RE:Psych. label bible mocked in London Times

Donald Bokor (boko7751@uidaho.edu)
Mon, 1 Dec 1997 14:23:46 -0800 (PST)


Dear Liberty,

A different attack on the same problem.

On Mon, 1 Dec 1997, Liberty wrote:

> Dear Don,
> 
> At 08:11 PM 30/11/97 -0800, Donald Bokor wrote:
> 
> >I hope you don't mind if I take another shot at your ideas.
> 
> So far everybody else has, why not you too? <grin>

Liberty, you are one of us, and maybe you are just playing a devil's
advocate role, but know that I welcome you with open and loving arms into
my community.

> >On Sat, 29 Nov 1997, Liberty wrote:
> 
> >> The marketplace will take care of these exploitive landlords, once we are
> >> able to get people better access to their own financial resources to pay
> >> to live wherever they want to live.
> >
> >This obviously is a capitalist myth used to justify and apologize for
> >free market capitalism. The marketplace always favors the most efficient
> >and most effective organizations in the economy.
> 
> What is wrong with that?  Why settle for inefficiencies and waste?

Because the only way that they are measuring efficiency and effectiveness
is in monetary terms, and monetray terms do not take into account the
human cost.  Why settle for waste indeed.  What are people living
desperately in the streets, but not waste?  What are people locked up in
prisons, but not waste?  What are people killed in wars, but not waste? 
But these things lead to financial gain, so the waste is written off as a
hidden cost, as a tragic but necessary evil of the system of financial
accumulation.

> >Yet, once we let the government protect us from exploitive landlords, then 
> >we are just substituting the exploitation of the government for the 
> >exploitation of the landlord.
> 
> No, under an ideal market economy, landlords would have to compete by
> providing better service at a reasonable price.  They would not gouge
> consumers as consumers would simply pick up their stakes and go elsewhere.

Capitalism is premised on one thing, get more money out of what you do
than money put into what you do.  That is, give somebody something of less
value than you charge them for.  So under an ideal free market, somebody
will always be getting something that is not worth as much as they paid
for it.  No matter how small that degree of gouge is, it is still a
gouging.

Humans are not consumers, they are humans.  Once thought of only as
consumers then they are seen only as a market for "producers."  And their
consumptive desires are manipulated so that producers can maximize their
profits on providing consumers not only with unneeded but downright
harmful consumptive items.

> >I want answers.  Capitalism and AmeriKKKan style democracy have failed to
> >provide for the needs of all of the people in their own countries of
> >control let alone in the world.  We have given them four hundred years of
> >chances, at the cost of untold billions of lives, all so that certain
> >elite minorities (read "power elites") called citizens could have a better
> >standard of living than they had in the past.
> 
> So-called "free market economies" have always had heavy government 
> intervention, which has often led to the ill effects you describe.
> Many things are just better left alone.  Government's role is to
> encourage and provide resources/support for folks so they can compete
> in the "free market economy", and get their needs met.

Go ahead and blame somebody else.  Refuse to look at your own
shortcomings.  I will guarantee you that you may get rich with this
attitude, but you will never achieve enlightenment and have true
knowledge about nor compassion for yourself or any other human on earth.

Governments have their own problems.  Unique and separate from those of
capitalism.  Both sets of systems must be changed, and changed fast before
the "whole shithouse goes up in flames."

> Respectfully,
> 
> Liberty (Lillian)
> - liberty@vaxxine.com

Donald W. Bokor