🚀 go-pugleaf

LQuest (liberty@airmail.net) wrote:
: edwardk@aimnet.com (Edward N. Kurmudgeon) wrote:
: >Well, I am not sure, Travis.  If the Russian came, Bill Gates would lose 
: >2 billion dollars of income a year, and I some what less (about 2 billion
: >dollars less).  So, don't you think he should pay more since he has a 
: >larger stake in this Russian thing?

: Listen up folks -- this is Marxism talking here!  Sorry Edward. Travis' idea
: may be a little naive but the essence of his proposal is just.  We must pay
: for what we get -- not what we have already earned!!!  In the scenario you
: attempted, the effort to protect Bill Gates would concurrently protect Travis
: -- same service, same price.  By your logic  Bill Gates should pay more for
: food than Travis -- simply because he had the audacity to innovate more
: effectively than Travis.  And that sir is Socialism in its most vile form:
: "..from each according to ability; to each according to need..." and other
: such Marxist tripe.

Don't be silly.  It's capitalism at it's best.  It's charging what the market
will bear.  Ask Bill Gates how much he will pay to protect his 2 billion
dollars a year appreciation in his MazelTov stock, and ask me how much
I will pay to protect my meagre income.  If you don't even understand this
principle, you won't understand why windows 95, which requires way more than 4
times the resources needed to write AfterDark screen savers, is 89.95 a copy, 
while AfterDark screen savers are 29.95 a copy.

Don't yell marxism or socialism, you don't understand them, much less
capitalism.