Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watcgl!jchapman From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: egg/chicken chicken/egg chigg/eckin Message-ID: <2116@watcgl.UUCP> Date: Wed, 26-Jun-85 16:53:36 EDT Article-I.D.: watcgl.2116 Posted: Wed Jun 26 16:53:36 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 27-Jun-85 05:33:45 EDT References: <893@mnetor.UUCP> <5642@utzoo.UUCP> <896@mnetor.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 63 . . .< many statements> > unfair misuse of women is hardly the major cause of our economic prosperity. > If anything, misuse of good talent HURTS us rather than helps us. I completely agree and I assume you will take whatever opportunity you can to encourage and promote women in all walks of life (in your own interests.....). > > >> ...I refer to communism as the opposite philosophy to the free-enterprise > >> philosophy... > > > Who is talking about communism??????? Isn't that a little paranoid? > > Does a system where everyone is given equal opportunity (and not > > just lip service to the idea) mean communism? If a system does not > > take advantage of the poor or the weak or it does economically > > discriminate against one sex then it's a communist system? You remind > > me of a news report I once saw on American tv; they read this > > document to people on the street and asked them what they thought of > > it - most people thought it was communist garbage - it was the US > > declarati of independance (or the constitution, I can't remember now). > > > > I doubt I remind you of such a report. You unfairly judge my awareness > in these matters. There is a well known spectrum of economic belief that > ranges from the belief in free enterprise, privately owned on one side to > the belief in state (or common) ownership and/or control of the means of > production on the other. I was making a comment on that spectrum and > my use of the word communism was entirely appropriate. Who's being > paranoid? > was talking about the oppression of women and your reply was "... The argument that the principle of communism...." implying (to me anyway) that what I was proposing was communism. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt however and assume I misinterpreted you. BTW remind: a verb. Now that it is in the past I would say " you reminded me of...", I don't now why you doubt this but it is true. > >> I point out that free trade is a both-sides-win game, not a zero sum game. > > > He points out that in some nations the gap between rich and poor is growing. > > Indeed, say I. In many nations the poor are uneducated or foolish, just > as they once were in western society. In this country, my impression is > that the middle class is growing, and that everybody is getting richer, albiet > some faster than others. > > In our own country, we are advanced enough (or soon will be) that we need > not meddle in other poeple's private affairs, or so I dearly hope. In > other countries they may not be so lucky. Do you suggest we should take > over those countries and set things right? Or restrain our own citizens > from doing things in foreign lands? If what our own citizens do in foreign lands hurts the occupants of those lands then hell yes restrain them. Why not? Do I suggest we take over those lands? No, I suggest we offer whatever help we can whenever we can to improve everyones situation; as you pointed out wasting talent hurts everyone. I think in a reasonable society everyone would be both encouraged *and* helped to develop their abilities as far as they will go. > -- > Brad Templeton - Waterloo, Ont. (519) 886-7304