Senna Jawa
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 13, 2002
- Posts
- 3,272
This article is a continuation of wh, AoA. Introduction.
Among others, ancient Chinese anarchists, then European anarchists, then some American libertarian, in particular
believed in the commandment:
Nevertheless, the commandment hardly ever prevailed. It didn't prevail under the known economy systems (but remember about yin&yang):
In short, under slavery, you virtually don't have money, and under feudalism -- a big chunk of your earned money is taken by the feudal (e.g. government or church or landowner). (In a reply below I'll write a bit more). All these systems were/are unethical!
The natural system -- the free market economy, existed only very partially here and there. When it did, even partially, it was outstandingly successful economically while slavery and feudalism was just the opposite.
REMARK. Capitalism is attached only to a certain period of time, it is not an economy system The political/economy phrases, discussions or claims about capitalism are illogical and false. Such nonsensical "discussions" may look more or less like this: person C says that capitalism is good, meaning that the free market economy is good; and person D says that capitalism is bad, meaning that monopolies are bad. However, monopolies are close cousins of government and communism -- all of them are the opposite of free-market economy.
The anarchists and libertarians know the human nature, the drawbacks of slavery+feudalism, ... and they still didn't arrive at a positive, universal, consistent and flexible system. This is because it'd be impossible. The very word system already sounds contradictory to the commandment. Instead, what is superior and practical is a meta-system that is positive, universal, consistent and flexible. Such a meta-system would be wonderfully practical but often
I'll let you think about it.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
wh, AoA 1.
Positive, universal, consistent and flexible meta-system.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
wh, AoA 1.
Positive, universal, consistent and flexible meta-system.
Among others, ancient Chinese anarchists, then European anarchists, then some American libertarian, in particular
Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, Dinesh D'Souza
believed in the commandment:
do not impose
Nevertheless, the commandment hardly ever prevailed. It didn't prevail under the known economy systems (but remember about yin&yang):
- classical (mostly ancient) slavery;
- classical feudalism;
- modern feudalism, e.g.Western Democracy;
- modern slavery, e.g. communism.
In short, under slavery, you virtually don't have money, and under feudalism -- a big chunk of your earned money is taken by the feudal (e.g. government or church or landowner). (In a reply below I'll write a bit more). All these systems were/are unethical!
The natural system -- the free market economy, existed only very partially here and there. When it did, even partially, it was outstandingly successful economically while slavery and feudalism was just the opposite.
REMARK. Capitalism is attached only to a certain period of time, it is not an economy system The political/economy phrases, discussions or claims about capitalism are illogical and false. Such nonsensical "discussions" may look more or less like this: person C says that capitalism is good, meaning that the free market economy is good; and person D says that capitalism is bad, meaning that monopolies are bad. However, monopolies are close cousins of government and communism -- all of them are the opposite of free-market economy.
The anarchists and libertarians know the human nature, the drawbacks of slavery+feudalism, ... and they still didn't arrive at a positive, universal, consistent and flexible system. This is because it'd be impossible. The very word system already sounds contradictory to the commandment. Instead, what is superior and practical is a meta-system that is positive, universal, consistent and flexible. Such a meta-system would be wonderfully practical but often
the utmost practical solutions are the least realistic (wh)
I'll let you think about it.
Last edited: