Re: Comparing Lisp conditions to Java Exceptions

Robert Marlow wrote: 
So what you're trying to say, despite me saying again and again that it's
not true, is I'm advocating state communism like the USSR or china or any
of the other so-called socialist countries?

What do you call the US's taking taxes and funding Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon etc. with that money? The way Halliburton was integrated into the Iraq mess is also commendable.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I do *not* advocate
state communism. I think it's foolish and doomed to fail as it has done.
Marx got it wrong. You really need to stop beating this straw man if we're
to have any rational discourse here.


I agree.  Then let's continue dismantling the state.

Basically the way those countries were set up was to the effect of
being one big nation-wide corporation where the people at the top leach
off the workers and everyone's paid according to their rank and their
individual productive efforts are ignored. Things work the same in
capitalism, only in capitalism you have the threat of unemployment to keep
you working at least at a minimum standard.

In Capitalism you earn the fruit or non-fruit of your own working (and planning, and some luck). There is a reason why people with a good work ethic (like many Asian-Americans) are doing vastly better (with twice as many college graduates per population) than those who play basketball all day, and it's not genetics.

You on the other hand are basically spouting the same shocked rhetoric I
hear from every other layman who's accepted everything they've been told
about the supposed glories of the market without thinking about it too

There's no glory in the market. It's simply the only system that lets people choose with their money, what is to be produced more and what less.

Cooperation (and non-profit companies that could do *everything* that a state-monopoly can now) are possible too. Why are there churches out there? They aren't paid for by the government, but people *care* for them.

hard. If you're like any of the others, your "bitter experience" is
probably that you grew up in capitalism, continually got told that
the only alternative is state communism and look how terrible that was,
and despite all the problems with capitalism at least it's the best out of
the two alternatives around. Well, were there really only two alternatives
you may even be right. I don't hold state communism in any higher esteem
than capitalism. But the fact is that it's not the only alternative to
state communism and far from the best for reasons I've alluded to in other
posts.

I've seen people grow up in Germany, I've seen the US and their work ethic, and overall I conclude that a freeer system would be better. The current implementation of the US is worse for the poor.

I have not once advocated coercing anyone. If my ideas don't have popular
support then I'm satisfied to simply accept that they're not going to
happen. THE most fundamental premise of the society I'm talking about is
that coercion be avoided in all its forms. In fact that's where the ideas
of minimising unequal distribution of wealth and (though I haven't yet
said it explicitly, surely it should be obvious by now) abolishing the
state come from. If I were to advocate coercing everyone into my system
then I really would be being inconsistent.

What's the problem in distribution of wealth? Rich people aren't the problem (the more the better!); barriers that prevent poor people from making money are.

Just because the current, totally broken system results in more rich and more poor people doesn't imply that people getting rich are a bad thing!

I'd like to think that people may adopt my ideas without coercion because
they're inherently superior to what we currently have. Just like java
programmers switching to lisp. Of course it's an uphill battle because
just like with Java, people prefer to believe in the status quo than do
any real research on the alternatives (how many points do I get for
sneaking an on-topic subject in? ;).

They can, but they may not *force* me to use Java. If I use it for a job because my boss tells me, that's different. I can quit or play the game.

Given that I'm against coercion, I also don't suggest that markets be
"illegalised" or anything so ridiculous. So yeah, people probably will set
up markets. There are variants of my theory which allow for
non-capitalist markets and if their advocates can make it work without
it degenerating into people coercing and exploiting each other then good
on them. I just tend to think it's more convenient and socially humane to
work on principles of cooperation than principles of competition.

All the people in Germany and France that cry for more socialism and less liberalism can create their own communities. They can buy grain from Jose Bové, not buy from McDonalds, not trade with foreign countries, create their own tax pool into which all members pay, give lots of welfare to everyone, set up a complex tax-accounting institution, whatever they want.

They *only* need to leave the rest of us in peace. They can even refuse to ever to pay welfare to us if that makes them feel safer.

--
No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. -- Abraham Lincoln
.