|>> || >>207114 |
A few comments above that you told another poster to 'shut the fuck up', so don't pretend you're all high-road or that I grievously injured you by calling you 'idiot' on a chan. And you are over-simplifying what I am saying to the point that it seems like I'm actually articulating a simplistic view, but you just are totally missing the point I'm trying to make.
Might makes right is absolutely true, that's just physics. You just keep failing to notice that I'm specifying that physical force is only one kind of might, and all kinds of might contribute to success.
I'm not claiming meritocracy = anything. I'm making a claim about capitalism, not meritocracy.
Enron got gutted because it used its might to encroach on others, and angered them, such that they put into motion a series of forces (social, leading to legal and political) that had a greater force trying to disintegrate it than the amount of force it was able to apply to keep itself together, and thus naturally failed to maintain its homeostasis. Might still made right, it's just that the might of the US legal system is > than the might of one company.
Moreover, I'm not advocating this as a good thing. In fact, I'm saying it's a horrible thing, the key flaw with capitalism! It goes back to my original statement; free market capitalism is little more than a window dressing for the natural state of affairs, and in the natural state of affairs the only thing that determines the flow of economic forces (or anything else) is the forces which actors within the field are able to apply upon the field. To whatever degree we have regulation of our economy, we try to minimize the damage this causes, but the basic message that capitalism sends is the same: you will have (money, wealth, fame, power, resources: success) if and only if you have the might (requisite physical, economic, mental, social, moral, etc. forces and powers) to acquire those things, and the degree to which you have them will be directly proportional to the degree which you possess those forces. Justice has little to do with it, since our politicians are so easily bought, the justice system therefore only nominally enforces some higher ideal of justice, it really is just a manifestation of the obscurant might of other parts of society.
Personally, I should think that a more elaborate restraint of the natural condition would be beneficial, such that a minimal level of reward is re-allocated by the state on a basis independent of one's means to directly obtain it, but my political beliefs are not the subject. I was merely backing up the proposition that capitalism is effort based, but not a meritocracy, by drilling down to the core ideological implications.
And I think all of that was fairly obvious if you read the line of my posts, but again, everyone wanted to look at them in an over-simplistic way and misunderstood them out of assuming I was using my points to arguing in a direction I disavowed from the outset, and there's little I can do to help that part.