portion of the population. Excluding those in the dust bowl, they could generally grow enough food to eat but couldn't make any money due to extremely low food prices. Getting the prices back up above the point of breaking even allowed them to put people to work at reasonable rates of pay. The money that the wealthy hadn't been spending on food then went back into circulation, allowing additional investments, hence more employment, productivity and prosperity. Substantial market surpluses since and periodic budget surpluses allow us to care for low performers rather than incite low performance... and riots.

    Bob, the system we now have allows people who aren't born as smart, strong, or with money to be able to survive and perhaps become productive and prosperous, however too often needlessly miserably. Many who are born without money are more capable of becoming productive than many who won the luck of womb contest. Inasmuch as the Republican Party is so closely aligned with the Nazi Party, immediately adjacent and often overlapping on the political scale, the urge to allow the poorer of the species to perish rather than encumber others, then perhaps become competitive, conforms to their similar ideals in addition to their self-righteous but unearned superiority complexes. But since slow agony is more cruel than instant death, which approach is worse, and whether either was/is worth preserving warrants consideration.

    As a consolation, we aren't quite as harsh on the Republican Party or radical left-wingers. But we should be equally intolerant of their false impressions of themselves and others. Moderates fortunately remain less extreme, especially fortunately for y'all.

     
  • Bob Mateski posted at 3:10 pm on Thu, Sep 20, 2012.

    Bob Mateski Posts: 314

    I just re read Websters definition of egalitarianism just to make sure i wasn't incorrect on my definition of this system.
    Equality is false, we might have equal rights as human beings but some are born smarter, some are born stronger, some are born with money and some are born into poverty.
    The system we have now depends on you as an individual making your own destiny, poor choices in life will result in poor outcomes but the choice is still yours to make.
    The system you tout takes choices out of your hands and puts them in the hands of others such as I know whats good for you groups, I for one will continue to make my own destiny at the time and place of my own choosing.

     
  • Desertben posted at 2:51 pm on Thu, Sep 20, 2012.

    Desertben Posts: 426

    Dave,
    Thanks for your last input on historical price manipulation. It helps to prove the worst about capitalism. It’s a history worth remembering. Killing hogs and pouring out milk was part of the new deal plan. FDR asked his Sec. of Agriculture if pig birth control might not be more acceptable.
    I can’t promise a Swan Song, but this might be it for Egalitarianism.

    CEO,
    There is an adage about old dogs and new tricks, but I suspect, it is more like other kinds of resistance in your case. For example, conservatives have a built-in resistance to anything new. I recall, years ago, a professor being asked to please explain Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. He climbed under his desk. Arising again, he growled, “Is that guy was still here?”

    I also recall the animosity that older plumbers had, regarding plastic pipe. There is a natural resistance to new things, and new ideas. Many still hate computers. Columbus must have had a “H” o fa time.

    I get more from a book if I sympathize with the author first, when finished, I can criticize more knowledgeably. I’m told it works that way for most readers. Of course, being a full-blooded American type, many criticize things they know little or nothing about----its called prejudice. I am sure that you and Bob M. are familiar with the term. Some prejudice, however, may be healthy. It may prevent one from stepping into an open sewer manhole at night.

     
  • Bob Mateski posted at 2:44 pm on Thu, Sep 20, 2012.

    Bob Mateski Posts: 314

    Hmm Incarceration, Hmm Education (Not Brainwashing) ROAD APPLES!
    Utopian NO, Totalitarian YES!

    We have the freedoms that we do because of the sacrifice of many others, I refuse to buy into this false pipe dream Ben.
    I think this might just fly if you move to a deserted island and bring along your devoted re educated (not brainwashed) believers of this deceptive system you crow about, beware of flash mobs staging an uprising as soon as someone claims they have not been fairly compensated compared to their neighbor who has not come out of their hut for 3 month's solid.
    It might be a good idea to buy a speed boat and stash it somewhere for a quick escape should there be a revolution.

     
  • Dave Peach posted at 1:32 pm on Thu, Sep 20, 2012.

    Dave Peach Posts: 2998

    Switching between opponents keeps them on their toes.

    Capitalism can be and has been as totalitarian as any other form of economics. Disallowing unions and pitting workers against each other allows some to become enslaved while others are left to starve, despite that they're both applying for jobs picking excess crops. See: San Fernando Valley, circa 1933. Henry Ford and other industrialists resorted to beatings and murder to assure shortages of "resources", such as able bodied workers and union reps. Coca-Cola is often produced with the blood of South American union leaders. Causing water shortages in India so as to peddle soda pop to upper caste customers is well-documented. William Randolph Hearse certainly caused hemp shortages so as to expand his forestry products. The pharmaceutical industry does the same to assure that dangerous drugs remain available while quite benign medications remain classified as equally dangerous as the most devastating drugs.

    DeBeer's certainly causes diamond shortages so as to maintain artificially high prices. Manipulated oil prices and shortages are legendary and well proven. Planned obsolescence was contrived for the purpose of producing market shortages.

    Working for pirates and slave drivers is/was hardly more enticing than working at the post office, unless one happens or hopes to be similarly slimy. Moderation remains more valuable and workable than either extreme.

     
  • CEO posted at 7:44 am on Thu, Sep 20, 2012.

    CEO Posts: 393

    I'm sure all I need to understand your societal view is a committee ordered lobotomy. And if that does not work, a committee ordered jail sentence. Your Utopian view is looking more Totalitarian as the details come out. Of course if your lucky enough to be on a committee, like yourself, all will be fine in the land of wine and roses.

     
  • CEO posted at 7:32 am on Thu, Sep 20, 2012.

    CEO Posts: 393

    Egalitarianism is a revolt against nature. Nature makes resources scarce not capitalism (like your own time, non-renewable). Egalitarianism is a euphemism for collectivism. There are commune collectives right here in northern California, go there try it out, I bet you would not last six months. Watch out for the Jim Jones types and the cool aid their dishing out.

    Again what is the equal pay? A dollar amount is what I want to see, you are on the "Equal Pay for All Committee" after all.

    Ben, just because you proclaim something wonderful over the rainbow awaits you does not make it reality. The sales pitch is lacking greatly in substance, very Utopian. Trust me, believe me, I'm here to help you is not a convincing sales pitch, ask the government about that one.

    "First off, everyone works for the state."

    So, the head coach for the San Diego Chargers works for the state, all the players work for the state, just as Edwin Chin who owns the Chinese restaurant works for the state. Do you really think that works?

    "Equal pay is a more than adequate income"

    Say's who? Again, what is the pay dollar amount? What is adequate income?

     
  • Desertben posted at 7:06 am on Thu, Sep 20, 2012.

    Desertben Posts: 426

    Dave,
    you seldom give wrong advice, and while I understand the uphill, and somewhat impossible task, when I observe the mess the country is in, the urge to make things right becomes compulsive.

    As for the people you characterized, most of that sort would not exist in an egalitarian state. For those of that ill. if friendly persuasion, or peer pressure does not work, and if their lack of willingness to work is not due to physical or mental sickness, then there is always incarceration, and education–not brainwashing. But job environment amd hours would be much different. With modern technology. most manual labor would be history. Reasonable industrial leaders, being chosen by their qualified worker committees would replace those who know little about workers and psychology. Maximum productivity need not be gained with the cat of nine tails.

    You are right about the reforms and improvements that might be gained in the near future. Goodness knows that capitalism recreates, over and over, the tragedy that faces many of our citizens today. Egalitarianism, or something very near it, is a long term goal that I believe needs investigation.
    The wish for luck is reciprocal.

     
  • Desertben posted at 5:40 am on Thu, Sep 20, 2012.

    Desertben Posts: 426

    CEO,
    Of course, in our capitalistic economy, equal pay is thought to be ridiculous. Bit in an egalitarian state, it would seem very normal.

    First off, everyone works for the state. Regardless of the job, all receive like income. As stated before, the standard of living would be higher for 90% of Americans citizens. People working in hazardous places, such as mines, etc., would receive the same pay, but very likely fewer work hours.
    Equal pay is a more than adequate income, Paid by the state, either monthly or weekly, depending upon one’s ability to manage it. Except for saving for vacation, the pay is time limited. Not all of the income needs to be spent, and some may return to the state if not wanted. The egalitarian state operates in abundance, not the contrived scarcity of a capitalist state, that has no other way to keep prices up, than by making goods scarce.
    As for incentive, there is more than money. There is the knowledge that there is no poverty, no property crimes, honest government, and all the many other benefits that equal income affords. Egalitarians would not miss the greed, the poverty etc, that capitalism creates.
    Success would be seen in one’s ability, not in the amount of money one has managed to pile up.

    Even in our own system, there are workmen who take pride in their work, and there are even those who attempt to be honest. Of course, many of our jobs do not permit honesty, such as sales people. amd politicians.
    As I pointed out in the article, collective profit motive would replace private profit motive, especially when there is so much more to gain.

    Economic elitism belongs on the same shelf with aristocratic elitism and racial elitism. Which of these would you want unshelved?

     
  • CEO posted at 9:05 pm on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.

    CEO Posts: 393

    "Equal pay for all"

    If you have time, please define:

    -Equal

    -pay

    So do I have your position correct: Edwin Chin who just received his US citizenship at the INS goes and opens a Chinese Food restaurant and will received the same pay as judge Judy, who receives the same "equal pay" as the head coach of the San Diego Chargers, who receives the same pay as the president of the US. Good luck with that one.

    One more try because you like fruit trees;

    Smith the apple tree produces 100 apples for the year. And Jones the apple tree across the street produces 300 apples for the year. What caliber gun will you use to stick in the belly of Jones the apple tree in order to convince him to give smith the apple tree 100 of his apples.

     
  • Dave Peach posted at 8:18 pm on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.

    Dave Peach Posts: 2998

    "... who would argue against collective help?"
    Deserters; traitors; hermits; sociopaths; most all right wing adherents. Equal income goes a bit further and encounters substantially more opposition. Given equal income, laggards would often take advantage and many would undoubtedly behave like former Chinese farmers: "Standing in rows waiting for the sun to set."

    Perils draw people closer. Profits don't. See: dogs eats dogs. Eradicating selfishness and dishonesty will require a more silvery tongue than likely available.
    Equal income couldn't be guaranteed because the opportunity for shady dealings, and shady characters, would remain available. See: reality.

    Ben, anticipating that Egalitarianism will suddenly become widely attractive or superior to more readily available reforms seems exceedingly optimistic, especially considering the past and present rate of conversion.

    Meanwhile, reforms remain available and inevitable. Better to make headway than to wait for the world to adapt to universal conversions that appear unworkable and remain overwhelmingly rejected. Prototypes might be a bit more persuasive and substantially less risky and time consuming. My remaining time is likely to remain overwhelmingly devoted to other direly needed endeavors having much better chances of success.

    Regardless, and as always, good luck.

     
  • Desertben posted at 6:36 pm on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.

    Desertben Posts: 426

    Well Tom,
    you are a little hard on all of us, but Egalitarianism is, at least, one effort to avoid a future such as the past, or present, of which you speak. Thanks for reminding all of us of the history we should not forget.

     
  • Desertben posted at 5:34 pm on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.

    Desertben Posts: 426


    Bob M.,

    “...who is going to be productive and maybe go above and beyond minimum effort if everyone gets equal compensation?”
    Answer:

    Certainly not you, in a capitalistic system, although many do so, wittingly, or not.

    “...determination to better your life and the life of your loved ones.”

    Regardless of who, or how many suffer?


    The system for which you seem to worship allows for the gross inequity of poverty for the many and riches for the few: 50% own about 2% of the country’s wealth, while 1 or 2 % own nearly 40% of the country’s wealth. Is this your idea of near perfection? Think about it.
    Incidently, many soldiers fought and died for something better than they had known, or had. We all have loved ones for whom we want the best. Thanks for your comments.

     
  • tomloret posted at 4:53 pm on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.

    tomloret Posts: 411

    "...America was founded on freedom of religion, freedom of words, freedom to persue wealth and or happiness based or your own dreams, desires and sheer determination to better your life and the life of your loved ones..."

    This dialogue is truly where idiocy meets ideology....all that may be true if one happens to be a rich white male...but for the rest of us millions...this country was founded on first, the freedom FROM religions that unfortunately continue to plague us with its wars, violence and lynchings...and everything else was based on over three hundred years of human slavery, wholesale genocide, diabolical land grabs and we remain the world's leader in enviromental destruction, pollution and above all else, murder, rape and abuse of children, women and animals.

    Come to terms with that and we'll have a chance at the table of human decency...until then...you can kiss it all goodbye. Brainwashed fools, all of you, to the very end.....

     
  • Desertben posted at 4:31 pm on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.

    Desertben Posts: 426

    CEO,

    I should know the value of history. In my own, I have well over 40 pages of references, mostly Pulitzer prize winners and best sellers. You are right in the sense that we should learn from history, and that we can use history to aid our points of view--or not. However I am right in saying that you cannot know more about apples by the study of bananas. That is, one cannot say this or that will not work, because something entirely different did not.

    Using the failures of communism or socialism as an argument against Egalitarianism is hardly being honest, or fair. There is, however, much history that can be used as arguments against capitalism, and an unreasonable, wealth controlled democracy.

    No other system. of which I am familiar. advocates equal income for all. Egalitarians advocate the use of, not the ownership of, real estate, but that is in the context of an Egalitarian state, hardly possible in the context of a state run by capitalism, or a mixture of it and socialism.


    For your info, I am as American as can be. I have also worked in a system that paid much less for the person who knew more about the work, and was depended upon for knowing more than others with whom he worked. This is the same system that your arguments support. Still, I don’t suggest you pack your bags. I only suggest that you be sincere and honest in your arguments.
    Thaks for your comments.

     
  • Bob Mateski posted at 3:04 pm on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.

    Bob Mateski Posts: 314

    This system is so flawed it's laughable, who is going to be productive and maybe go above and beyond minimum effort if everyone gets equal compensation?
    Honest qualified politicians is an absolute oxymoron if I ever heard one, this tired and insane idea is pitched every couple of month's by the above author and no matter how many different ways it is worded or pitched it still stinks.
    America was founded on freedom of religion, freedom of words, freedom to persue wealth and or happiness based or your own dreams, desires and sheer determination to better your life and the life of your loved ones.
    Hundreds of thousands of Americans have died defending our freedoms and way of life, why should we even entertain such an insulting idea of big brother telling us who, what, where and why we should go down that path?
    Our system may not be perfect but it still provides opportunity to make your own destiny, the above mentioned system does not!

     
  • Desertben posted at 2:41 pm on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.

    Desertben Posts: 426

    Okay Dave,

    I doubt the “killing” of time, but I am guilty of being at least 80 years too late, or a hundred, or so, years too early. I do not feel unlike Bellamy’s protagonist, running through thee19th century streets hawking equality amidst the greed honed by centuries of use.

    Taking your arguments one at a time “rejection of collective imperatives.” During a battle, who would argue against collective help? When was collective aid refused when beneficial?

    As for: "Higher standards of living"

    Productivity would increase by far more than that with t which we are accustomed. Sincee all would benefit equally by that, the standard of living would increase immensely.
    You saw this during WWII, not the equality, but the increase possible with full employment and collective endeavor. And that, even with the drawbacks of capitalism. Sorry, I don’t get th e (standing in rows waiting for the sunrise creating eye problems and sore feet) analogy.

    (Honesty in government) Of couse, this would be a foreign concept to people drenched in the political
    mendaciousness imposed upon people for centuries. Equal income, however, would make political dishonesty unprofitable, and therefore unlikely----and I have a feeling that you know all this.

    (Opportunity and compulsion for favoritism) Opportunities would surely increase tremendously. There would be the desire among all for others as well as themselves to advance, since greatness would improve all equally, e.g., don’t we want “Better and Honest” leaders, as well as people in general? As for favoritism, nepotism has been ruled out constitutionally, and favoratism, or croneyism is made less likely by equal income. It is also subject to the recall feature which has an immediate effect, not one that waits for an end of term .

    (qualified committees chosen by the people)
    The term “qualified” would not include a mere selection based on attitudes , ignorance, appearances, hunches, misinformation, nor all the other failures of our democracy. Instead, it means that the selected would be capable of dealing with the problems of the office for which selected. The matter of determining such qualification is not an easy one. Some suggest university aid in helping to select committees. Also authors of related topics or subjects might be a source. Sometimes seniority might be a factor in suggesting the “right” persons. In any case, persuasion by appearance, oratory, personality, or other such means, would be made impossible, by the use of non-interested, or non-profiting official speakers. Although I think this topic needs more work, for it is the non-democratic portion of Egalitarianism. The people, however, do vote on all the issues affecting them, but not for other people. You will probably see the connection to the old caucus system, although it was used in such a way as to prolong , not improve.

     
  • Dave Peach posted at 8:53 am on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.

    Dave Peach Posts: 2998

    Killing a bit of time by debating this hypothetical scenario assures a civil conversation with the author, who is refreshingly civilized and either way ahead of time or about eighty years too late.

    "One's characteristic individualism" often includes egregious selfishness and rejection of collective imperatives.

    "Higher standards of living" assumes a similar or larger economy. Reduced productivity while "standing in rows waiting for the sun to set" wouldn't be conducive to higher standards of anything except podiatrist and cataract patients.

    "Honesty in government - all levels" would be as unlikely as "honesty on the witness stand". Individual ethical standards wouldn't likely become purified by either peer pressure or threats. Opportunity and compulsion for favoritism or bigoted punishments probably wouldn't suddenly evaporate. See: The Old South.

    "Qualified leaders, selected by qualified committees chosen by the people" appears to neglect the contemporary practice of electing and selecting representatives and committees based on ideology and popularity rather than qualification. See: YVTC and HDWD.

    "People vote on issue affecting them" seems to assume a very lengthy ballot and/or quite overworked committees. The list of individual issues is almost limitless.

    "Instant recall" would require the elimination of due process and special elections. Trusting that bureaucrats would become thoroughly competent and trustworthy in removing those who aren't appears to illustrate a paradox.

    "Periodic elections for changing government system" are already available. Profound campaign reform would be a good place to start. Getting it enacted would instill adequate confidence to proceed into other unlikely tasks, which would require decades or centuries to even review, consider, discuss and promote, much less become ratified and instituted.

    "A rational environment control" would require dictatorial mandates, such as aren't very popular or trustworthy. Individual priorities and approaches would vary from one bureaucrat to the next. See: EPA directors.

    "No taxes" affords 'no revenue'. Grover Norquist's vision of heaven/heck. Mandated public service and the procurement and processing of resources tend to count as "taxation". See: blisters and callouses.

    "No domestic loans, and no domestic, or foreign debt" ignores always present black markets, addictions and loan sharks. Deficit investment is often economically productive. See: Louisiana Territory and interstate highways. Saving up to purchase modernized infrastructure requiring imported anything would probably preclude any need for infrastructure, but national defense comprised of angry mobs would likely become more necessary and less safe.

    "Balanced trade. Peaceful diplomacy, and no aggressive wars, nor war profiteering." Universal adoption and forced marijuana ingestion would be requisite but inadequate. Dissolving street gangs would be yet more difficult than eliminating global alliances and adversaries.

    Persuading all Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and especially myself to become completely compatible and accommodating could take a bit longer than it took primordial fish to learn how to walk.

    Persuading anyone locally of the desirability and feasibility would be indicative of progress vice distraction. But since not much else merits much attention, perhaps we should remain focused on fantasies and continue ignoring realities.

     
  • CEO posted at 7:56 am on Wed, Sep 19, 2012.

    CEO Posts: 393

    The author of this piece is completely delusional and Utopian. History should not be considered and dropped from all course study at all schools. Yes , to consider and study historical facts is a waste of time (satire). King George III gave all the promises to his peasants that are listed in the article above, been there done that. The author hates history and can not site historical record to support his Utopian world because no time in history has a scheme like the one above ever worked. Some day over the rainbow...

    TANSTAAFL

    Look that acronym up.

    Equal income for all, how lovely, how Utopian. OK start with all government employees, including teachers. The 20 year veteran teacher and the first year teacher will have equal pay. That makes complete sense, not. Utopians have no logical arguments. Americans are not going to give up their property rights for some Utopian wishful thinking. North Korea fits Benjamin's description of an egalitarian society; equal pay for all, no property rights, honesty in government, no tax's, free free free living. North Korea is sure to give Benjamin C. Eales a seat at their equal income for all committee. Go and show them their errors of central planning...

     

Yucca Valley, CA

Current Conditions

weather
Clear
87°
Humidity: 10%
Winds: at 3mph
Feels Like: 87°

Your Extended Forecast

Today

weather
High 83°/Low 60°
Clear

Tomorrow

weather
High 84°/Low 60°
Mainly sunny

Sunday

weather
High 82°/Low 61°
Mainly sunny

Monday

weather
High 88°/Low 64°
Sunshine

Follow us on Facebook

Follow us on Facebook