redistribution, because potentially it flashes a fire through the forest to allow new growth to get underway, as opposed to entrenching money as old money like in many other domains.
What (who) must be failed... and what (who) must be not failed... ? What must be re-invented, to whose benefit... as it is being destroyed, to whose benefit ? If it is a choice being made... it is wrong.
The correct path is in "the right answer" requiring "the right rules"... neither one surviving having another choosing who wins and loses...as Caesar choosing who lives and who dies.
The agnosticism you so cherish, finally finds a proper home... and only then you abandon it ?
How "should" distribution work ? We shall agree that it is a valid question. I shall insist that "how the question should be answered" requires knowing the answer to the question behind the "should"... to answer ONLY that question... "how it should". The question "how it should" must be answered, still without ever providing the answer in a result. With the right rules... the question answers itself in the result that occurs... falling into place by gravity... with reality delivering only truth in result... and without anyone making that decision, while pushing it uphill... by force... or, influencing it, by fraud, obstruction, tolerance of monopoly.
Otherwise... the "fire through the forest"... is simply the expression of the corruption of power burning the homes of the innocent along with the forest brush... that in itself an act of fraud... intended to "obstruct others participation"... and preserve their own monopoly.... not, as instead claimed, as needed to "allow new growth" and de-clutter their view of the forest floor. It is no different than the prior... the biggest fish eating the largest of the smaller fish... while claiming to the fry that it is done to protect the smallest fish...
China... does so overtly... the veneer applied so thin as none in the west are confused by it... In the west, today, the same rule applies... only done with deceit and subterfuge... the "Chicken Little" fraud of climate change as "being your fault"... to force change in who is allowed to profit from changes in energy flows... as who will win the right to control the weather, free from liability... changes that are so wildly detached from reality with forced control imposed on markets and flows of money... all imposing massive inefficiency... and worse ?
Which approach to the same thing is worse ? Which is more corrupt ?
My answer... as before re the drag racers... "They're heading the wrong way". |
