If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latinum?

[Rush Limborg]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

^*sigh*

Sci...you take me out of context, you accuse me of advocating oppression--

Quite frankly...I'm sorry for your troubles in life. My own family has suffered a great deal from this economic crisis.

But know this--your trials in life does not give you an excuse to slam me, and smear me as being unwilling to help others. I strongly support voluntary charity--helping out of goodwill, not helping under compulsion.

To suggest otherwise--to call me a heartless jerk...is deeply hurtful towards me, to say the least.

I would never call you, or anyone else who disagrees with me, anything like that--unless he/she advocated and supported violence, and murder, and the like.

The Great Depression hit because of economic bubbles that finally burst, and it was the New Deal that saved the country from the Depression by creating jobs.

Did the unemployment rate in 1937 increase to near 1932 levels or not?

 

[Sci]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

^*sigh*

Sci...you take me out of context, you accuse me of advocating oppression--

No. I've no doubt that you don't understand how fundamentally oppressive the system you advocate actually is.

Quite frankly...I'm sorry for your troubles in life. My own family has suffered a great deal from this economic crisis.

Have you ever not known how you were going to eat next week? Ever been served an eviction notice?

'Cause until then, you don't -- can't -- know what poverty really means.

I strongly support voluntary charity--helping out of goodwill, not helping under compulsion.

Yes. And I'm saying, you have an obligation, not a voluntary option, to help others. Everyone does. That's not, and should not be, optional.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

As for holodecks: They are useful for starship personnel who need a place *on board ship* they can relax in, but in general, what's the point? Nothing in a holodeck is real.

Neither is most TV. And yet I promise you, people spend hours upon hours of their lives watching TV. (Or, for that matter, making use of pornographic imagery.)

Hook them up with a technology capable of creating nearly perfect re-creations of any environment and any substance in the known universe? Your average man will conjure up a re-creation of a beach in the Bahamas and a naked copy of Bar Refaeli and spend as much time as possible doing way more with her than he could with a copy of Playboy.

“. . . They found it's a trap, like a narcotic. Because when dreams become more important than reality, you give up travel, building, creating. You even forget how to repair the machines left behind by your ancestors. You just sit, living and re-living other lives . . .”

Sound familiar?

And the difference from TV is simple: When we watch TV, we know it's fake. It's not meant as a substitute for real life. I can watch, say, a Yankees game on TV, and yet not think that this is in any way comparable to actually being in Yankee Stadium itself. If I had a holodeck, you might wonder why I don't spend all my time in there *simulating* the place. Well, that's exactly what it would be: a simulation. A fake. Not real. So what's the point?

As I said, this is useful for Starfleet personnel who are on board a ship or starbase and don't have *access* to the real thing. But it shouldn't go any further than that.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

And, Rush? I hate to tell you this, but even in a Capitalist Utopia, everyone still relies on other people for their livings. Whether it's in the form of trade, charity, or taxation, the fact of the matter is that people rely on one-another to survive.

Of course--by their own choice. By mutual profit.

Quite frankly...I'm sorry for your troubles in life. My own family has suffered a great deal from this economic crisis.

Have you ever not known how you were going to eat next week? Ever been served an eviction notice?

'Cause until then, you don't -- can't -- know what poverty really means.

Maybe not. But I do know what it is like to live knowing that there is no money in the account--that there is no one ready to hire you. I know what it's like to bike from business to business, asking--practically begging--for work--but there wasn't any.

I may not understand the poverty you faced--but by golly, I can understand poverty.

I strongly support voluntary charity--helping out of goodwill, not helping under compulsion.

Yes. And I'm saying, you have an obligation, not a voluntary option, to help others. Everyone does. That's not, and should not be, optional.

All right.

I understand. Finally...I think...I understand. So charity should be forced...and money should be taken from someone, to give to another who "needs" it more than he/she does...as far as you're concerned.

Tell me, Sci...how is that any different from the mindset of a "desperate" robber, down on his luck, who breaks into the house of someone who's better off than him...and steals from that someone?

Is robbery justified, then, Sci? I don't think so--and I don't think you do, either.

No. I've no doubt that you don't understand how fundamentally oppressive the system you advocate actually is.

To be honest, Sci...I could say the same of your system. See above.

 

[DevilEyes]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

Would I care about latinum? Of course. Why? Because it can buy me things I want. Duh.

Trek has never presented Federation economy in the consistent way, as this analysis shows. Maybe because the idea of "moneyless economy" is utter nonsense. And here is why, IMO (yes, it's been discussed numerous times - this is from one previous such thread): http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3812477&postcount=83

Money is not the same thing as greed. You don't have to be greedy just because money exists, and you most certainly don't need money to be greedy - you could as well try to get a lot of land, or buildings, or other property, or even people; it all comes down to the same thing - power and possession. Money is also not synonymous with capitalism, or with corporativism. It existed/exists in feudalism, in socialism, in every evolved society - for the simple reason that it makes TRADE much simpler, easier and fairer.

If you abolish every sort of currency, you have to go back to the barter trade - which is clumsy and impractical, and this is exactly the reason why money was invented in the first place. There is nothing "evolved" about abolishing money and going back to the barter economy - and it makes no sense that an evolved society would want to do that. That would be devolution, not evolution.

If there is no currency, the only other alternative to the barter economy is... that everything is given for free? Am I right that this is what some people here are implying? Goods are free, and people provide services for free? OK, let's see how that would work.. You talk so much about trying to IMAGINE what the Federation society would look like. Well, let's do that.

Say, you live on 24th century Earth and you have a beautiful family vineyard, and produce very fine wines. There are quite a few people who would love to get your wine, the "real thing" instead of that replicated thing that doesn't get anywhere near the real taste or scent. But, much as you'd like to oblige, being a nice evolved Federation citizen, there just isn't enough to give to all the people who are interested. You have to ask them to give you something in return. But since there is no money, you ask them to give you some goods of their own... One person is a great carpenter, and offers to give you one of those wonderful, unique tables they make. Another one is a painter, and paints wonderful pictures, and offers to give you a picture. But, you really would love one of those tables, but you have absolutely no interest in arts, so you pick the carpenter. Poor painter has no hope that he would change your mind, so he has to trade his paintings with someone else for something else you find interesting... otherwise, he can never hope to get your wine. You're putting the carpenter at an unfair advantage. But how do you value a painting relative to a table, relative to wine? It all gets very complicated and clumsy - but it would all work so much easier, if there was some kind of common determiner of value... say, some sort of currency... uh, money?

Or else - if there is no trade on Earth in the 24th century and people just give things and services for free... how do you choose who do you give them to, when there is not enough for everyone? It's most likely you'll give them to your friends, or neighbors, or people who have done you a service in the past or given you something. It's not unheard of, but to use that reasoning all the time... means that society is ruled by favoritism and nepotism, and people are locked into their little cliques that exchange goods and services with each other, closed to outsiders.

In either case, you'll end up with a clumsy economy and a society that breeds inequality to an even greater degree than a society with money does. At least in the monetary economy a person can hope that their work can produce the amount that would allow them to buy something that they want.

Okay, fine. What logical arguments would you care to discuss? It's science fiction, a projection into the future where it's established there's no poverty, no hunger.

This implies a state where the basic needs are provided for. Most of the reason why people work is to (at the very minimum) provide for the costs of basic needs.

Money came about as an exchange medium to trade in our time for material profit. If basic needs are provided for, most money ceases to be valuable in such a culture.

That is simply not true. People have needs and wants beyond the basic needs. Do you really think that everyone in the world is completely content with having nothing more than a daily ration of water and some kind of food, some sort of clothes and some sort of place to stay, and medical care if they get ill?

It is perfectly conceivable that poverty has pretty much been eradicated thanks to the invention of the replicator, and that pretty much everyone can get some sort of food and drink, some sort of clothes, and medicine they need, and that the society is taking care that everyone gets some sort of place to stay and sleep at, and that everyone has free medical care - with the priorities being based on how urgent and dangerous the condition is. This is what I believe that every state/society is obligated to ensure to every person. Now, doctors aren't replicable so there would still be an issue of availability of proper medical care, but advances in medicine, the use of dermal regenerator, and the existence of holographic doctors might also help alleviate the situation.

However, what you're talking about is just the most necessary means for survival. Do you really believe that these are the only things people wish for? I am not talking about greed, wanting lots and lots of money in order to gain power. I am talking about people wanting things like, say, a better place to live, their own home, food that tastes better, nicer clothes of their own choosing, ability to travel, or to go to the theatre or attend a sports game or a concert, and so on... all those things that make up a higher standard of living.

But if you can replicate anything, why have money?

For a very simple reason: YOU CAN'T.

You can only replicate some things such as food, drink and clothes. And even with those, people - even in Trek - tend to prefer real food - characters tend to mention that this replicated drink tastes almost like the real thing, but if they weren't on a starship and if they had a choice, they most likely would prefer the real thing. Look at our reality - agricultural industry has found the means to mass produce food and drink, but has that made the "natural" products disappear? Not at all, many people still prefer the "natural" food and believe it to be healthier and tastier. And in Trek universe, we see that there still are restaurants and vineyards; and tailors - so obviously there are people who prefer not to have their clothes produced by a replicator.

As long as those "natural" products exist, they are likely to be valued more than the dime a dozen replicated products.

And then, there are things that simple CANNOT be replicated at all.

What about LAND?

If anything, this is the one commodity whose value is only likely to go up in the Trek 22nd, 23rd and 24th century. With the advances in medicine and the problems of hunger and poverty solved, no intra-planetary conflicts and wars, and a presumed decrease in crime, the population is definitely going to grow and grow and grow, and not even all the good contraceptives are going to slow it down. Available land is going to be extremely valuable in the 24 the century Trek world, a lot more so than in the 20th century.

The obvious solution to the over-population problem is something we see it in Trek: off-planet colonies.

But, this begs the question: how many people would actually want to leave their home planet, or even their home region, if they had a choice? Sure, some people are adventurers and explorers... but there are always many more people who just want to stay in the same place that they were born and grew up; many people even care about staying where their ancestors lived... And we know that, in the real world, people rarely become emigrants out of a desire to explore and find new worlds; most people emigrate because they are looking for a better life - because of lack of money, land, jobs, because they didn't have a good life where they came from.

It is obvious that, no matter how nice the society on Earth might have become by the 24th century, there is not going to be place for everyone. So... who and what decides who is to stay, and who is to go? If only people who go to the off-world colonies were those who did it out of a desire for exploration or because they want change... that would leave a very over-populated Earth.

Or, let's say the Federation has tried to do away with the private property - which we know is not true (Picard vineyards, Sisko's restuarant) etc. But if they did... and if all the land only belonged to the state/society, as in a communist ideal - who decides who gets to live in which place? The state? The authorities? That only breeds inequality, and gives the state far too much power over the individual. And it would invite favoritism and nepotism... It's been tried already in some countries in the 20th century - and it worked very, very badly.

(And we have seen in Trek that people of 24th century don't like being moved around and forced to leave their homes any more than the 20th century people did - this was, after all, a basis for the entire Maquis storyline.)

What about other real estate - especially old houses, old buildings etc.? Aren't they going to be things of high value?

The only way one could ensure that no house is valued more than some other would be if they were all identical. So, they would have to either tear down every old house or make them all museums or properties of state (first throwing people out of their homes and making it property of the state, then deciding who is to move there... ugh, that sounds familiar - as I said, it's been tried, and it's still remembered as a nightmare)... then what would you do, forbid architects to show any originality, make it illegal for people to build any houses that would be different from the norm, build only rows and rows of identical houses?

What about TRAVEL? Even with all the advances in technology, I don't think that it is likely that an unlimited number of people would be able to travel everywhere, whenever they decide. What if too many people want to travel from San Francisco to Paris today... or to the Moon... or to Vulcan... with no such thing as a paid ticket, how do you decide who you are going to keep off the plane, or shuttle, or whatever? Are you going to tell people to make a run for it - first come, first served - which would put some of them at an unfair advantage (like those who live near by, or those who are faster and stronger, etc.) and is most likely to create havoc? Or you are going to make authority figures decide who has the right to travel, and who does not? The former case seems like anarchy, the latter sounds very totalitarian. Again, people having to get state permits to travel was something that was attempted in some of the real-socialist countries, and people weren't very happy with it...

But, bad as real-socialist/communist countries were, none of them were that crazy to try to abolish money. Marx or Engels never suggested that... probably because, unlike Roddenberry, they actually had a clue about economy.

What about CULTURE and ENTERTAINMENT?

Sure, there are going to be mass products, like padds with books and holoprograms, that you can get for free. Just like we get music and video files and whatnot from the Internet, for free - well, sort of. But what about originals of paintings or sculptures, what about antique? People tend to value originals more than copies.

More importantly - what about the things that cannot be copied or replicated at all - such as live performances? You may broadcast or record a concert or play or a sports game, so that everyone can enjoy it in some way or another... But the thing is, many people will still want to attend a concert, a play, or a sports game in person. Just like they do today. And it's just physically not possible to have an unlimited number or people present and able to actually see or hear what they want to see or hear.

So, if everything is FREE in the Federation - or at least Earth - society... and a HUGE number of people want to see this particular artist perform, how do you decide who gets to see the concert, and who will have to wait for some other time, or be content with a recording?

Either you'd have a complete mess on your hands, or you'd need a totalitarian state that decides who, where and when is allowed to travel, who is allowed to attend a concert and who isn't, who is allowed to live where...

Do you really think that everyone in the world would be happy with just eating food made by a machine (with nobody growing any real vegetable or fruit anymore), living in an apartment identical to millions and millions of other identical apartments, not travelling anywhere unless the state allows them to? Is that an ideal, utopian society you have in mind?

Gene Roddenberry had some good ideas, and some bad ones. This one was, frankly, a very stupid one. It just sounds nice, i"We don't need money, because our society is ideal!" but it makes no sense. It seems that he just didn't think it through. And it's not surprising that we NEVER actually SAW on the SCREEN how this money-less society works.

 

[stonester1]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

Tell me, Sci...how is that any different from the mindset of a "desperate" robber, down on his luck, who breaks into the house of someone who's better off than him...and steals from that someone?

Is robbery justified, then, Sci? I don't think so--and I don't think you do, either.

Because a robber isn't going to take that money and go help build things that add to the quality of society, put in protections we all depend on, etc etc.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

^And how can you trust the government to do those things, sir?

What makes those in Washington somehow more moral and dependable than the individuals we interact with every day of our lives?

I propose that that kind of power--that kind of entitlement--is immoral for anyone.

What makes the government able to do those things, and the private sector unable, is that the government has a legal monopoly on force.

Because of that...the power of government must be kept limited--or else, tyranny will result.

And what is the most effective means of achieving tyranny?

I will tell you: the creation of dependency. The creation of the idea that, "You can't make it on your own. The Big Guy hates you, and will keep you down. Only government can help you."

That's how it begins. And then, the excuse for more government, because "More government means more help".

And before you know it, it gets bigger...and bigger...taking freedoms away, one by one...demonizing the opposition as "heartless" and "cruel"--eventually censoring them.

In the end...tyrrany results.

As Benjamin Franklin warned, "When the people find they can vote themselves money...that will herald the end of the republic."

 

[Sci]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

Have you ever not known how you were going to eat next week? Ever been served an eviction notice?

'Cause until then, you don't -- can't -- know what poverty really means.

Maybe not. But I do know what it is like to live knowing that there is no money in the account--that there is no one ready to hire you. I know what it's like to bike from business to business, asking--practically begging--for work--but there wasn't any.

I may not understand the poverty you faced--but by golly, I can understand poverty.

Is that so?

And what were the potential consequences of your lack of money or a job? A lack of disposable income? Or an inability to secure food and shelter for yourself?

Lacking disposable income is not poverty in any meaningful sense.

Come back to me after you've lost weight because you had to skip meals every day for four months, because there just wasn't enough money to eat as much as you should. Come back to me after you've been served an eviction notice and had to beg friends for money to keep your home. Come back to me after you've endured the humiliation of friends turning on you because you asked them for help at a time when you couldn't find work and desperately needed help.

And all that's to say nothing of people who've undergone worse than I and my family.

Come back to me when you've gone through all that. Then I'll buy that you know what you're talking about.

Until then? Sorry, but you come across as a guy who's never really materially suffered, trying to lecture everyone else about the necessity of material suffering.

Yes. And I'm saying, you have an obligation, not a voluntary option, to help others. Everyone does. That's not, and should not be, optional.

All right.

I understand. Finally...I think...I understand. So charity should be forced...and money should be taken from someone, to give to another who "needs" it more than he/she does...as far as you're concerned.

No, as far as we, as a society, decide is concerned via our democratic process.

Tell me, Sci...how is that any different from the mindset of a "desperate" robber, down on his luck, who breaks into the house of someone who's better off than him...and steals from that someone?

I could just as easily ask how living in vast wealth when there are people who are hungry -- or requiring your employees to hand over the vast majority of the wealth they create to you -- is any different from a mugger demanding that you give him all your money.

The key difference, of course, is that a desperate robber who burgles a rich man's home has not gotten democratic consent for his actions, nor are his actions both applied universally and intended to benefit universally. They act in defiance of democratically-determined property rights, rather than being a function of those democratically-determined property rights.

And all that is to say nothing of a basic fact of life -- that an economic system that gives to some and takes from most is inherently going to be unstable and lead to a revolt in some form or other. That's ultimately why no society truly adopts a "free" market -- because they know full well that the majority of people would rebel.

 

[Penta]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

Sci, Rush...I like you both. I like watching a good argument.

But I'm confused, what's the relation to Trek of comparing battle scars?

 

[stonester1]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

^And how can you trust the government to do those things, sir?

By looking at the history of it and seeing that A. all things considered, the job overall done by government on said services has not been too bad. Not perfect, BUT...no one has come up yet with a convincing case for an alternative.

 

[Sci]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

Sci, Rush...I like you both. I like watching a good argument.

But I'm confused, what's the relation to Trek of comparing battle scars?

It informs the question of who has an understanding of the real consequences of economic systems and which system is least oppressive and most liberating. This, in turn, informs the question of what kind of economic system a society dedicated to personal liberty, egalitarianism, and democracy such as the Federation should adopt.

 

[stonester1]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

I will tell you: the creation of dependency. The creation of the idea that, "You can't make it on your own. The Big Guy hates you, and will keep you down. Only government can help you."

It's not that the "big guy" hates you, but for the most part, "he's" indifferent. Plenty of quotes you can pull from corporate moguls underlining this mentality, too.

And before you know it, it gets bigger...and bigger...taking freedoms away, one by one...demonizing the opposition as "heartless" and "cruel"--eventually censoring them.

In the end...tyrrany results.

Please, let's see a stable democracy that went this route.

 

[neozeks]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

I understand. Finally...I think...I understand. So charity should be forced...and money should be taken from someone, to give to another who "needs" it more than he/she does...as far as you're concerned.

Tell me, Sci...how is that any different from the mindset of a "desperate" robber, down on his luck, who breaks into the house of someone who's better off than him...and steals from that someone?

First, charity is good, but it isn't enough. Only the government, through taxes, can wield enough money to effectively fight poverty. Second, no it's not robbery, any more that any taxes are robbery. Do you object to taxpayer money being used, say, for firefighting? After all, who says your house will ever can catch on fire? You may live your entire life without ever needing the firefighters. But (leaving aside that your taxes, no matter how they were acquired, are still helping save other people's lives) you'll still gladly pay for it (and be happy other people are paying for it as well) because you know that one day, if a fire was to threaten YOU, you'll have someone to turn to for help. It's same with social security nets - you're not just helping yoursef at the expense of others like your hipotethical robber, but through helping the general good, you're also helping yourself.

And before you know it, it gets bigger...and bigger...taking freedoms away, one by one...demonizing the opposition as "heartless" and "cruel"--eventually censoring them.

In the end...tyrrany results.

Please, let's see a stable democracy that went this route.

Oh, don't you know about all those tyrranical European welfare states? Especially those unfree Scandinavians...

 

[Rush Limborg]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

Sci, Rush...I like you both. I like watching a good argument.

Thanks!

But I'm confused, what's the relation to Trek of comparing battle scars?

Well...think of it as...comparing the morality of different systems, so as to determine which system will more likely herald the future Star Trek proclaims.

Have you ever not known how you were going to eat next week? Ever been served an eviction notice?

'Cause until then, you don't -- can't -- know what poverty really means.

Maybe not. But I do know what it is like to live knowing that there is no money in the account--that there is no one ready to hire you. I know what it's like to bike from business to business, asking--practically begging--for work--but there wasn't any.

I may not understand the poverty you faced--but by golly, I can understand poverty.

Is that so?

And what were the potential consequences of your lack of money or a job? A lack of disposable income? Or an inability to secure food and shelter for yourself?

Lacking disposable income is not poverty in any meaningful sense.

Come back to me after you've lost weight because you had to skip meals every day for four months, because there just wasn't enough money to eat as much as you should. Come back to me after you've been served an eviction notice and had to beg friends for money to keep your home. Come back to me after you've endured the humiliation of friends turning on you because you asked them for help at a time when you couldn't find work and desperately needed help.

And all that's to say nothing of people who've undergone worse than I and my family.

Come back to me when you've gone through all that. Then I'll buy that you know what you're talking about.

Until then? Sorry, but you come across as a guy who's never really materially suffered, trying to lecture everyone else about the necessity of material suffering.

I am lecturing you of nothing of the sort.

I am claiming that a truly free market--without interference from the government--without the use of force--will most effectively help all of society--rich, middle class, and poor--will allow the individual to stand up, and climb the ladder until he/she is satified.

All right.

I understand. Finally...I think...I understand. So charity should be forced...and money should be taken from someone, to give to another who "needs" it more than he/she does...as far as you're concerned.

No, as far as we, as a society, decide is concerned via our democratic process.

So...we make an exception if the democratic process deems otherwise?

So...if the majority claims that someone should be forced to give up money to someone else who "needs" it--it's justified?

How is that not slavery, sir--slavery of the minority for the sake of the majority?

Think about it. A person works for a certain amount of money--and a percentage of that income is taken from him, without his consent, and given to those who have an entitlement?

In other words...for a percentage of the year, he is effectively being a slave to those who claim they "need" his money--regardless of how much he works, regardless of how he gets that money?

 

[stonester1]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

I am claiming that a truly free market--without interference from the government--without the use of force--will most effectively help all of society--rich, middle class, and poor--will allow the individual to stand up, and climb the ladder until he/she is satified.

So far, this is a statement of pure faith with no real solid factual basis to back it up.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

All I can think is that Rush is either very young or very naive.

 

[stonester1]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

Well...he buys into the word of his namesake as if it were gospel.

 

[Sci]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

So...we make an exception if the democratic process deems otherwise?

So...if the majority claims that someone should be forced to give up money to someone else who "needs" it--it's justified?

How is that not slavery, sir--slavery of the minority for the sake of the majority?

Yes, that's right, if a man with $20 billion dollars is forced to pay a tax rate of 50%, leaving him with "only" $10 billion, that's just slavery!

Are you listening to how absurd your claim is?

Here's the difference between that and slavery:

No one owns you. No one whips you for not working the fields. No one gets to rape you.

Do you have the slightest clue how offensive trying to equate taxation with slavery actually is?

Think about it. A person works for a certain amount of money--and a percentage of that income is taken from him, without his consent, and given to those who have an entitlement?

Well, then, we're all slaves any time the government forces us to give up our money for any reason whatsoever then. We ought to abolish the police and fire departments -- after all, I haven't been a victim of a crime, so why should I have to pay taxes to support the police? I'll just hire a bounty hunter if someone commits a crime against me. Free-market justice!

 

[stonester1]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

Yeah, if you can't afford your rent-a-cops and gated community, you deserve crime.

 

[neozeks]

Re: If you lived in the Star Trek universe, would you care about Latin

I am lecturing you of nothing of the sort.

I am claiming that a truly free market--without interference from the government--without the use of force--will most effectively help all of society--rich, middle class, and poor--will allow the individual to stand up, and climb the ladder until he/she is satified.

Please, Rush, I asked you up-thread to give me an example of this 'true' free market. Will you? Otherwise it's just as unrealistic and dogmatic as people that proclaimed communism as the solution to all society's ills.
In fact, scratch that, I'll give you an example of unregulated capitalism. In fact, for most of it's history capitalism has been unregulated. And those were the times of the worst exploatation of workers one can imagine - you know, children working in mines, people working all day without rest in horendously unhealthy conditions, stuff like that. It took government intervention to end those practices. So forgive me if on this matter I believe the government more than the capitalists.