A Response On Equality

Nte. I am an egalitarian only in the civic sense, and in regards to the subjugation of women by men (ie, religiousity of that sort. More on Paganism later.)

>We are comparable to the natural order of things an order born of symbiosis.

Right, and no symbiosis is no good. See how that works?

Borders are a good thing. Allows for "symbiosis" on a national level, which improves the outlook and output of people. No borders equals no way to manage or govern anything, people would be too vast a population to coordinate with, via the government, or each one another.

>We need each other and we'd be better if we were both able to share and take equally.

That's where you are wrong. We'd be better if people were able to share and take at varying degrees. This is CLEARLY better in every fundamental way, philosophically, ethically, political, economically.

You might ask why.

Because ethically, it's better to be able to accept a certain level of ambition, competition, or creativity that is higher than yours.

Politically because it's the natural order and works better- that people can accept this ethical notion, and better themselves, and/or accept their current situation in stride and sustain themselves without the need to be shared with, or the need to take what isn't earned.

Economically because it's the natural order and the ecology of the demand for goods stipulates diversity over homogeneity.

And philosophically because it just makes more sense, overall.

I think humans can STRIVE for equality, but the natural order of ANIMALS and ECOLOGY dictates that it'll never be totally equal; the ecosystem would DESTROY ITSELF then, if it was equal, due to instability and eventually starvation.

>Markets are constructed, not "natural". They aren't necessarily subject to the same sorts of complex interactions that we see in ecosystems. I've heard compelling arguments for decreased diversity in the marketplace.

Markets are naturally EVOLVING.

To diversify you need to be malleable.

To be malleable you need to be able to change.

And to be able to change- in order to evolve that is- you need to be able to go where the market is naturally taking you, as an investor of capital.

This is the best system, in any sort of economy, be it socialist, capitalist, etc.

>History shows that markets naturally lead to monopolies. The bigger companies get, the more powerful they become, the more difficult it is for newcomers to break in, the more monopolies can screw consumers for profit. I'm not sure that going where the market naturally takes us is necessarily the best thing. This is why we have anti-trust legislation, which big companies 'naturally' want to get of.

The market needs be malleable to market forces; that is all that "natural" means.

No one wants a monopoly. Hence, that kind of product supply, whatever it may be, is going against the grain. There should be more done to bust them up, it's called competition law- right now, it's being worked into the ground by legal experts abounding...excuse the poetic usage there.

You always need to be against the grain, this is how shit gets done, methinks.

My stance is that I can always learn. The self's motivations, actions, and learning does not end with a worldview; and my postulation is etiological and not meant to be taken as an ultimatum on how to live

Also, screw the bankers. Diversity [market diversity] works with numbers and money-lending and money-changing....not with people, we're not farm animals.