>>Speaking of the so-called "social Darwinism" (or the repackaged rat race), it's not even a nice abstraction, because it's simply inaccurate. It neglects the development of social services, safety nets (and all other "bleedin heart librul" or whatever terms were used to disparage these ideas) are a social mechanisms evolved exactly to counterbalance the niceties of the initial accumulation and capitalism as survival of the greediest. Evolved, i.e. part of the same social Darwinism, if you want. They were invented, and have taken root, because they satisfy a social need. Had the need not been there, the invention wouldn't have happened, or would have been an evolutionary dead end.
>>
>>Of course, with good propaganda you can convince people that they don't need milk, they need Coke, or that redistribution is just when you take from the poor to give to the rich, but unjust when it's in the other direction.
>
>milk, juice, soda, coffee, tea, wine, beer or whisky.... It's all about having choice isn't it?

Maybe it is (for any arbitrary value of it), but what I wrote was not. My point is that if you're greedy, smart and rich, you can notice the flow of social evolution, and if you don't like where it's going, you can pay to have that flow diverted. To an extent, it's possible to do, and proof is all around you.

>No one should make you just drink any one beverage or stop you from drinking the beverage of you choice.

I apologize for using a concrete example to represent a general idea.

>>OTOH, I have to agree with Marcia in one point - any system that's supposed to catch the thieves and give the loot back to the people usually ends up rewarding the thieves and punishing those who live well because they work a lot (soft or hard, can't say, being biased towards software) and have results that satisfy a need, which brings money. This has happened on both three sides of the rusty curtain, and just shows that no system is immune to corruption. Which does not mean we shouldn't try to do it right - take back from the thieves, and reward the diligent.
>
>Wow
>In my little mind ,and in two years that I've been reading your posts, this is the most powerful. But how would you... no, forget it. It gets too complicated.

That's the point. It is complicated, always is, and in this country it's double complicated. I've noticed that there's some sort of mentality of not overusing things, not taking them to extremes until you must, back home, and maybe in Europe in general. Those things are simply not done. Here, as soon as something new comes up, there's guaranteed to be someone who will test to see how far will it go, to see if it can withstand the trial by fire or by throwing at the wall to see whether it sticks.

Then, attempting to introduce justice in taxes, where there's such a long history of "we don't pay taxes, taxes are for the little people" (as the lady who owned NYT said), no matter what you come up with, there are the rich guys with lawyers trained (in both meanings, as guns and as dogs) to widen any holes which weren't already bought before the bill became law, or drill where there weren't any. Whereas those who haven't done anything wrong don't even know they may come under scrutiny of a new law, and are generally caught unprepared. So whichever way you want to introduce justice in there, you end up hurting some of the good guys, and a bunch of the bad guys laugh behind your back or just straight at you.

That's more a matter of the legal system; why is this the best system money can buy.