On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 17:21, JoeHill wrote:

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:03:25 -0500 Marcus Brubaker <marcus.brubaker-H217xnMUJC0sA/PxXw9srA at public.gmane.org> wrote:

...

The same could be said of every major system. Communism would work beautifully...if only everyone participated. The reality is that any successful system of capital must be able to handle non-participants. In a sense, thats the beauty of capitalism, there is no way to not participate short of not having capital.

Well, this is the problem. As soon as one criticises Capitalism, the immediate response is: "Well Communism sucks even more!" I nowhere advocated, communism, of course.

I wasn't saying you advocated communism, nor that communism sucked. Communism is beautiful in theory. I was just pointing out that most every imaginable system of capital would work perfectly if only everyone participated and that capitalism has the advantage that non-participants (non-capital holders in this case) don't cause the system to fail for participants. This is not to say that one is better than the other. Regards, -- Marcus Brubaker <marcus.brubaker-H217xnMUJC0sA/PxXw9srA at public.gmane.org> -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml