All of you have some truth in what you say. As far as survival of one or the other ideology goes, it depends on more than just whether it is good for all or just one. Democracy is the big problem with the world today. The 3rd world (as a collective for those who lag behind at present) are getting more powerful purely on the basis of numbers. That is a very foolish way of looking at and dealing with future global issues. Somebody once said, never underestimate the power of stupid people in masses...
Now that may sound very derogatory, but the truth is that a new system of governance will have to be devised. One where the common good is balanced with the good of every living creature on this planet. Part of that responsibility is to make sure that the 3rd world is educated and developed. The 3rd world must also not be given a power that is disproportional to its capabilities or understanding...
Cheers
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by mbs</i>
<br />Well said, Tharaxis. The point I was trying to make is that dogmatic adherence to a particular ideology merely causes the growth of opposing viewpoints and competing ideologies, given the nature of the human animal. This is the fundamental failure of Ayn Rand's approach, which espouses the idea of "the ideal man, man as he could be and ought to be.” Her idea of the "ideal man" is a "heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
In essence there's nothing wrong with this, but it is merely a sub-set of what we really are - you ignore the rest at your peril. For example, whilst we're naturally gregarious and inevitably collaborate for the 'common good', our inherent pack mentality usually causes in-fighting to achieve 'leader-of-the-pack' status, with the strongest surviving only until such time as rise of someone stronger, or until inherent weakness causes the strongest to succumb. This is a very simplistic analogy and could be viewed as somewhat naive, but evidentiary support for this exists in many contexts. Methinks the same thing occurs in the boardroom context for many companies, including the likes of SBC and Telkom. Ultimately, however, there will always be pressure from those willing to test and challenge the status quo, and blinkered dogma is eventually replaced by something else. This forum is a perfect example of such pressure, whether it is ultimately successful or not.
It is for this reason that sustained and successful management is usually characterised by an eclectic approach to both internal and external variables, whether it be the management of a country or state, a company or organisation, or even a family unit. As you noted, everything 'in moderation'. Bringing all of this back to the topic, it suffices to repeat that said by Ant - capitalism cannot survive without a social balance. Similarly, our telco environment should not be completely deregulated, as some regulation will remain necessary to preclude chaos. And concerning Whitacre, he is destined to take a fall as the current SBC 'strongman', witness all those corporate thieves being brought to book elsewhere - the same thing applies to our own local gravy train idiots...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
He who does not understand the value of war at the right time, cannot comprehend the value of life at any time - Anonymous
