: : : Darcy, don't be obtuse.: : : I, for example, am more intelligent than you. I'm probably stronger as well; I rowed and fenced for my university (University of London). Unless you're 2 metres tall, I'm probably taller than you too.
: : : No-one would argue that some people are born faster, prettier or smarter than others.
: : : But my superior strength *does not* make me a better person than you on a general level. It does not give me the automatic right to dominate you and order you around.
: : : That is what is meant by 'equality' here.
: : : Is that simple enough for you?
: : $$$$$$$$$$$$$$Yeah, fine. I'm 5'6", slight of build, never engaged in sports. Don't know which end of a sword to hold. Don't have a diploma. I own a .38. Now we're equal.
: We always were equal in the eyes of the law, Frenchy.
Then what are you bragging about? I could, if I wanted, beat the brains out of people smaller than me (hoping like hell THEY aren't carrying). The law, and more importantly, morality, says that's wrong.
: : You live and have lived a privileged life.
: Actually, I come from a single-parent family; my mother is a teacher (not the most highly-paid job in the world). I got to where I was by a combination of hard work and brains and exercise. I'm still not 'rich'; I don't have any particular desire to be; I do not have a car and cannot drive.
: By Western yardsticks, I'm not 'privileged'; I worked hard to get where I was.
: By global yardsticks, we are both hugely privileged. We live in the countries that own most of the world's capital; and the fact that you can access a computer means that you are as 'privileged' as me.
Precisely; The important point here, the crux, is that we are allowed to be the best we can be, not in the sense of that stupid Army commercial (you wouldn't know the one I'm talking about...) but in the sense that the individual is superior to the state. I don't doubt for a moment that you did come from a single parent home and that you got where you are on your merits. Good for you.
: : There is no way you can have as much education that you claim to have and not know about the history of the Communists/Socialists and the promises that they made to the less intellectually endowed.
: Are you saying that the American Dream is any less of a fantasy, Frenchy? Read Death of a Salesman again.
Now your switching boats in the middle of the stream. You acheived what to many is impossible. You used your God-given talents to the utmost and you are now in a enviable position at a relatively early period in your life. You did it, you said so yourself, you weren't given a seat at the university because of past discrimination or any other consideration. Your the one that applied yourself, nobody else. What in the world makes you think that others can't as well? Sure, probably not in scholastic endeavors but in other areas that are important nevertheless. Your proof that where many may fail a la Willie Logan, some nevertheless succeed.
: As I've repeatedly pointed out to you, there are simply not enough physical resources to give the entire world a Western lifestyle; as such, the American Dream (as fed to the entire world) is nothing more than a deception; for the poor countries, there will be no 'golden reward'; because there isn't enough gold to give to everyone.
Still, for a smart guy...
There is simply no way, NO WAY, that you know that's true. Your saying that because it's a good guess based on extrapolating future events and current facts.
And hell, who needs gold? If what you say is true then the economy of nations such as the US and Britain wouldn't keep expanding and everybodies standard of living would be stuck in the 1800's. As long as faith in the system remains strong, the system remains strong and will continue to produce the sort of wealth that Communists can only be dazzled by.
: : They are not to be trusted. How can you so glibly dismiss the dismal failures of the system that you champion?
: As I've repeated said also, I am an anarchist; although I would agree that socialism has the potential to be much fairer to all and more efficient than capitalism.
I've read 'Death of a Salesman', didn't really care for it. Have you read 'Darkness at Noon'? The author was a former Communist.
: I don't believe in exploiting the poorer nations of the world just because I can; in much the same way that I wouldn't flatten Darcy just because he's smaller than me; the ability to bleed the Third World dry of resources doesn't automatically mean you should do it.
: Farinata.
The Third World bears responsibility for it's actions, unless you feel that you are a present day Bwana and that dogma is superior to the dogma of other people, people perhaps with darker skin than yourself. At one time, not that long ago, the developed countries were shamed into leaving their colonies. That was the right thing to do. The former colonies have shown, so far anyways, that they would've been miles ahead if they had remained under colonial rule (I'm talking about Africa here, not India, just so NJ doesn't take it the wrong way). Should now developed nations, in doing business w/ these countries send negotiators to negotiate against themselves? Should developed countries conduct their dealings at a self-imposed disadvantage? What would that say about the respect that all men are due? Being an anarchist is a sort of way to refuse to make a hard decision, you leave others the hard choices of saying what's right and what's wrong. You get to sit back and say "I'm superior to all of you because I don't engage in that sort of behavior, I follow my own rules and have my own standards." The day Anarchy hits is the day Darcy or me is gonna cut your throat. And the following day somebody will cut ours. That's Anarchy, like it or not.
