<<I can't think of an exception. What are you thinking of?>>
Are you kidding me? The basic example is the lifeboat. Four guys are gonna die unless one is sacrificed for food. But each one of the four is an individual.
Further examples are everywhere. Government-sponsored health-care has funding to save millions of cardiac patients and extend the lives of millions of cancer victims, but it can't fund promising research into a rare disease that will kill about 200 people annually. But those two hundred are also individuals. The U.S. government nobly incurred $3 trillion in costs to bring the blessings of democracy to the Iraqi people, but it cannot afford to bring the same blessings to the Chinese people by invading their country and killing their rulers too, yet the Chinese are individuals just as much as the Iraqis are.
<<No ,not every time [do the interests of one class have to be weighed against the interests of the other ]. Not every game is zero sum , as much as possible zero sum situations ought to be avoided . >>
You are talking nonsense. Every time. You cannot possibly devise a law that benefits lenders and borrowers equally. Each class is constantly seeking its own advantage independent of the existing legal climate, and every law passed is passed at some point in that struggle. Unless it is completely ineffective, it is bound to affect the relative position of each of the parties to the struggle as it existed immediately prior to the passage of the law, and since the law's purpose is to change something, that change can't possibly be equally good for both.
<<The Win Win potential is quite frequently possible .Mutual benefit is the very heart of Capitolism. >>
More nonsense. In that case all goods would be sold at cost.
<<Nothing is better business than rich customers who need you, and are getting richer. >>
You are certainly living in some kind of fantasy world. At least I can tell you have never been in business. You seem to know almost nothing about business. A businessman wants customers who want and need his product. Whether they are rich or poor doesn't concern him in the least, as long as they always have enough for him. When people are poor, they have to work in his factory and eat his shit. When they are rich they don't have to. He doesn't want to see lots of rich people competing for the same luxury goods he buys, because that just boosts the price he has to pay for them himself. And customers don't have to be rich to need food in their stomach and gas in their car. Supermarkets and gas stations stay open in 2% unemployment and in double-digit unemployment. As long as people have enough money to buy stuff, that's all the businessman cares about. If a factory worker's wages are quadrupled, he's not gonna eat four times as much food. He might buy better stuff to eat, but there's a limit to how much he's gonna spend on food or gas.
<<Sometimes it seems that the central idea of Communism is reduceing class conflict , and competition, by destroying the competing class.>>
Communism seeks the end of the class struggle and the equalization of wealth to the point where there are no more classes and no more class war.
