neither theoretical communism nor historical communism [after communism was hijacked by thugs] was anywhere near limited fortunes - limited fortunes is about getting back to democracy, liberty & justice for all - getting back to the american dream [& the idea of every wise person & the lesson of every bit of history] of just, limited fortunes, ensuring democracy, liberty & justice, peace, fraternity, longevity of the state
the enemy was wealth concentration - wealth = power, overwealth = overpower = tyranny
the founding fathers obviously understood that wealth concentration was inimical to democracy, freedom, safety, peace, law, order, everything good -
americans obviously didnt
now the american [& human] dream of liberty & justice for all, democracy, has been so hijacked by unlimited fortunes, that americans think limited fortunes has something to do with communism
the writing is on the wall for america, as for communism: the state built on injustice still cannot stand
2006-10-16 18:02:58 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Economics
eighter it's better or capitalists force them to. I don't really know.
2006-10-16 18:14:52 · answer #1 · answered by JAMES 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I guess you would need to explain how it is different. If you're going to limit fortunes, that sounds just like taking what belongs to one person and giving it to someone else. Or taking what was earned by a person and giving it to a person who didn't earn.
I believe thats how communism and socialism work. Its the same principle. The fundemental idea being that you can personally own anything because it can be taken away from you if some bureaucrat decides you have too much.
Communism is about majority rules where the majority makes the rules and the rules change every day. Free enterprize is about the rule of law. Where individuals are protected from the majority by the force of law.
2006-10-17 06:53:47 · answer #2 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a great evil in limited fortunes.. There is no reward for excellence.. people will be satisfied with mediocrity, because there would be no difference between a person who is just OK, and the person who is the best...
There is a bad side to every system of government.. you just have to learn to live in it, and do the best you can..
Would you rather live in a society where there are a few "tyrants" as you would like to call, or in a society which is half dead.. and where everyone goes about living their life just because he has been born..??
People need some way to feel better for doing thigs better than others... would you be happy if you aced the test and got the same grade as someone who just managed to scrape through?? If that continues to happen, you'll stop working hard to ace the tests... you'll just work hard enough to scrape through...
2006-10-16 18:27:28 · answer #3 · answered by Kidambi A 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
lets just work on your last sentence, America can't stand on justice either and I'll fight to my death to say this is really bad to think that we have Justice here in America, most never Have e to live with the entrapment of it's nasty way of dropping people with guilt trip for ignorance of the law. i can get off on a rant that would give any one else a heart attack, that what we do here is think tank brain washing but they say that it is still the best of the worst so I'll stop here I spent my whole life eating the sh@t coming out of the Carnegie applied sciences and it sucks go get a Carnegie quarterly and see what we did to live in the 70"s at best we were told don't let the door hit you in the @ss on the way out if you don't like it.
2006-10-16 18:16:27 · answer #4 · answered by bev 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
sorry..... i dont know
2006-10-16 18:15:12 · answer #5 · answered by Pokkiri 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋