"Branson Hunter" <bh2322@netzero.net> wrote in message news:1167794341.876278.206490@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... > Rudy Canoza wrote: >> Branson Hunter wrote: >> > Rudy Canoza wrote: >> > A lousy post. >> A great post, and naturally, bwanson, you can't offer >> anything to refute a word of it. >> The homeless are *NOT* generally like most other >> people. Most homeless adults are substance abusers >> (about 70%), mentally ill, or both. > Mr. Crowly has done such superior job of posting > his evidence, while you have done an outstanding > job of showing you're pure troll. That would be Ms. Crowley. And the only thing Marina did was PROVE that the Clinton Administration was a total failure at working the problem of the homeless. If you, or Rudy, wish to acquire data on the so-called homeless all you need to do is reference Rudy G's work on the same problem in Times Square.

"Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message news:eqEmh.10046$X72.372@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > 1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial > percentage of homeless people are ordinary people > who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide > people with essential help. > > FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers, mentally ill, or > both. That isn't to say that there might not be some greater role of > government in providing help to people with serious mental or substance > abuse problems, but these people are *not* like the majority of people. > There are virtually no two-parent intact families with children who find > themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation like "offshoring". > There are some single women with children among the homeless, but these > women again are *not* like most people, in that they generally have low > levels of educational achievement, and - big difference - were never > married despite having one or more children. > Many homeless people are mentally ill or substance abusers. However a significant number are victims of child abuse and runaways, and some are ordinary people who lost their homes due to an unforseen emrgency. Also, where do you get off blaming homeless single women with children for some kind of moral turpitude in your fevered dreams? In the next paragraph you are concerned about the reputation of Ronald Reagan. ovbviously you are a fascist with a dirty mind. Ever picked up a homeless kid for nefarious gratification? > > 2. The segment of homeless who are mentally ill are > Ronald Reagan's fault. Reagan "emptied out" the mental > hospitals, turning hundreds of thousands if not > millions of mental patients into homeless victims. > > FALSE. The push to move mentally ill patients out of in-patient mental > hospital settings began in the 1950s, and achieved its full vigor with > John F. Kennedy's signing of the Community Mental Health Act in October > 1963. The state mental hospitals in California had already begun to move > patients back into community treatment facilities years before Reagan > became governor of California in 1966, and of course Reagan had nothing to > do with the identical moves occuring in other states.

"Branson Hunter" <bh2322@netzero.net> wrote in message news:1167794341.876278.206490@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > Branson Hunter wrote: > > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > > > > A lousy post. > > > > A great post, and naturally, bwanson, you can't offer > > anything to refute a word of it. > > > > The homeless are *NOT* generally like most other > > people. Most homeless adults are substance abusers > > (about 70%), mentally ill, or both. > > Mr. Crowly has done such superior job of posting > his evidence, ROTFLMAO!!!! You turning to comedy for the new year, Brannie-Poo?

"ike milligan" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:gLQmh.6839$yx6.6002@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message > news:eqEmh.10046$X72.372@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > 1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial > > percentage of homeless people are ordinary people > > who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide > > people with essential help. > > > > FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers, mentally ill, or > > both. That isn't to say that there might not be some greater role of > > government in providing help to people with serious mental or substance > > abuse problems, but these people are *not* like the majority of people. > > There are virtually no two-parent intact families with children who find > > themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation like "offshoring". > > There are some single women with children among the homeless, but these > > women again are *not* like most people, in that they generally have low > > levels of educational achievement, and - big difference - were never > > married despite having one or more children. > > > Many homeless people are mentally ill or substance abusers. However a > significant number are victims of child abuse and runaways, Percentages? Sources? Cites? > and some are > ordinary people who lost their homes due to an unforseen emrgency. VERY FEW. Again, where are your sources and cites? > Also, > where do you get off blaming homeless single women with children for some > kind of moral turpitude in your fevered dreams? Where do you get off insisting that irresponsible women have some right to pump out kids and use them to hold the taxpayer's hostage? If they can't take care of their kids, put them up for adoption so some responsible couple can take care of them - but don't reward women with no sense of responsibility or common sense. > In the next paragraph you > are concerned about the reputation of Ronald Reagan. ovbviously you are a > fascist with a dirty mind. Ever picked up a homeless kid for nefarious > gratification? Proof that Ikey here can't deal with facts or reason.

"surf" <surfunbear@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1167955483.237655.4100@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com... > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > 1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial > > percentage of homeless people are ordinary people > > who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide > > people with essential help. > > > > FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers, > > mentally ill, or both. That isn't to say that there > > might not be some greater role of government in > > providing help to people with serious mental or > > substance abuse problems, but these people are *not* > > like the majority of people. There are virtually no > > two-parent intact families with children who find > > themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation > > like "offshoring". There are some single women with > > children among the homeless, but these women again are > > *not* like most people, in that they generally have low > > levels of educational achievement, and - big difference > > - were never married despite having one or more children. > > More vietnam vets commited suicide than died in the vietnam war. Proof? Sources? Cites? > Thus > you could say that they must have been mentally ill based on your > argument. In fact many where also homeless. How did they become mentally ill and subsequently homeless? Hint: 5 letters, starts with a "D".... > If that is a true statement > and if what you have said is true then one could argue from that that a > very large segment of the military are mentaly ill. A more intelligent person would compare the number with all veterans and come to the conclusion that you are an idiot... >. Many people may abuse drugs because they Are mindless, irresponsible, and looking for kicks...

No, sorry. We work "Code Blue. Not all these people got there because of drugs. It's just not true. "Stan de SD" <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote in message news:65faf$45a13789$45035f0d$18137@msgid.meganewsservers.com... > > "surf" <surfunbear@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1167955483.237655.4100@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com... > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > 1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial > > > percentage of homeless people are ordinary people > > > who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide > > > people with essential help. > > > > > > FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers, > > > mentally ill, or both. That isn't to say that there > > > might not be some greater role of government in > > > providing help to people with serious mental or > > > substance abuse problems, but these people are *not* > > > like the majority of people. There are virtually no > > > two-parent intact families with children who find > > > themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation > > > like "offshoring". There are some single women with > > > children among the homeless, but these women again are > > > *not* like most people, in that they generally have low > > > levels of educational achievement, and - big difference > > > - were never married despite having one or more children. > > > > More vietnam vets commited suicide than died in the vietnam war. > > Proof? Sources? Cites? > > > Thus > > you could say that they must have been mentally ill based on your > > argument. In fact many where also homeless. > > How did they become mentally ill and subsequently homeless? Hint: 5 letters, > starts with a "D".... > > > If that is a true statement > > and if what you have said is true then one could argue from that that a > > very large segment of the military are mentaly ill. > > A more intelligent person would compare the number with all veterans and > come to the conclusion that you are an idiot... > > >. Many people may abuse drugs because they > > Are mindless, irresponsible, and looking for kicks... > >

"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message news:zdNzh.516$x74.124@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... > 1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial > percentage of homeless people are ordinary people > who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide > people with essential help. I've never heard anyone say this. I have heard that with a few misfortunes we could be like them. > > FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers, > mentally ill, or both. That isn't to say that there > might not be some greater role of government in > providing help to people with serious mental or > substance abuse problems, but these people are *not* > like the majority of people. There are virtually no > two-parent intact families with children who find > themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation > like "offshoring". There are some single women with > children among the homeless, but these women again are > *not* like most people, in that they generally have low > levels of educational achievement, and - big difference > - were never married despite having one or more children. > > > 2. The segment of homeless who are mentally ill are > Ronald Reagan's fault. Reagan "emptied out" the > mental hospitals, turning hundreds of thousands if not > millions of mental patients into homeless victims. > > FALSE. The push to move mentally ill patients out of > in-patient mental hospital settings began in the 1950s, > and achieved its full vigor with John F. Kennedy's > signing of the Community Mental Health Act in October > 1963. The state mental hospitals in California had > already begun to move patients back into community > treatment facilities years before Reagan became > governor of California in 1966, and of course Reagan > had nothing to do with the identical moves occurring in > other states. When did homelessness start increasing? During the mid-1960s?

Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote: > Capitalism and Communism are both bad. You are right, though I disagree with your definitions of both. Depending on what you include in either, they could also be both good. > The problem with >capitalism is that it puts no special value on people. Capitalism is >based on supply and demand. When you say "based", you are correct, capitalism is based on a market system. It is however not identical to a market system. It is a outgrowth of it, like a wart is "based" on the human body, but not identical to it. > A capitalist company that made potato >chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt, >and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more >value than the potatoes or the salt. And they consider it good to pay >they humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits. This gets boring, but I agree with you. The problem is that the workers don't own their company, and hence become machines for someone else. The problem is a certain distribution of ownership, and this is neither equal to a market system, though capitalism heavily depends on this type of dictatorial ownership relations for the purpose of extracting maximum capital from companies (low wages = high profit = high potential investment returns). Dictatorial business relations are what Capitalism is based on within a market system. > According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who >will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must >compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for >the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying >its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the >sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die >of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If >there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people >need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to >the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism. Couldn't agree more. > The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that >people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true. >Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people >start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions? >What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable >share of the profit? Would that be so terrible? That would be the solution to the problem. By the way, note that this is communism, though not as it historically existed, rather among its original theories (which were many and diverse, but went in your direction). A `soviet' means `worker council', it was meant as a worker government for each company; which would disperse profit obviously. >In a hypothetical case suppose technology progressed so far that all >the work were done by machines. Huge farms gathering food and all >automated. You would think everything would be great, but under >capitalism the people would starve because there wouldn't be enough >jobs. > > Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy >people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be >when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If >there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for >everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have >welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having >civilization. Capitalists say people should be helped by welfare so that they don't have to pay, and so that their system doesn't come under additional attacks. > We have many laws that make things better for people. This may be a matter of some debate. Laws often exist to make things better for the top people, discipline makes for greater profits. Though, for instance, it is perfectly fine for top people to kill whomever in the interest of their wealth, this is not true for ordinary workers, because if ordinary workers start killing eachother, that is an additional cost factor. You don't want the slaves killing eachother, because it costs slaves. But you do want to kill union leaders and wage wars, since that can be good for profits. This type of thing is only acceptable, if without such a top layer of greedy/violent people, society would be in total chaos/anarchy. The wealth of the roman empire rulers is only acceptable, if the alternative is even worse (which it probably wouldn't be, though). The roman empire rulers do some things in order to maximize their wealth: build discipline top-down, build reduced violence horizontally (law), and extract wealth. In a sense, it isn't even a negative activity, depending on what would happen otherwise. >There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty >hours. There are laws that ensure people will have retirement. >Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free >to be as greedy as possible.There are laws that keep people from >getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that. >Capitalism is bad for people. Correct. But markets are not bad. So what do we do ? We combine anti-capitalism with free markets and lots of democracy. If you are interested, I've written an example law system that seems to respond to your interests: http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb/constitution.html and that could be *stable* (I hope). Unlike historical communism which was unstable because of its heavy integration of everything (plan economy, collectives), and unstable capitalism, which forever needs to stir chaos in the economy to promote businesses lending more money, promotes dictatorial businesses and forever pressures for bad working conditions, and war. The problem with capitalism is that it seeks to harvest profits that concentrated somewhere. If a country is concentrating profits, then capitalists elsewhere will seek to harvest them (hostile takeover). If a country is thoroughly democratic and unwilling to concentrate profits, then it would be useless to conquer. It is all about money. Capitalism also breeds war, everywhere. -- Followup-To: alt.activism

"Branson Hunter" <bh2322@netzero.net> wrote in message news:1167794341.876278.206490@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... > Rudy Canoza wrote: >> Branson Hunter wrote: >> > Rudy Canoza wrote: >> > A lousy post. >> A great post, and naturally, bwanson, you can't offer >> anything to refute a word of it. >> The homeless are *NOT* generally like most other >> people. Most homeless adults are substance abusers >> (about 70%), mentally ill, or both. > Mr. Crowly has done such superior job of posting > his evidence, while you have done an outstanding > job of showing you're pure troll. That would be Ms. Crowley. And the only thing Marina did was PROVE that the Clinton Administration was a total failure at working the problem of the homeless. If you, or Rudy, wish to acquire data on the so-called homeless all you need to do is reference Rudy G's work on the same problem in Times Square.

"Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message news:eqEmh.10046$X72.372@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > 1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial > percentage of homeless people are ordinary people > who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide > people with essential help. > > FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers, mentally ill, or > both. That isn't to say that there might not be some greater role of > government in providing help to people with serious mental or substance > abuse problems, but these people are *not* like the majority of people. > There are virtually no two-parent intact families with children who find > themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation like "offshoring". > There are some single women with children among the homeless, but these > women again are *not* like most people, in that they generally have low > levels of educational achievement, and - big difference - were never > married despite having one or more children. > Many homeless people are mentally ill or substance abusers. However a significant number are victims of child abuse and runaways, and some are ordinary people who lost their homes due to an unforseen emrgency. Also, where do you get off blaming homeless single women with children for some kind of moral turpitude in your fevered dreams? In the next paragraph you are concerned about the reputation of Ronald Reagan. ovbviously you are a fascist with a dirty mind. Ever picked up a homeless kid for nefarious gratification? > > 2. The segment of homeless who are mentally ill are > Ronald Reagan's fault. Reagan "emptied out" the mental > hospitals, turning hundreds of thousands if not > millions of mental patients into homeless victims. > > FALSE. The push to move mentally ill patients out of in-patient mental > hospital settings began in the 1950s, and achieved its full vigor with > John F. Kennedy's signing of the Community Mental Health Act in October > 1963. The state mental hospitals in California had already begun to move > patients back into community treatment facilities years before Reagan > became governor of California in 1966, and of course Reagan had nothing to > do with the identical moves occuring in other states.

"Branson Hunter" <bh2322@netzero.net> wrote in message news:1167794341.876278.206490@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com... > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > Branson Hunter wrote: > > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > > > > A lousy post. > > > > A great post, and naturally, bwanson, you can't offer > > anything to refute a word of it. > > > > The homeless are *NOT* generally like most other > > people. Most homeless adults are substance abusers > > (about 70%), mentally ill, or both. > > Mr. Crowly has done such superior job of posting > his evidence, ROTFLMAO!!!! You turning to comedy for the new year, Brannie-Poo?

"ike milligan" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:gLQmh.6839$yx6.6002@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > "Rudy Canoza" <rudy-canoza@excite.com> wrote in message > news:eqEmh.10046$X72.372@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net... > > 1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial > > percentage of homeless people are ordinary people > > who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide > > people with essential help. > > > > FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers, mentally ill, or > > both. That isn't to say that there might not be some greater role of > > government in providing help to people with serious mental or substance > > abuse problems, but these people are *not* like the majority of people. > > There are virtually no two-parent intact families with children who find > > themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation like "offshoring". > > There are some single women with children among the homeless, but these > > women again are *not* like most people, in that they generally have low > > levels of educational achievement, and - big difference - were never > > married despite having one or more children. > > > Many homeless people are mentally ill or substance abusers. However a > significant number are victims of child abuse and runaways, Percentages? Sources? Cites? > and some are > ordinary people who lost their homes due to an unforseen emrgency. VERY FEW. Again, where are your sources and cites? > Also, > where do you get off blaming homeless single women with children for some > kind of moral turpitude in your fevered dreams? Where do you get off insisting that irresponsible women have some right to pump out kids and use them to hold the taxpayer's hostage? If they can't take care of their kids, put them up for adoption so some responsible couple can take care of them - but don't reward women with no sense of responsibility or common sense. > In the next paragraph you > are concerned about the reputation of Ronald Reagan. ovbviously you are a > fascist with a dirty mind. Ever picked up a homeless kid for nefarious > gratification? Proof that Ikey here can't deal with facts or reason.

"surf" <surfunbear@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1167955483.237655.4100@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com... > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > 1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial > > percentage of homeless people are ordinary people > > who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide > > people with essential help. > > > > FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers, > > mentally ill, or both. That isn't to say that there > > might not be some greater role of government in > > providing help to people with serious mental or > > substance abuse problems, but these people are *not* > > like the majority of people. There are virtually no > > two-parent intact families with children who find > > themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation > > like "offshoring". There are some single women with > > children among the homeless, but these women again are > > *not* like most people, in that they generally have low > > levels of educational achievement, and - big difference > > - were never married despite having one or more children. > > More vietnam vets commited suicide than died in the vietnam war. Proof? Sources? Cites? > Thus > you could say that they must have been mentally ill based on your > argument. In fact many where also homeless. How did they become mentally ill and subsequently homeless? Hint: 5 letters, starts with a "D".... > If that is a true statement > and if what you have said is true then one could argue from that that a > very large segment of the military are mentaly ill. A more intelligent person would compare the number with all veterans and come to the conclusion that you are an idiot... >. Many people may abuse drugs because they Are mindless, irresponsible, and looking for kicks...

No, sorry. We work "Code Blue. Not all these people got there because of drugs. It's just not true. "Stan de SD" <standesd_DIGA_NO_A_SPAM@covad.net> wrote in message news:65faf$45a13789$45035f0d$18137@msgid.meganewsservers.com... > > "surf" <surfunbear@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1167955483.237655.4100@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com... > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > 1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial > > > percentage of homeless people are ordinary people > > > who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide > > > people with essential help. > > > > > > FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers, > > > mentally ill, or both. That isn't to say that there > > > might not be some greater role of government in > > > providing help to people with serious mental or > > > substance abuse problems, but these people are *not* > > > like the majority of people. There are virtually no > > > two-parent intact families with children who find > > > themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation > > > like "offshoring". There are some single women with > > > children among the homeless, but these women again are > > > *not* like most people, in that they generally have low > > > levels of educational achievement, and - big difference > > > - were never married despite having one or more children. > > > > More vietnam vets commited suicide than died in the vietnam war. > > Proof? Sources? Cites? > > > Thus > > you could say that they must have been mentally ill based on your > > argument. In fact many where also homeless. > > How did they become mentally ill and subsequently homeless? Hint: 5 letters, > starts with a "D".... > > > If that is a true statement > > and if what you have said is true then one could argue from that that a > > very large segment of the military are mentaly ill. > > A more intelligent person would compare the number with all veterans and > come to the conclusion that you are an idiot... > > >. Many people may abuse drugs because they > > Are mindless, irresponsible, and looking for kicks... > >

"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.net> wrote in message news:zdNzh.516$x74.124@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net... > 1. The homeless are "just like you and me." A substantial > percentage of homeless people are ordinary people > who are "victims" of a system that doesn't provide > people with essential help. I've never heard anyone say this. I have heard that with a few misfortunes we could be like them. > > FALSE. The majority of homeless are substance abusers, > mentally ill, or both. That isn't to say that there > might not be some greater role of government in > providing help to people with serious mental or > substance abuse problems, but these people are *not* > like the majority of people. There are virtually no > two-parent intact families with children who find > themselves homeless due to some economic dislocation > like "offshoring". There are some single women with > children among the homeless, but these women again are > *not* like most people, in that they generally have low > levels of educational achievement, and - big difference > - were never married despite having one or more children. > > > 2. The segment of homeless who are mentally ill are > Ronald Reagan's fault. Reagan "emptied out" the > mental hospitals, turning hundreds of thousands if not > millions of mental patients into homeless victims. > > FALSE. The push to move mentally ill patients out of > in-patient mental hospital settings began in the 1950s, > and achieved its full vigor with John F. Kennedy's > signing of the Community Mental Health Act in October > 1963. The state mental hospitals in California had > already begun to move patients back into community > treatment facilities years before Reagan became > governor of California in 1966, and of course Reagan > had nothing to do with the identical moves occurring in > other states. When did homelessness start increasing? During the mid-1960s?

Topaz <mars1933@hotmail.com> wrote: > Capitalism and Communism are both bad. You are right, though I disagree with your definitions of both. Depending on what you include in either, they could also be both good. > The problem with >capitalism is that it puts no special value on people. Capitalism is >based on supply and demand. When you say "based", you are correct, capitalism is based on a market system. It is however not identical to a market system. It is a outgrowth of it, like a wart is "based" on the human body, but not identical to it. > A capitalist company that made potato >chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt, >and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more >value than the potatoes or the salt. And they consider it good to pay >they humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits. This gets boring, but I agree with you. The problem is that the workers don't own their company, and hence become machines for someone else. The problem is a certain distribution of ownership, and this is neither equal to a market system, though capitalism heavily depends on this type of dictatorial ownership relations for the purpose of extracting maximum capital from companies (low wages = high profit = high potential investment returns). Dictatorial business relations are what Capitalism is based on within a market system. > According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who >will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must >compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for >the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying >its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the >sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die >of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If >there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people >need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to >the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism. Couldn't agree more. > The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that >people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true. >Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people >start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions? >What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable >share of the profit? Would that be so terrible? That would be the solution to the problem. By the way, note that this is communism, though not as it historically existed, rather among its original theories (which were many and diverse, but went in your direction). A `soviet' means `worker council', it was meant as a worker government for each company; which would disperse profit obviously. >In a hypothetical case suppose technology progressed so far that all >the work were done by machines. Huge farms gathering food and all >automated. You would think everything would be great, but under >capitalism the people would starve because there wouldn't be enough >jobs. > > Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy >people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be >when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If >there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for >everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have >welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having >civilization. Capitalists say people should be helped by welfare so that they don't have to pay, and so that their system doesn't come under additional attacks. > We have many laws that make things better for people. This may be a matter of some debate. Laws often exist to make things better for the top people, discipline makes for greater profits. Though, for instance, it is perfectly fine for top people to kill whomever in the interest of their wealth, this is not true for ordinary workers, because if ordinary workers start killing eachother, that is an additional cost factor. You don't want the slaves killing eachother, because it costs slaves. But you do want to kill union leaders and wage wars, since that can be good for profits. This type of thing is only acceptable, if without such a top layer of greedy/violent people, society would be in total chaos/anarchy. The wealth of the roman empire rulers is only acceptable, if the alternative is even worse (which it probably wouldn't be, though). The roman empire rulers do some things in order to maximize their wealth: build discipline top-down, build reduced violence horizontally (law), and extract wealth. In a sense, it isn't even a negative activity, depending on what would happen otherwise. >There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty >hours. There are laws that ensure people will have retirement. >Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free >to be as greedy as possible.There are laws that keep people from >getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that. >Capitalism is bad for people. Correct. But markets are not bad. So what do we do ? We combine anti-capitalism with free markets and lots of democracy. If you are interested, I've written an example law system that seems to respond to your interests: http://www.xs4all.nl/~joshb/constitution.html and that could be *stable* (I hope). Unlike historical communism which was unstable because of its heavy integration of everything (plan economy, collectives), and unstable capitalism, which forever needs to stir chaos in the economy to promote businesses lending more money, promotes dictatorial businesses and forever pressures for bad working conditions, and war. The problem with capitalism is that it seeks to harvest profits that concentrated somewhere. If a country is concentrating profits, then capitalists elsewhere will seek to harvest them (hostile takeover). If a country is thoroughly democratic and unwilling to concentrate profits, then it would be useless to conquer. It is all about money. Capitalism also breeds war, everywhere. -- Followup-To: alt.activism