Re: Definition of "rich"?

nospam <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Peter Bjørn Perlsø wrote:

BTW, since the USSR were first, doesn't that speak againt your
hypothesis that democracy fosters scientific/engineering advancement?

Nope. It is as mater of fact a near fit. As I said, the key is motivation.
Right on the beginning, some people really believed in the propaganda they
were served. They really believed that they are going to have a democratic
society. They were very motivated. But when the reality surfaced that
motivation vanished away.

The space race happened after Stalin had been busy purging the USSR
population for years. How does that fit in with your "motivation" model?


That, and the fact that the free market for throught and research - and
of course, achievement - was put out of business by a communist
ideaology where no one were allowed to rise over the commoners.

In the end it is again about motivation. Free market in itself have
absolutely no value at all. Zero.

Strongly disagree.

What have value is the fact that people engaged in free market can sell
their creation for proffit, and this motivate them to create more.

This of course includes that people are competitive, and will strive to
rise above the neighbour and colleague, and that this is a factor for
progress and growth, one wihch you seek to disqualify.

This is also the reason why a completely free market is not going to be
functional on long run. Few large corporations will rule the market and
motivation is lost.

Only if those corporations are given de jure priviledges by the state.
When they are not, the free market reigns supreme.


The ONLY reason capitalism was more successfull than the communism
is the democracy.

Successful in what way? Are we still talking in terms of research? China
is not democratic, but is it quickly turning capitalist (even thought
the despotic bastards in charge of the operation deny it). China just
put a man in space a year ago, even. They are slowly becoming a
superpower, and in more than one way.

Yes. There is motivation thru hope. The hope that once they will become
democratic. This is exactly the situation from USSR. In the beginning the
motivation was there. People hoped that the "workers paradise" with a fully
democratic government will become a reality. This is exactly what happen now
in China. They hope that once the capitalism is set up in place the
democracy will come. The hope create motivation. There is also the
motivation brought by better wages they get from Western companies.

If China will not democratize the boom is going to come to a stop on the
long term. Once the hope vanish away, people get demotivated as they did in
USSR.


If the communism would been as claimed in propaganda
and the capitalism killed the democracy and ruled by fear, the world will
be 100% different than today.

Well, at least very different...

In the end the regime having the democracy in his side will always win.
The regime ruling by oppression will always lose on the long run.
It is human nature.

Democracy is just another, more popular, kind of opression.


That is: Democracy and individual motivation are the requirements for a
society to be successfull. Everything else does not count at all.

Democracy is merely a mistaken ideal of freedom.

And how in the world do you believe you can achieve freedom
without democracy ? This is a claim without any value.

Democracy offers *relative* freedom compared to the brutal dictatorships
or USSR, Cambodia, Chile and so on. But in the long run, these
dictatorships are just being replaced by an oligarchy of powerhungry
robbers called "elected politicians".

Ever heard of "When a politician promises to take from Peter, to give to
Paul, he can always count on the support of Paul"? Well, it's true.
Democratic politicians who condone and enforce plunder will always be in
the majority.


Freedom is what people should have, not democracy, which is merely
tyranny of the many.

You can call it tyranny if you like, but this won't change the reality.

No, because the reality IS that it is tyranny by the many. The american
founding fathers agreed with me.

A democracy rule as the majority wants.

And thus, not what the minority wants.

A majority identify their goals with
the goal of government. A majority is motivated to achieve that goal.

Yeah, we all saw where Hitler's motivations too us. He was after all,
democratically elected by the majority...


Any other form of government will produce a minority of motivated people.

At least, people will know who their opressors are. Now, most people are
oblivious to the fact that their "own policians" are enslaving and
ripping them off.

Since motivation is important into achieving the goals
it is obvious that a democracy will always achieve the goal faster/better
since they have a majority of motivated people.

It is simple and logical.

Have you been attending any motivational seminars recently? You seem
very .... preoccupied with the concept.


--
regards, Peter Bjørn Perlsø
http://haxor.dk
http://liberterran.org
http://haxor.dk/fanaticism/
.