[rivethead]

Originally Posted by Krazikarl

Sorry, couldnt pass up this massive inconsistency:
-><-

You justify something by appealing to capitalism, but then suggest something which is very socialist (and VERY anti capitalist). To quote Pubilius Syrus "Everything is worth what the purchaser will pay for it." Thats a tenant of capitalism, but you suggest that people in the UFC shouldnt be paid based on what they bring in for the UFC, but for what some authority thinks they should make. You cant appeal to the free market once and then say its stupid 2 sentences later.

Massive inconsistency? That's a pretty "massive" overstatement.

I'm actually not justifying anything...and certainly not beyond a theoretical sense, regardless.

If you are really that interested in irrelevant minutae, go back and read it again, in context: rather than advocating a capitalist perspective, I was answering a question that he'd put forth...a question I found particularly ignorant considering he's got a Reagan quote in his signature, and--if I'm thinking of the same guy [and I might be wrong]--he has misinterpreted political theory in previous posts. Minimally, I would have thought a guy with a Reagan quote would understand fundamental capitalism, but apparently I was "WONG AGAIN." That was a joke, did you get it?

As far as paying on celebrity vs. talent, I don't feel my perceptions are entirely socialist. I do feel there is tremendous talent within the UFC that gets somewhat overlooked. If a similar investment was made to develop their public recognition, I feel they can eclipse some of the fighters who are paid mainly for celebrity status, as opposed to pure talent. A long-term investment can bring long term gain, as opposed to the short term arrangement I was specifically referencing.



I'm also someone who doesn't feel bound by the need to follow any single doctrine. If you find this contradictory--or confusing--you can always choose to read someone else's posts.

rh