One breeds sentiments for the other.
The movie "Reds" :- the old man who said "people who try to take on the problems of the world are either too well off or are too disturbed to tackle their own issues." and "even Jesus Christ could not take on the troubles of the world... He got himself crucified for trying!"
Addendum:
I had this little post saved as draft for a while now. I have forgotten why I started it in the first place. But I thought I would put down some related comments and publish it...
So, the tango! Yes. My thoughts on why each policy tends to breed support for the opposite. In one word: inheritance.
Inheritance of capital from parents to children seems to be a central problem in capitalism. Even though the person who created the capital deserves to reap its benefits (I'm a free market capitalist here), I am against the practice of giving all that capital to someone simply based on genealogy. This breeds sentiments for communism in the working class. And rightly so, since whatever did the heir do to deserve all that good stuff!
In communism though, one person has limited opportunity to break free from the norm and cash up on a unique idea. This too is wrong! Ownership should be defined by whether or not a person truly created the capital. I am reminded of Gringotts goblins here! JKR says in Deathly Hallows that goblins define ownership of an object by who actually made it.
So what I am proposing is a hybrid system, something evolved, something that takes on the best of both and is immune to the diseases that plagues either. A system where parents do not try to shower the fruits of their labour on their children and where an idea is uniquely owned and allowed to be unceremoniously utilized for personal wealth. How naive! I'm talking about going against our evolutionary instincts that drive us to protect our own off-springs and ensure the survival of our selfish genes. Fat chance! As I said in an earlier post, the world will remain screwed up till the notion of power is bred out of our species.
The movie "Reds" :- the old man who said "people who try to take on the problems of the world are either too well off or are too disturbed to tackle their own issues." and "even Jesus Christ could not take on the troubles of the world... He got himself crucified for trying!"
Addendum:
I had this little post saved as draft for a while now. I have forgotten why I started it in the first place. But I thought I would put down some related comments and publish it...
So, the tango! Yes. My thoughts on why each policy tends to breed support for the opposite. In one word: inheritance.
Inheritance of capital from parents to children seems to be a central problem in capitalism. Even though the person who created the capital deserves to reap its benefits (I'm a free market capitalist here), I am against the practice of giving all that capital to someone simply based on genealogy. This breeds sentiments for communism in the working class. And rightly so, since whatever did the heir do to deserve all that good stuff!
In communism though, one person has limited opportunity to break free from the norm and cash up on a unique idea. This too is wrong! Ownership should be defined by whether or not a person truly created the capital. I am reminded of Gringotts goblins here! JKR says in Deathly Hallows that goblins define ownership of an object by who actually made it.
So what I am proposing is a hybrid system, something evolved, something that takes on the best of both and is immune to the diseases that plagues either. A system where parents do not try to shower the fruits of their labour on their children and where an idea is uniquely owned and allowed to be unceremoniously utilized for personal wealth. How naive! I'm talking about going against our evolutionary instincts that drive us to protect our own off-springs and ensure the survival of our selfish genes. Fat chance! As I said in an earlier post, the world will remain screwed up till the notion of power is bred out of our species.
No comments:
Post a Comment