National Interest and Collectivism
John T. Kennedy
rooster: Last night I had the strangest dream...
>It Isnt Easy Being Green wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 22 May 2001 21:45:27 GMT, Martin McPhillips
>> <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> ::National interest isn't nationalism. Get that far
>> ::and come back when you're ready.
>>
>> I'll bite. Define the difference.
>
>It's the difference between common interests
>and an attitude.
People voluntarily cooperate in a free market out of common or
compatible interests. If we as individuals have common interests, then
why won't an appeal to my individual self interest suffice, why would
one resort to an appeal to national interest?
How is national interest anything but collectivist?
When someone says something is in the national interest I'm pretty
damn sure they can't persuade enough individuals that it's in their
personal interest. Because obviously if they could there would be no
reason to speak of national interest.
I look up nationalism in the dictionary and find:
"loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national
consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary
emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those
of other nations or supranational groups "
And I ask myself, what part of that definition doesn't fit Martin
McPhillips?
How can I construe his views on immigration as anything but
nationalist? Doesn't he explicitly promote national culture and
interests above individual rights?
Nationalism is an ominous word, and for good reason. But if the shoe
fits, isn't one obliged to wear it?
-
John Thomas Kennedy III
The Wild Shall Ever Wild Remain!
http://www.mindspring.com/~jtkennedy/itswhatitisnow.html
Martin McPhillips
>
> Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> woke me and said hey
> rooster: Last night I had the strangest dream...
>
> >It Isnt Easy Being Green wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 21:45:27 GMT, Martin McPhillips
> >> <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> ::National interest isn't nationalism. Get that far
> >> ::and come back when you're ready.
> >>
> >> I'll bite. Define the difference.
> >
> >It's the difference between common interests
> >and an attitude.
>
> People voluntarily cooperate in a free market out of common or
> compatible interests. If we as individuals have common interests, then
> why won't an appeal to my individual self interest suffice, why would
> one resort to an appeal to national interest?
>
> How is national interest anything but collectivist?
In your imbecile and autistic world you can take a phrase
like "common interest" and conflate its meaning with that
of a word like "collectivist" commonly used to describe
socialism.
You can do that because by passing everything about the
world through your reductive drain, you can come up with
a single meaning for everything that you don't "consent"
to specifically.
To you, World War II was a "collectivist" enterprise, as
was the Cold War. No one asked you about it, you see.
So too are the courts and the highways and the borders
and the states themselves. You didn't consent to them.
They are therefore described by you, an imbecile,
as collectivist, making them order and class the same as
the Soviet system or Maoism, etc. Nations and their
national interest are socialism by your reduction.
So, has language failed or have you failed?
When you reached your majority, if you decided that
you could not consent to the republican form of government
set up in the United States, then you could withdraw from
that society, just like I could. I consent to it, and
I choose to live here. You say you don't, but you're still
here.
You say that you don't recognize it, but you obey its
laws and pay its taxes. But you want everyone to know
what a man of principle you are.
Why is the sky blue?
rose...@rapidnet.com
>"John T. Kennedy" wrote:
>> How is national interest anything but collectivist?
>
>In your imbecile and autistic world you can take a phrase
>like "common interest" and conflate its meaning with that
>of a word like "collectivist" commonly used to describe
>socialism.
No, the word is used derogatorily.
We have a common interests which are collective
It's you who insist on defining self-serving, corrupted, greedy views as being
in the "best interest" of America
Over and over it's been proven to foment the WORST behavior in this Country.
====================================================
Complaint by DANA RAFFANIELLO
The following is from the communcations act of 1996. Since Rapidnet has been
made aware of the abuses one of their users is engaging in, they can be held
responsible for the postings of the user in question. I have enclosed
mutiple posts from rose...@rapidnet.com indicating a pattern of vulgar
language and stalking activities on the net. This user of rapidnet.com has
had numerous complaints sent into rapidnet. So rapidnet is aware of what
this user does, and appears to support such behavior. For 90% of the posts
I make to the political gropups, rose...@rapidnet.com, engages in personal
attacks and libel. I have bought this to the attention of rapidnet, as well
as other newsgroup posters have complained to rapindnet, about this users
offensive and vulgar language, and personal attacks against people on the
news groups. .
morgan mair fheal
>>> ::and come back when you're ready.
>>>
>>> I'll bite. Define the difference.
>>
>>It's the difference between common interests
>>and an attitude.
>
>People voluntarily cooperate in a free market out of common or
>compatible interests. If we as individuals have common interests, then
>why won't an appeal to my individual self interest suffice, why would
>one resort to an appeal to national interest?
we all graze our goarts in the village common
its in our common interest to prevent overgrazing and erosion
the common belongs to nobody
therefore i work hard one saturday afternoon planting grass to protect our
common resource
and sunday morning your goat eats all of it
tragic isnt it about the commons
John T. Kennedy
rooster: Last night I had the strangest dream...
>"John T. Kennedy" wrote:
>>
>> Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> woke me and said hey
>> rooster: Last night I had the strangest dream...
>>
>> >It Isnt Easy Being Green wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 21:45:27 GMT, Martin McPhillips
>> >> <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> ::National interest isn't nationalism. Get that far
>> >> ::and come back when you're ready.
>> >>
>> >> I'll bite. Define the difference.
>> >
>> >It's the difference between common interests
>> >and an attitude.
>>
>> People voluntarily cooperate in a free market out of common or
>> compatible interests. If we as individuals have common interests, then
>> why won't an appeal to my individual self interest suffice, why would
>> one resort to an appeal to national interest?
>>
>> How is national interest anything but collectivist?
>
>In your imbecile and autistic world you can take a phrase
>like "common interest" and conflate its meaning with that
>of a word like "collectivist" commonly used to describe
>socialism.
My first sentence clearly demonstrates that I did no such thing.
You have equated common interest with national interest and they are
entirely different things. I explicitly said national interest was
collectivist, not common interest, so why don't you address what I
actually said?
This is very much like when you have to refer to your "arrangements"
instead of agreements.
If we have common interest then doesn't that mean it's in your self
interest and my self interest? And if that's the case, what is to
prevent us from reaching agreement as to how to pursue those interests
to our mutual advantage?
But if instead you invoke national interest, how is that anything but
collectivism? How can you possibly deny you are advocating collective
control of people and their resources?
>You can do that because by passing everything about the
>world through your reductive drain, you can come up with
>a single meaning for everything that you don't "consent"
>to specifically.
I work for a large corporation, and I don't consent sepcifically to
everything that happens there, even to me. I don't have or require any
line item veto, I consent to work there by voluntarily showing up each
day and doing my job in exchange for the values they have freely
offered me.
>To you, World War II was a "collectivist" enterprise, as
>was the Cold War. No one asked you about it, you see.
Maybe you can explain how conscription is not collectivist, how you
can hold individual rights as primary and still conscritpt.
You can only conscript when you hold the nation as primary and above
the individual. And that's exactly what your collective did, isn't it?
You're damn right WWII was fought between collectives, between
nations.
>So too are the courts and the highways and the borders
>and the states themselves. You didn't consent to them.
>They are therefore described by you, an imbecile,
>as collectivist, making them order and class the same as
>the Soviet system or Maoism, etc.
Yes, different parts of the same spectrum.
Collectivism asserts the primacy of the group over the individual.
That's what you do. Stalin and Mao did it worse, but make no fucking
mistake: you do it.
You don't recognize the primacy of individual rights.
> Nations and their
>national interest are socialism by your reduction.
I said collectivism, so why don't you say I said Marxism to muddy the
waters still further?
>
>So, has language failed or have you failed?
You left out a possibility.
>When you reached your majority, if you decided that
>you could not consent to the republican form of government
>set up in the United States, then you could withdraw from
>that society, just like I could. I consent to it, and
>I choose to live here. You say you don't, but you're still
>here.
This isn't your property Martin. Neither your or your government ever
had the slightest moral standing to offer me terms under which I must
live my life.
>
>You say that you don't recognize it, but you obey its
>laws and pay its taxes.
You hire armed men to take my property, my liberty, and my life if I
resist your collective sufficiently. If I pay a kidnapper, or an
extortionist, or a protection racket is that consent?
>But you want everyone to know what a man of principle you are.
I don't worry much about what people think of me, I'm pleased that
people of quality generally have no difficulty recognizing me for what
I am.
Of course there are always exceptions.
>Why is the sky blue?
You know how I feel about going off-topic.
>
>>
>> When someone says something is in the national interest I'm pretty
>> damn sure they can't persuade enough individuals that it's in their
>> personal interest. Because obviously if they could there would be no
>> reason to speak of national interest.
>>
>> I look up nationalism in the dictionary and find:
>>
>> "loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national
>> consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary
>> emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those
>> of other nations or supranational groups "
>>
>> And I ask myself, what part of that definition doesn't fit Martin
>> McPhillips?
I ask again, what part of that definition doesn't fit you, Martin?
John T. Kennedy
rooster: Last night I had the strangest dream...
>>>> ::National interest isn't nationalism. Get that far
>>>> ::and come back when you're ready.
>>>>
>>>> I'll bite. Define the difference.
>>>
>>>It's the difference between common interests
>>>and an attitude.
>>
>>People voluntarily cooperate in a free market out of common or
>>compatible interests. If we as individuals have common interests, then
>>why won't an appeal to my individual self interest suffice, why would
>>one resort to an appeal to national interest?
>
>we all graze our goarts in the village common
>
>its in our common interest to prevent overgrazing and erosion
>
>the common belongs to nobody
There's your problem.
>
>therefore i work hard one saturday afternoon planting grass to protect our
>common resource
Not too swift, under the circumstances.
>
>and sunday morning your goat eats all of it
Ha ha. Well, nobody owned it, so what's the problem?
>tragic isnt it about the commons
Sure it is. Privatize the commons and it won't be in anyone's interest
to overgraze.
Lynette Warren
morgan mair fheal <mair_...@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>People voluntarily cooperate in a free market out of common
>> or compatible interests. If we as individuals have common interests,
>> then why won't an appeal to my individual self interest suffice, why
>> would one resort to an appeal to national interest?
>
> we all graze our goarts in the village common
>
> its in our common interest to prevent overgrazing and erosion
>
> the common belongs to nobody
>
> therefore i work hard one saturday afternoon planting grass to protect
our
> common resource
Therefore I work hard for a lifetime on my own property to maintain my
own herd of goats.
You and the rest of the common grazers have depleted the commons so one
Sunday morning you and the rest of the villagers get together and decide
that you need my land to sustain your hungry herds. You vote on it.
The overwhelming majority decides to take my land at gunpoint.
> tragic isnt it about the commons
It certainly is.
Lynette
morgan mair fheal
>our
>> common resource
>
>Therefore I work hard for a lifetime on my own property to maintain my
>own herd of goats.
>
>You and the rest of the common grazers have depleted the commons so one
>Sunday morning you and the rest of the villagers get together and decide
>that you need my land to sustain your hungry herds. You vote on it.
>The overwhelming majority decides to take my land at gunpoint.
they might be less peeved you hadnt fenced off the commons
morgan mair fheal
>to overgraze.
assumes all shared resources can be owned by a single entity other than
the collective whole
like water in an aquifier
or air in a wind
John D.
"morgan mair fheal" <mair_...@www.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-27...@c63.ppp.tsoft.com...
Doesn't matter, she has nukes.
Who Cares
news:vI4RO7DXmjl9uu...@4ax.com...
>
> Sure it is. Privatize the commons and it won't be in anyone's interest
> to overgraze.
Gee whiz. It was all so easy. 2000 years of human
history and John had the easy answers all along. Why
the heck didn't you speak up earlier?
Who Cares
news:aIgQ6.2915$K22.2...@feed.centurytel.net...
> >
> > they might be less peeved you hadnt fenced off the commons
>
> Doesn't matter, she has nukes.
Pretty doubtful. Lynette subscribes to the
Kennedy Agrarian beliefs, so it's doubtful
that her society was ever sophisticated
enough to create nukes.
John D.
"Who Cares" <vene...@home.net> wrote in message
news:sahQ6.2092$yp2.5...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
Lynette also strikes me as one who takes care of business, and understands
that secure Agrarians are competitive, productive and forward-looking
Agrarians, that like to party on the weekends.
Nukes for sure.
Lynette Warren
>> so one Sunday morning you and the rest of the villagers get together
>> and decide that you need my land to sustain your hungry herds. You
>> vote on it. The overwhelming majority decides to take my land at
gunpoint.
>
> they might be less peeved you hadnt fenced off the commons
Nobody fenced the commons in your scenario. You dumbasses overgrazed
it. How is that justification for you to take anything of mine?
Lynette
Lynette Warren
Who Cares <vene...@home.net> wrote:
>> Doesn't matter, she has nukes.
>
>
> Pretty doubtful. Lynette subscribes to the
> Kennedy Agrarian beliefs, so it's doubtful
> that her society was ever sophisticated
> enough to create nukes.
That's right. I work at one of those kerosene powered nuclear reactors
and Kennedy writes programs on an abacus. Broward, would you ever snap
out of it?
Lynette
John D.
"Lynette Warren" <ar...@nospamsurfari.net> wrote in message
news:NrhQ6.61$r4.1...@e420r-atl4.usenetserver.com...
You could at least be charitable and *sell* them your surplus grain.
Who Cares
>
> You could at least be charitable and *sell* them your surplus grain.
Yeah, and make sure that you raise prices 5,000%
just because you *can*. :) That should finish
off your property ownership pretty quickly. :)
Martin McPhillips
>
> Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> woke me and said hey
> rooster: Last night I had the strangest dream...
>
> >"John T. Kennedy" wrote:
> >>
> >> Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> woke me and said hey
> >> rooster: Last night I had the strangest dream...
> >>
> >> >It Isnt Easy Being Green wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, 22 May 2001 21:45:27 GMT, Martin McPhillips
> >> >> <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> ::National interest isn't nationalism. Get that far
> >> >> ::and come back when you're ready.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll bite. Define the difference.
> >> >
> >> >It's the difference between common interests
> >> >and an attitude.
> >>
> >> People voluntarily cooperate in a free market out of common or
> >> compatible interests. If we as individuals have common interests, then
> >> why won't an appeal to my individual self interest suffice, why would
> >> one resort to an appeal to national interest?
> >>
> >> How is national interest anything but collectivist?
> >
> >In your imbecile and autistic world you can take a phrase
> >like "common interest" and conflate its meaning with that
> >of a word like "collectivist" commonly used to describe
> >socialism.
>
> My first sentence clearly demonstrates that I did no such thing.
Your first sentence attempts to smuggle a premise, yes.
You didn't get it across the border.
> You have equated common interest with national interest and they are
> entirely different things. I explicitly said national interest was
> collectivist, not common interest, so why don't you address what I
> actually said?
>
> This is very much like when you have to refer to your "arrangements"
> instead of agreements.
>
> If we have common interest then doesn't that mean it's in your self
> interest and my self interest? And if that's the case, what is to
> prevent us from reaching agreement as to how to pursue those interests
> to our mutual advantage?
>
> But if instead you invoke national interest, how is that anything but
> collectivism? How can you possibly deny you are advocating collective
> control of people and their resources?
"Collectivism" is a term used to describe Marxist and socialist
societies. By using it to describe *any* society you load the
question as a comparative to the much-loathed Marxist society.
> >You can do that because by passing everything about the
> >world through your reductive drain, you can come up with
> >a single meaning for everything that you don't "consent"
> >to specifically.
>
> I work for a large corporation, and I don't consent sepcifically to
> everything that happens there, even to me. I don't have or require any
> line item veto, I consent to work there by voluntarily showing up each
> day and doing my job in exchange for the values they have freely
> offered me.
Good for you. You enjoy the benefits of living in a free society.
In a real *collectivist* society, you'd be told where you had
to work -- if you wanted to work, or maybe even live -- and
your exchange of value would be set by the government.
That's why you're an imbecile for loading a question with
that word. The only reason you would do that is because you've
become essentially dishonest in trying to hold your political
views up as rational. They're not.
> >To you, World War II was a "collectivist" enterprise, as
> >was the Cold War. No one asked you about it, you see.
>
> Maybe you can explain how conscription is not collectivist, how you
> can hold individual rights as primary and still conscritpt.
Well, conscription is conscription. It's not a Marxist economic
system; it's a way of raising an army to fight a war. Again,
you're loading questions with the use of the term "collectivist,"
and your only purpose for doing that is to construct a comparative
with Marxism.
The question of conscription could be hotly debated, and has
been, but I wouldn't discuss it with an imbecile like you.
> You can only conscript when you hold the nation as primary and above
> the individual. And that's exactly what your collective did, isn't it?
>
> You're damn right WWII was fought between collectives, between
> nations.
A war between "collectives" would be a war between two farms
in the Ukraine in 1935. A war between nations is a war between
nations. It's a rather disparaging thing to refer to the U.S.,
a nation of quite a number of hard-edged individuals, as a
"collective," in such a casual way, as if you were, in fact,
a Marxist intellectual.
> >So too are the courts and the highways and the borders
> >and the states themselves. You didn't consent to them.
> >They are therefore described by you, an imbecile,
> >as collectivist, making them order and class the same as
> >the Soviet system or Maoism, etc.
>
> Yes, different parts of the same spectrum.
What a modern view.
> Collectivism asserts the primacy of the group over the individual.
That's what I do? No, I assert that individuals living together under
the same rule of law have a specific kind of common interest, largely
defined by that law, but reflective of proportions drawn in natural law.
What you assert is that you are a sovereign individual with no
use for government. To which I say *prove* *it*.
> That's what you do. Stalin and Mao did it worse, but make no fucking
> mistake: you do it.
It must be interesting to live in a world with only one color,
where there are no distinctions between things. Where the rule
of law and the rule of a dictator are the same thing.
I think that Stalin and Mao must have had a great deal of
dependence on people like that. It's pretty clear to me
how easily your particular kind of thinking could be
turned in that direction.
> You don't recognize the primacy of individual rights.
I recognize the primacy of individual rights, and I urge
that they become more primary with each passing day.
What I don't recognize, much to your chagrin, is your idiotic
notions about politics.
> > Nations and their
> >national interest are socialism by your reduction.
>
> I said collectivism, so why don't you say I said Marxism to muddy the
> waters still further?
That's pretty funny, Kennedy. You intentionally use a term that
has the specific connotation of Marxism and then you try to
weasel out of it. Are you now going to claim that you used
*collectivism* for some reason other than that loaded connotation?
> >
> >So, has language failed or have you failed?
>
> You left out a possibility.
No I didn't. I'm not the one who is trying to load up questions
so that someone who understands the reason why governments
exist and why they are needed is subjected to a comparative
to the most loathsome ideologies on the planet.
> >When you reached your majority, if you decided that
> >you could not consent to the republican form of government
> >set up in the United States, then you could withdraw from
> >that society, just like I could. I consent to it, and
> >I choose to live here. You say you don't, but you're still
> >here.
>
> This isn't your property Martin. Neither your or your government ever
> had the slightest moral standing to offer me terms under which I must
> live my life.
Buy you're still here. Why?
> >
> >You say that you don't recognize it, but you obey its
> >laws and pay its taxes.
>
> You hire armed men to take my property, my liberty, and my life if I
> resist your collective sufficiently. If I pay a kidnapper, or an
> extortionist, or a protection racket is that consent?
But you don't have to pay. You can leave. Why haven't you
left? You haven't been *kidnapped.* You say your liberty
is threatened. That you are the victim of extortion.
Why not use the door? If I felt that way, truly, it would
be unbearable for me to stay here. You must be a masochist
and a coward, who likes to make flimsy excuses about how
others are besetting you with armed men, stealing your
liberty. If you really feel that way, why not use that
border, make yourself scarce, find paradise?
> >But you want everyone to know what a man of principle you are.
>
> I don't worry much about what people think of me, I'm pleased that
> people of quality generally have no difficulty recognizing me for what
> I am.
Oh, I recognize you for what you are. You're an imbecile.
But I never realized before what a masochist and a coward
you are. You complain about getting fucked up the ass
but there you are down on your hands and knees 24/7
because you can't bring yourself to walk out the door.
And in your terrible sadness about that you want me to
believe that you're a man of principle by calling me
no different than Stalin or Mao because I respect the
rule of law.
Lynette Warren
Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> But you don't have to pay. You can leave. Why haven't you
> left? You haven't been *kidnapped.* You say your liberty
> is threatened. That you are the victim of extortion.
> Why not use the door?
Because his family is here? Because he likes the weather and the
countryside? There are all number of reasons for not leaving that are
independent of the government here.
> If I felt that way, truly, it would
> be unbearable for me to stay here. You must be a masochist
> and a coward, who likes to make flimsy excuses about how
> others are besetting you with armed men, stealing your
> liberty. If you really feel that way, why not use that
> border, make yourself scarce, find paradise?
You might ask Billy the same question because I don't see where John is
any different than he is with regard to their opinions on the
illegitimacy of government and their withheld consent of it.
Lynette
John D.
That would be stupid, Lynette, from what I've read, understands the value of
marketable products and symbiotic business relationships, my guess is she
would sell to the highest bidder.
Now, the real question, at what price does the bidder sell?
The black market always has supply even when the collective doesn't and
their buying power and price is always high, simply because they have no
competition. The old Soviet Union bore witness to this example.
Martin McPhillips
>
> Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> > But you don't have to pay. You can leave. Why haven't you
> > left? You haven't been *kidnapped.* You say your liberty
> > is threatened. That you are the victim of extortion.
> > Why not use the door?
>
> Because his family is here? Because he likes the weather and the
> countryside? There are all number of reasons for not leaving that are
> independent of the government here.
But Lynette, the poor guy is just being tortured, the torture
is never going to end for him, and his liberty has been stolen,
he's beset by armed thugs hired by me. Now you tell me, don't
you think he should get his family into the back of the van and
get the hell out and on to paradise?
I used to have a friend, now dead, who ran the barbed wire
to get out of Hungary back in the 60s. There are people still
trying to float out of Cuba on rafts. Surely, Kennedy only
wants the best for his kids. Don't you think he's got to
get them to paradise as soon as possible, so that they
aren't forced to live under the threat of armed thugs
their entire lives?
Or *maybe* he's just an imbecile crank who is blowing smoke
up everybody's ass so that he can run his one-trick pony
around the ring.
> > If I felt that way, truly, it would
> > be unbearable for me to stay here. You must be a masochist
> > and a coward, who likes to make flimsy excuses about how
> > others are besetting you with armed men, stealing your
> > liberty. If you really feel that way, why not use that
> > border, make yourself scarce, find paradise?
>
> You might ask Billy the same question because I don't see where John is
> any different than he is with regard to their opinions on the
> illegitimacy of government and their withheld consent of it.
I just recently had an extended discussion with Billy about
much the same stuff, but Billy isn't an imbecile, and isn't
a one-trick pony, either. I told him very frankly what I thought
and vice versa. It's in the record.
And he knows how to write, too--
morgan mair fheal
Warren" <ar...@nospamsurfari.net> wrote:
its not my scenario
and how do you justify that anything beloings to you
its a parable on shared resources it which nobody can assert ownership
one answer is to give it to one person but that can make them pesky
peasants cranky
another answer is to establish a collective entity that grants and
restricts access to everybody in the hope that everybody gets enough and
the despair that nobody profits
Rob Robertson
Sounds like a market opportunity for you, if only you could solve that
outrageous pricing problem. Maybe you could write a program?
_
Rob
johnz~
"Rob Robertson" <rob...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Watch out, Rob - Who is trying to infect you with a "meme".
Remember, Rob, when you were a primitive hunter-gatherer primate and
nanotechnology changed all the hardwired outmoded paradigms? - it meant
the end of that 19th century outmoded "market" stuff, with all those
clumsy gears, top hats, windup music boxes and non-virtual steam
engines. Now everything's too cybernetical and recursively cutting edge
- we need Robert Reich or Ralph Nader to be our supreme network node and
facilitate pricing information 24/7. The individualism of a Beck is like
a stone-age hunter-gatherer Wollensak tape recorder from the back shelf
of the high-school AV room, in this modern new info-age of the 8-track
cassette and the Commodore Pet. That "liberty" meme is old-age,
un-virtual thinking, Rob. Surf the new paradigm or be resurfaced.
(I would get a high-paying job churning out this tripe for WIRED
magazine if I could keep down the tide of nausea it induces after
writing much more than a paragraph of it.)
JS
--
A Short History Of The United States of America:
"Laugh all you want...I'm the one goin' down in history
as the Thomas Jefferson of squirrels."
AVARICE KILLS
concluded that ONLY by allowing people to wallow in that could you
accomplish the national interest. But at no point did he ever
conceive it was somehow NOBLE to be like that. Maybe his brain simply
wasnt SMALL enough to be a neo-conservative.
On Sun, 27 May 2001 14:42:12 -0800, mair_...@www.yahoo.com (morgan
mair fheal) wrote:
::>>> ::National interest isn't nationalism. Get that far
--------------------------------------------
Ezekiel 16:49
"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She
and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and
unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
James 5:1-6
51Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail
because of the misery that is coming upon you.
2Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten
your clothes. 3Your gold and silver are corroded.
Their corrosion will testify against you and eat
your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in
the last days. 4Look! The wages you failed to pay
the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out
against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached
the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5You have lived on
earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have
fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.A
6You have condemned and murdered innocent men,
who were not opposing you.
Who Cares
news:3B11A96A...@nyc.rr.com...
>
> that word. The only reason you would do that is because you've
> become essentially dishonest in trying to hold your political
> views up as rational. They're not.
There's a fine line between dishonesty and
stubbornness. I mean, come on, Martin,
if the guy spent years building up
an intricate belief system,
you can't expect it
to change over
night.
Maybe
not at all.
> you are. You complain about getting fucked up the ass
> but there you are down on your hands and knees 24/7
> because you can't bring yourself to walk out the door.
Ouch! Maybe he can't walk at all
now? I know women that had
that problem afterwards.
I'm thankful that Kennedy is posting here.
John helped me out quite a bit. I can
expand the messaging idea now
to explain the S-cycle. From
development to growth,
to shake-out phase.
Plus, he helped me figure out my next
career move. Like, I figure I only
have one more major change
left in me, so this one has
to count. I can't blow
it on something
with a low
payoff
or
high risk.
Plus, I've got
constraints now.
I'm already pushing
the socially acceptable
age envelope for "programmer",
and I have to build off my existing
skill set & knowledge base. John kick-
started me along a new direction. I'd been
poking along for the past two years, coasting.
Combining Fred Brooks, biotechnology and design
patterns, it gave me a new thought, what
with this whole thing about
transaction
costs.
mongo78
No kidding.
When I see something like this written seriously, I wish I could
kidnap the author, drag him or her down to the Baldwin Power Station
in Randolph County, Illinois, and stand the stupid bastard next to one
of the 600 megawatt turbine-generators. Then I would point out that
'cyberspace' only exists as long as that gigantic steel-and-copper
behemoth (and others like it) continues to spin, so in a sense the Net
is generated in big, hot, noisy, smelly, dangerous plants just like
Baldwin (and last I heard, Baldwin burns high-sulfur coal, so it's
merrily dumping acid rain all over the Northeast).
I wonder if Who has to visit every gas station in town before he fills
up his car, to ensure he has gotten the absolutely most accurate price
information possible?
>
>JS
--
reply to mongo78@*nospam*aol.com
"I'd rather be a Clinton hater than a Clinton fellater"
Michael Schneider
<kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> woke me and said hey
> rooster: Last night I had the strangest dream...
>
> >To you, World War II was a "collectivist" enterprise, as
> >was the Cold War. No one asked you about it, you see.
>
> Maybe you can explain how conscription is not collectivist, how you
> can hold individual rights as primary and still conscritpt.
>
> You can only conscript when you hold the nation as primary and above
> the individual. And that's exactly what your collective did, isn't it?
>
> You're damn right WWII was fought between collectives, between
> nations.
>
>
> >So too are the courts and the highways and the borders
> >and the states themselves. You didn't consent to them.
> >They are therefore described by you, an imbecile,
> >as collectivist, making them order and class the same as
> >the Soviet system or Maoism, etc.
>
> Yes, different parts of the same spectrum.
>
> Collectivism asserts the primacy of the group over the individual.
>
> That's what you do. Stalin and Mao did it worse, but make no fucking
> mistake: you do it.
>
> You don't recognize the primacy of individual rights.
Martin? He's right: You *don't*.
--
American_Liberty: Refuge while waiting for The Ruination
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/files/al.htm
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
John T. Kennedy
I'm pretty open about what I'm doing, no smuggling here.
>You didn't get it across the border.
Again with the border issues.
>
>
>> You have equated common interest with national interest and they are
>> entirely different things. I explicitly said national interest was
>> collectivist, not common interest, so why don't you address what I
>> actually said?
>>
>> This is very much like when you have to refer to your "arrangements"
>> instead of agreements.
>>
>> If we have common interest then doesn't that mean it's in your self
>> interest and my self interest? And if that's the case, what is to
>> prevent us from reaching agreement as to how to pursue those interests
>> to our mutual advantage?
>>
>> But if instead you invoke national interest, how is that anything but
>> collectivism? How can you possibly deny you are advocating collective
>> control of people and their resources?
>
>"Collectivism" is a term used to describe Marxist and socialist
>societies. By using it to describe *any* society you load the
>question as a comparative to the much-loathed Marxist society.
"Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group." -
Ayn Rand
The dictionary says collectivism means collective control.
*Do* you deny that you are advocating collective control of people and
their resources?
>
>> >You can do that because by passing everything about the
>> >world through your reductive drain, you can come up with
>> >a single meaning for everything that you don't "consent"
>> >to specifically.
>>
>> I work for a large corporation, and I don't consent sepcifically to
>> everything that happens there, even to me. I don't have or require any
>> line item veto, I consent to work there by voluntarily showing up each
>> day and doing my job in exchange for the values they have freely
>> offered me.
>
>Good for you. You enjoy the benefits of living in a free society.
>In a real *collectivist* society, you'd be told where you had
>to work -- if you wanted to work, or maybe even live -- and
>your exchange of value would be set by the government.
So conscription could only happen in a real collectivist society,
right?
And by your immigration policy you're not telling anyone where they
can live or work, are you?
>That's why you're an imbecile for loading a question with
>that word. The only reason you would do that is because you've
>become essentially dishonest in trying to hold your political
>views up as rational. They're not.
You think I'm the only one who notices you have dropped all mention of
national interest like a hot potato?
Is national interest an individual interest or a collective interest?
>
>> >To you, World War II was a "collectivist" enterprise, as
>> >was the Cold War. No one asked you about it, you see.
>>
>> Maybe you can explain how conscription is not collectivist, how you
>> can hold individual rights as primary and still conscritpt.
>
>Well, conscription is conscription. It's not a Marxist economic
>system; it's a way of raising an army to fight a war. Again,
>you're loading questions with the use of the term "collectivist,"
>and your only purpose for doing that is to construct a comparative
>with Marxism.
Nope, collectivism means primacy of the group over the individual.
>The question of conscription could be hotly debated, and has
>been, but I wouldn't discuss it with an imbecile like you.
What's debatable about conscription if individual rights have primacy?
>
>> You can only conscript when you hold the nation as primary and above
>> the individual. And that's exactly what your collective did, isn't it?
>>
>> You're damn right WWII was fought between collectives, between
>> nations.
>
>A war between "collectives" would be a war between two
...groups which asserted primacy over their individual constituents...
>farms
>in the Ukraine in 1935. A war between nations is a war between
>nations. It's a rather disparaging thing to refer to the U.S.,
>a nation of quite a number of hard-edged individuals, as a
>"collective," in such a casual way, as if you were, in fact,
>a Marxist intellectual.
>
>> >So too are the courts and the highways and the borders
>> >and the states themselves. You didn't consent to them.
>> >They are therefore described by you, an imbecile,
>> >as collectivist, making them order and class the same as
>> >the Soviet system or Maoism, etc.
>>
>> Yes, different parts of the same spectrum.
>
>What a modern view.
>
>> Collectivism asserts the primacy of the group over the individual.
>
>That's what I do?
Sure you do. When someone who has done you no harm and is merely
living his life as he sees fit wants to cross the border you assert
group interests over his individual rights.
>No, I assert that individuals living together under
>the same rule of law have a specific kind of common interest,
Why don't you want to say national interest any more Martin? Why has
it suddenly vanished from your vocabulary.
Why can't common interests be dealt with on a voluntary basis, why do
what you characterize as common interests require "arrangements" as
opposed to agreements?
>largely
>defined by that law, but reflective of proportions drawn in natural law.
>
>What you assert is that you are a sovereign individual with no
>use for government. To which I say *prove* *it*.
Remove your intrusions from my life, and we'll find out, won't we?
What demonstrationd do I owe you for the privilege of being left alone
Martin?
Wouldn't I have great incentive to make voluntary agreements with you
to pursue truly common interests? When you make arrangements for me
instead of agreements with me, you substitute your judgment, or the
collective judgment of your group, for mine. You cannot then justly
claim that you have recognized the primacy of my individual rights.
>
>> That's what you do. Stalin and Mao did it worse, but make no fucking
>> mistake: you do it.
>
>It must be interesting to live in a world with only one color,
>where there are no distinctions between things. Where the rule
>of law and the rule of a dictator are the same thing.
Even you recognize that they are the same thing at a certain level of
abstraction. They are both government, are they not? Is it seeing the
world in one color to recognize that they are both gvernment?
>I think that Stalin and Mao must have had a great deal of
>dependence on people like that. It's pretty clear to me
>how easily your particular kind of thinking could be
>turned in that direction.
Now that's damned funny!
>
>> You don't recognize the primacy of individual rights.
>
>I recognize the primacy of individual rights, and I urge
>that they become more primary with each passing day.
Bullshit, explain how individual rights entitle you to stop immigrants
from crossing lines that don't belong to you.
>
>What I don't recognize, much to your chagrin, is your idiotic
>notions about politics.
>
>> > Nations and their
>> >national interest are socialism by your reduction.
>>
>> I said collectivism, so why don't you say I said Marxism to muddy the
>> waters still further?
>
>That's pretty funny, Kennedy. You intentionally use a term that
>has the specific connotation of Marxism and then you try to
>weasel out of it. Are you now going to claim that you used
>*collectivism* for some reason other than that loaded connotation?
Marxism and socialism don't exhaust the categories of collectivism,
collectivism is collective control, which you advocate.
>
>> >
>> >So, has language failed or have you failed?
>>
>> You left out a possibility.
>
>No I didn't. I'm not the one who is trying to load up questions
>so that someone who understands the reason why governments
>exist and why they are needed is subjected to a comparative
>to the most loathsome ideologies on the planet.
I fairly acknowledged that you are far different from Marxists and
Communists, and if a reasonable person was confused about that they
had only to inquire.
But your advocacy of national interest, of collective control, of the
primacy of your nation over individual rights is indeed loathsome.
>> >When you reached your majority, if you decided that
>> >you could not consent to the republican form of government
>> >set up in the United States, then you could withdraw from
>> >that society, just like I could. I consent to it, and
>> >I choose to live here. You say you don't, but you're still
>> >here.
>>
>> This isn't your property Martin. Neither your or your government ever
>> had the slightest moral standing to offer me terms under which I must
>> live my life.
>
>Buy you're still here. Why?
I like it here. I have family and property here. What business is it
of yours where I live?
>
>> >
>> >You say that you don't recognize it, but you obey its
>> >laws and pay its taxes.
>>
>> You hire armed men to take my property, my liberty, and my life if I
>> resist your collective sufficiently. If I pay a kidnapper, or an
>> extortionist, or a protection racket is that consent?
>
>But you don't have to pay. You can leave. Why haven't you
>left?
Because I have personal interests here.
You just made the same offer any protection racket makes: You don't
have to pay - you can leave.
Problem is, you are not offering me anythihng that's yours to offer,
you offer me *my* property, *my* liberty, *my* life.
>You haven't been *kidnapped.* You say your liberty
>is threatened. That you are the victim of extortion.
>Why not use the door?
Because I have things I want to do here. When a person pays off a
protection racket instead of moving away, is that consent?
>If I felt that way, truly, it would
>be unbearable for me to stay here. You must be a masochist
>and a coward, who likes to make flimsy excuses about how
>others are besetting you with armed men, stealing your
>liberty. If you really feel that way, why not use that
>border, make yourself scarce, find paradise?
Make myself scarce every time someone offers me *my* property,
liberty, and life, in return for what is not theirs to offer? No.
But if you have consent of the goverened Martin, why can't you fund
your government by voluntary means?
>> >But you want everyone to know what a man of principle you are.
>>
>> I don't worry much about what people think of me, I'm pleased that
>> people of quality generally have no difficulty recognizing me for what
>> I am.
>
>Oh, I recognize you for what you are. You're an imbecile.
>
>But I never realized before what a masochist and a coward
>you are. You complain about getting fucked up the ass
>but there you are down on your hands and knees 24/7
>because you can't bring yourself to walk out the door.
I'm very happy with my life on balance Martin, I'm just unhappy with
the theives. Your extortion is overhead for living and doing business
here. I can afford it but that doesn't make it moral.
>And in your terrible sadness about that you want me to
>believe that you're a man of principle by calling me
>no different than Stalin or Mao because I respect the
>rule of law.
Well that would be a dishonest thing for you to say if I said that you
*were* different from Stalin and Mao, as in fact I did, as anyone can
read in the quoted text of this post.
But you are like them to the extent that you are an advocate of
government, to the extent that you assert the supremacy of the group
over the individual.
>
>> Of course there are always exceptions.
>>
>> >Why is the sky blue?
>>
>> You know how I feel about going off-topic.
>
>Why is the sky blue?
It's not. I just looked.
John T. Kennedy
night I had the strangest dream...
>"Martin McPhillips" <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
That is my legacy: I am the inspiration of The New Copernicus.
>
> Plus, he helped me figure out my next
> career move. Like, I figure I only
> have one more major change
> left in me, so this one has
> to count. I can't blow
> it on something
> with a low
> payoff
> or
> high risk.
>
> Plus, I've got
> constraints now.
> I'm already pushing
> the socially acceptable
> age envelope for "programmer",
> and I have to build off my existing
> skill set & knowledge base. John kick-
> started me along a new direction. I'd been
> poking along for the past two years, coasting.
>
> Combining Fred Brooks, biotechnology and design
> patterns, it gave me a new thought, what
> with this whole thing about
> transaction
> costs.
-
John T. Kennedy
night I had the strangest dream...
>"John T. Kennedy" <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I didn't think it up Broward, please pay attention.
John T. Kennedy
I had the strangest dream...
>
I think you're right about that, all of it.
John T. Kennedy
rooster: Last night I had the strangest dream...
>Lynette Warren wrote:
>>
>> Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>> > But you don't have to pay. You can leave. Why haven't you
>> > left? You haven't been *kidnapped.* You say your liberty
>> > is threatened. That you are the victim of extortion.
>> > Why not use the door?
>>
>> Because his family is here? Because he likes the weather and the
>> countryside? There are all number of reasons for not leaving that are
>> independent of the government here.
>
>But Lynette, the poor guy is just being tortured, the torture
>is never going to end for him, and his liberty has been stolen,
>he's beset by armed thugs hired by me. Now you tell me, don't
>you think he should get his family into the back of the van and
>get the hell out and on to paradise?
BWAHAHAHA!
I'm doing very well Martin, even with the overhead of the bills you
send me. But I'm touched by your concern.
>I used to have a friend, now dead, who ran the barbed wire
>to get out of Hungary back in the 60s. There are people still
>trying to float out of Cuba on rafts. Surely, Kennedy only
>wants the best for his kids. Don't you think he's got to
>get them to paradise as soon as possible, so that they
>aren't forced to live under the threat of armed thugs
>their entire lives?
Just to quickly explode one fallacy: Would the fact that there are no
better protection rackets around make your's moral?
>Or *maybe* he's just an imbecile crank who is blowing smoke
>up everybody's ass so that he can run his one-trick pony
>around the ring.
That's one theory.
>
>> > If I felt that way, truly, it would
>> > be unbearable for me to stay here. You must be a masochist
>> > and a coward, who likes to make flimsy excuses about how
>> > others are besetting you with armed men, stealing your
>> > liberty. If you really feel that way, why not use that
>> > border, make yourself scarce, find paradise?
>>
>> You might ask Billy the same question because I don't see where John is
>> any different than he is with regard to their opinions on the
>> illegitimacy of government and their withheld consent of it.
>
>I just recently had an extended discussion with Billy about
>much the same stuff, but Billy isn't an imbecile, and isn't
>a one-trick pony, either. I told him very frankly what I thought
>and vice versa. It's in the record.
>
>And he knows how to write, too--
>
>http://unionsquarejournal.com/beck_archive1201.htm
That he does.
Do you know why Billy won't have children, Martin?
John T. Kennedy
Last night I had the strangest dream...
>
What would be the point?
Free markets don't scale.
John T. Kennedy
rooster: Last night I had the strangest dream...
>Lynette Warren wrote:
>>
>> You might ask Billy the same question because I don't see where John is
>> any different than he is with regard to their opinions on the
>> illegitimacy of government and their withheld consent of it.
>
>I just recently had an extended discussion with Billy about
>much the same stuff, but Billy isn't an imbecile, and isn't
>a one-trick pony, either. I told him very frankly what I thought
>and vice versa. It's in the record.
>
>And he knows how to write, too--
And here is some of what he wrote, on the record....
"Kennedy, who you think is an idiot, just logically stomped all
over this line of thought, Martin. He's right.
Stop to think about this honestly. You used the word
"arrangement" *precisely because* you know damned good and well that
you can't get away with words like "consent" or "contract". Now,
whether or not that's a conscious evasion of the way things really
are, it is nonetheless a monstrous evasion."
- Billy Beck 4/30/01
I'm certainly willing to stipulate that Billy isn't an imbecile, or a
one-trick pony, but getting back to Lynette's question: Where do Billy
and I differ on the legitimacy of government?
Hey Billy? What are your fundamental differences in principle with me
on the legitimacy of government?
And Sabotta? It's been a long time since you had anything to say about
this. What are your differences with me on the legitimacy of
government?
And Lynette, how about you?
Fact is Martin, two of the wtiters you culled from the newsgroup are
as anarchist as I am. And Lynette is not going to make it as a
statist either in the long run, she doesn't have your commitment to
the republic.
John T. Kennedy
rooster: Last night I had the strangest dream...
>Lynette Warren wrote:
>>
>> You might ask Billy the same question because I don't see where John is
>> any different than he is with regard to their opinions on the
>> illegitimacy of government and their withheld consent of it.
>
>I just recently had an extended discussion with Billy about
>much the same stuff, but Billy isn't an imbecile, and isn't
>a one-trick pony, either. I told him very frankly what I thought
>and vice versa. It's in the record.
>
>And he knows how to write, too--
And here is some of what he wrote, on the record....
Who Cares
>
> That is my legacy: I am the inspiration of The New Copernicus.
It could have been worse. You could have been
the inspiration of the new Ayn Rand!
Look, I found Billy Beck in a list of
anti-patterns -
http://www.antipatterns.com/arch_cat.htm
The "intellectual violence" antipattern
People sometimes use obscure references to esoteric
papers, theories, and standards for intimidation
or short-term gain
Who Cares
>
> Do you know why Billy won't have children, Martin?
Darwinian selection?
It would make a creepy sort of sense
for Billy to self-select himself out
of the population.
Who Cares
>
> Even you recognize that they are the same thing at a certain level of
> abstraction.
At a certain level of abstraction, all things
look the same. Point of fact, you and
Billy look suspiciously like altruists
to me, egging everyone else on
to sacrifice themselves for
an absolute and unworkable
ideal.
> I like it here. I have family and property here. What business is it
> of yours where I live?
In other words, you can talk the talk,
but not walk the walk.
You and Beck remind me of the Organics in California
during the 60s and 70s. Like, they never realized
that pre-industrialized California could only
support a few million Indians, and that
about 20 million of their fellow
citizens would have to die
to regress back to the Organic days.
There's no doubt in my mind now that your
policies would create absolute havoc
with GDP and productivity. You done
a good job with California energy so far. :D
I used to think that the Great Depression
precipitated the demise of oligopolies,
but now I'm thinking it's the opposite.
John T. Kennedy
night I had the strangest dream...
>"John T. Kennedy" <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Copernicus, why waste time on small fry when you have a new paradigm
to launch?
John T. Kennedy
night I had the strangest dream...
>"John T. Kennedy" <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:MAYSO3avKcs+EI...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> Even you recognize that they are the same thing at a certain level of
>> abstraction.
>
>
> At a certain level of abstraction, all things
> look the same. Point of fact, you and
> Billy look suspiciously like altruists
> to me, egging everyone else on
> to sacrifice themselves for
> an absolute and unworkable
> ideal.
How is telling someone to stop stealing inviting them to sacrifice
something?
>
>
>> I like it here. I have family and property here. What business is it
>> of yours where I live?
>
>
> In other words, you can talk the talk,
> but not walk the walk.
In other words I'll live as I see fit, having not the slightest
concern what you think about it.
>
> You and Beck remind me of the Organics in California
> during the 60s and 70s. Like, they never realized
> that pre-industrialized California could only
> support a few million Indians, and that
> about 20 million of their fellow
> citizens would have to die
> to regress back to the Organic days.
Free markets lead to maximum production of value, not government
control.
>
> There's no doubt in my mind now that your
> policies would create absolute havoc
> with GDP and productivity. You done
> a good job with California energy so far. :D
You clearly don't know what you're talking about, and you've been
corrected enough times that you ought to know by now. Energy
production has not been deregulated in California, only sheep think
so.
>
> I used to think that the Great Depression
> precipitated the demise of oligopolies,
> but now I'm thinking it's the opposite.
Keep thinking Copernicus, you can't getmuch worse at it at this point.
Who Cares
>
> Copernicus, why waste time on small fry when you have a new paradigm
> to launch?
I'm working on it. I browse back to a.c-e.c.ww
occasionally for comic relief. :)
The messaging thing really got you and Beck's
goat, huh? :)
It's a whole 'nother world between "theory"
and "reality", John. For instance, I was
retrospecting some of my latest code.
I made several errors. Less than I have in
previous projects, though. Here's one -
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-diag3.html
Ouch. I did this in a couple of places. He's
right. Using a null flag is probably more
error-prone.
Or this one.
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-diag2/?dwzone=java
Ouch. Did that one, too.
But we made several architecture decisions that turned
out right. But it was just instinctive guesswork, based on
previous experience, not explicit design principles.
OTOH, if we had tossed and turned over making a
"perfect" world, we'd probably be out of work
by now. :) Theories are certainly kewl ideas,
but ultimately, they have to subservient to
Reality.
Oh, but that's right, theories *are* subservient
with you and Beck. You're both still living
in the totalitarian USA. :)
John T. Kennedy
night I had the strangest dream...
>"John T. Kennedy" <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Look who's talking!
But, I don't think it's creepy in your case, Broward.
Who Cares
>
> How is telling someone to stop stealing inviting them to sacrifice
> something?
Hey, it's *your* problem that your
stuff is getting stolen, buddy. Not
mine problem. Not Martin's.
Do something about it and stop
whining to us about how *we*
have to do something.
> In other words I'll live as I see fit, having not the slightest
> concern what you think about it.
Exactly. I'll live as I see fit, and plunder
your ass off, without the slightest concern
of what you think about it.
Heck, John, your ideology is *custom-
] made* for a totalitarian government. :)
Pray that Uncle Sam doesn't adopt it. ;)
> Keep thinking Copernicus, you can't getmuch worse at it at this point.
Free markets don't scale. :)
Deal with it. :)
Who Cares
>
> Look who's talking!
Hey, I didn't self-select myself out until
I was in my mid-thirties. I got selected out
because my kooky moral beliefs
didn't provide sufficient monetary
incentive to fertile females. :)
I suspect Beck is similiar. :)
> But, I don't think it's creepy in your case, Broward.
That makes two of us, man! I gotta fight
'em off with a stick now. Wanda the Web
Girl was on my ass last week, giving me
the eye, chatting me up, etc, etc. Cute,
young, sexy... too much trouble, though,
I don'tr need the headaches at this stage. :)
John T. Kennedy
night I had the strangest dream...
>"John T. Kennedy" <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:mX4SO+khGbTAH+...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Copernicus, why waste time on small fry when you have a new paradigm
>> to launch?
>
>
> I'm working on it. I browse back to a.c-e.c.ww
> occasionally for comic relief. :)
>
> The messaging thing really got you and Beck's
> goat, huh? :)
What messaging thing? Was this about "Free Markets Don't Scale" or so?
Yeah, I wake up at night in a cold sweat over that Broward.
>
> It's a whole 'nother world between "theory"
> and "reality", John. For instance, I was
> retrospecting some of my latest code.
>
> I made several errors. Less than I have in
> previous projects, though. Here's one -
>
> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-diag3.html
>
> Ouch. I did this in a couple of places. He's
> right. Using a null flag is probably more
> error-prone.
>
> Or this one.
>
>http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/j-diag2/?dwzone=java
>
> Ouch. Did that one, too.
>
> But we made several architecture decisions that turned
> out right. But it was just instinctive guesswork, based on
> previous experience, not explicit design principles.
>
> OTOH, if we had tossed and turned over making a
> "perfect" world, we'd probably be out of work
> by now. :) Theories are certainly kewl ideas,
> but ultimately, they have to subservient to
> Reality.
I don't recall asking anyone to make a perfect world. You got a cite
of that?
>
> Oh, but that's right, theories *are* subservient
> with you and Beck. You're both still living
> in the totalitarian USA. :)
New York, Los Angeles
Oh how I yearn for you
Detroit, Chicago, Chattanooga, Baton Rouge
God I long to be at my home back in old St Lou
Did I miss the skyscrapers
Did I miss the long freeway
From the coast of California
To the shores of the Delaware Bay
You can bet your life I did
But I never miss the USA
Looking hard for a drive-in
Searching for a corner cafe
Where hamburgers sizzle on an open grill night and day
Yeah, and the jukebox jumping with records, but no USA
Who Cares
>
> What messaging thing? Was this about "Free Markets Don't Scale" or so?
>
> Yeah, I wake up at night in a cold sweat over that Broward.
yeah, I figured so. It would explain your
testiness lately. :)
Otherwise, why would it pray on your
mind in every posting? :)
> I don't recall asking anyone to make a perfect world. You got a cite
> of that?
BAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
More semantics. Now *this* is the good
old John that I remember. :)
> But I never miss the USA
Why are you still here?
Me, I like hamburgers and soda pop. :)
John T. Kennedy
night I had the strangest dream...
>"John T. Kennedy" <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:WYISO7TIl4v5X1...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Look who's talking!
>
>
> Hey, I didn't self-select myself out until
> I was in my mid-thirties. I got selected out
> because my kooky moral beliefs
> didn't provide sufficient monetary
> incentive to fertile females. :)
I hear that!
I don't know why I should tell you this Broward, but in this matter
monetary incentives are often not the deciding factor.
>
> I suspect Beck is similiar. :)
>
>
>> But, I don't think it's creepy in your case, Broward.
>
>
> That makes two of us, man! I gotta fight
> 'em off with a stick now. Wanda the Web
> Girl was on my ass last week, giving me
> the eye, chatting me up, etc, etc. Cute,
> young, sexy... too much trouble, though,
> I don'tr need the headaches at this stage. :)
How much do you figure she would go for?
John T. Kennedy
night I had the strangest dream...
>"John T. Kennedy" <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:+H4SOxdHmklQ0UTiI5T253wslp=J...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>> How is telling someone to stop stealing inviting them to sacrifice
>> something?
>
>
> Hey, it's *your* problem that your
> stuff is getting stolen, buddy. Not
> mine problem. Not Martin's.
>
> Do something about it and stop
> whining to us about how *we*
> have to do something.
I never asked you to fix it, you just shouldn't be collaborating in
it.
I never asked you to secure my rights, just stop participating in the
violation of them.
>
>
>
>> In other words I'll live as I see fit, having not the slightest
>> concern what you think about it.
>
>
> Exactly. I'll live as I see fit, and plunder
> your ass off, without the slightest concern
> of what you think about it.
Don't you know it's wrong to steal?
>
> Heck, John, your ideology is *custom-
>] made* for a totalitarian government. :)
How do you figure?
>
> Pray that Uncle Sam doesn't adopt it. ;)
>
>
>> Keep thinking Copernicus, you can't get much worse at it at this point.
>
>
> Free markets don't scale. :)
What is a free market ?
>
> Deal with it. :)
John T. Kennedy
night I had the strangest dream...
>"John T. Kennedy" <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:0oQSO67GlXGpI+...@4ax.com...
>>
>> What messaging thing? Was this about "Free Markets Don't Scale" or so?
>>
>> Yeah, I wake up at night in a cold sweat over that Broward.
>
>
> yeah, I figured so. It would explain your
> testiness lately. :)
>
> Otherwise, why would it pray on your
> mind in every posting? :)
Because it's funny. I keep thinking of how you outfoxed market failure
by going to a second car dealer. It cheers me.
>
>
>> I don't recall asking anyone to make a perfect world. You got a cite
>> of that?
>
>
> BAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
>
> More semantics. Now *this* is the good
> old John that I remember. :)
>
>
>> But I never miss the USA
>
>
> Why are you still here?
I'm taking care of my business.
>
> Me, I like hamburgers and soda pop. :)
So do I.
I'll have a Cherry Coke and double burger with bacon and cheese, hold
the government. And yeah, I'll have fries with that.
Who Cares
>
> I don't know why I should tell you this Broward, but in this matter
> monetary incentives are often not the deciding factor.
True. My kooky moral beliefs providing
a social disincentive as well.
I suspect that Beck is similiar. :)
> How much do you figure she would go for?
If I had to guess, probably
$60K. She's got that independent,
"new age woman" thing going on.
Enough $$ for the "you pay for the
house, but I pay for my own
car" kinda thing, I suspect.
She's got a kinky side, I'm pretty
sure. After awhile, you get to
know the signs.
Who Cares
>
> I never asked you to fix it, you just shouldn't be collaborating in
> it.
That's your tough luck, man. In other
words, you're trying to force your
morals on me.
I'll repeat the Kennedy mantra, just so
you understand how much responsibility
I have vis a vis "collaboration" -
"I'll live as I see fit, having not the slightest
concern what you think about it"
> I never asked you to secure my rights, just stop participating in the
> violation of them.
Second verse, same as the first!
John T. Kennedy
night I had the strangest dream...
>"John T. Kennedy" <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:nYcSO3km6wpDdufh4bDwk=Es7...@4ax.com...
>>
>> I don't know why I should tell you this Broward, but in this matter
>> monetary incentives are often not the deciding factor.
>
>
> True. My kooky moral beliefs providing
> a social disincentive as well.
I'm sure that's true, but precisely what moral beliefs do you think
are killing your chances with fertile women?
Because I've never had that problem.
>
> I suspect that Beck is similiar. :)
>
>
>> How much do you figure she would go for?
>
>
> If I had to guess, probably
> $60K. She's got that independent,
> "new age woman" thing going on.
>
> Enough $$ for the "you pay for the
> house, but I pay for my own
> car" kinda thing, I suspect.
>
> She's got a kinky side, I'm pretty
> sure. After awhile, you get to
> know the signs.
Okay if $60K is too high, what woud you be willing to come up with?
John T. Kennedy
night I had the strangest dream...
>"John T. Kennedy" <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:U4sSO7ZwMEMW+Y...@4ax.com...
>>
>> I never asked you to fix it, you just shouldn't be collaborating in
>> it.
>
>
> That's your tough luck, man. In other
> words, you're trying to force your
> morals on me.
It's wrong to steal Broward, that's in no way dependent on me.
>
> I'll repeat the Kennedy mantra, just so
> you understand how much responsibility
> I have vis a vis "collaboration" -
>
> "I'll live as I see fit, having not the slightest
> concern what you think about it"
Context Broward: You indicated the fact that I didn't leave meant I
wouldn't walk the walk.
My response meant I'm not concerned with whether you think I "walk the
walk" or not.
But I won't steal from you.
You shouldn't stop collaborating with theives becauase *I* think it's
wrong, you should stop because it *is* wrong.
>
>
>> I never asked you to secure my rights, just stop participating in the
>> violation of them.
>
>
> Second verse, same as the first!
>
> "I'll live as I see fit, having not the slightest
> concern what you think about it"
What I think about it is irrelevant to the morality of your theft.
Forget what I think. Don't you know that it's wrong?
Martin McPhillips
>
> "Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group." -
> Ayn Rand
>
> The dictionary says collectivism means collective control.
>
> *Do* you deny that you are advocating collective control of people and
> their resources?
Now there's a perfectly manageable package of both your
rank imbecility and your dishonesty.
Ayn Rand wasn't an anarchist and used "collectivism" to refer
to Marxism and socialism. She was not opposed to government
per se, and understood the importance of the rule of law.
The implication of your quote is that she saw things the
way you do. She didn't.
You jump right from that to "the dictionary says," as though
that confirmed your authoritative quote of Rand.
Then you load up a question using that concoction of
bullshit and think you're a smart guy because you've asked
me whether or not I'm a collectivist.
I also noted in your response that now the terrible yoke of oppression
and the armed thugs aren't so important. You're doing just fine.
The government is just engaging in some mild extortion now.
You're really quite happy here in America, and you'll raise your
children here despite the fact that one post back the yoke
fell heavy upon you.
So, what it comes down to is that you're just an intellectually
lazy crank with an unreal political philosophy that doesn't
even have standing in *theory,* let alone fact. When you've
painted yourself into a corner you cringe there about the
"armed thugs" that the person you're having the discussion
with has "hired" by paying the same taxes that you pay. And
then when you're asked why you don't just throw off this
terrible yoke of oppression and head for greener pastures,
suddenly the paint is dry and you walk out of the corner
and everything is just great with you, you're not suffering
at all.
And then you lie, just like you did in that sequence above.
Misuse a quote from a philosopher, back it up with a "the
dictionary says," and then load up a question.
This is why an intellectual invalid like John McCloskey
can come into the newsgroups and kick your head around
like a soccer ball from his wheelchair.
Every little boy can flatten out the entire history of
human civilization and ask, in effect, "why is the sky
blue?" Why is there government rather than not? Why is
there history rather than a tabula rasa every morning at
six? And the answer is, in part, because there are imbeciles
like you.
Who Cares
news:3B12AA52...@nyc.rr.com...
>
> This is why an intellectual invalid like John McCloskey
> can come into the newsgroups and kick your head around
> like a soccer ball from his wheelchair.
I take issue with this.
I can't see Kennedy's head doing
business as a soccer ball. Even
as an inferior substitute.
True, it's easy to score goals with
his head, but I can't see it rolling
straight and true.
And I'm concerned that my toe
might get caught on an eye socket
or something.
John T. Kennedy
rooster: Last night I had the strangest dream...
>"John T. Kennedy" wrote:
>>
>> "Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group." -
>> Ayn Rand
>>
>> The dictionary says collectivism means collective control.
>>
>> *Do* you deny that you are advocating collective control of people and
>> their resources?
>
>Now there's a perfectly manageable package of both your
>rank imbecility and your dishonesty.
>
>Ayn Rand wasn't an anarchist and used "collectivism" to refer
>to Marxism and socialism. She was not opposed to government
>per se, and understood the importance of the rule of law.
>The implication of your quote is that she saw things the
>way you do. She didn't.
That of course is not the implication of my quote, since I have
pointed out many times that Rand was no anarchist. No reasonable
person could imagine I'm confused about that, or would seek to
misrepresent it. The quote demonstrates what I mean by collectivism.
"The tribal notiopn of "the common good" has served as the the moral
justification of most social systems - and of all tyrannies -in
history. The degree of society's enslavement or freedom corresponded
to the degre to which that tribal slogan was invoked or ignored.
"The common good" (or "the public interest") is an undefined and
undefinable concept: there is no such entity as "the tribe" or "the
public"; the tribe (or the public or society) is only a number of
individual men. Nothing can be good for the tribe as such; "good" and
"value" pertain only to a living organism - to an individual living
organism - not to a disembodied aggregate of relationships."
...
"It is accepted precisely for it's elastic, undefineable, mystical
character which serves, not as a moral guide, but as an escape from
morality.Since the good is not applicabale to the disembodied, it
becomes a moral blank check for those who attempt to embody it."
- from What is Capitalism?
Now how does your "national interest" differ from "public interest"?
When you appeal to national interest your seeking to write a moral
blank check.
>You jump right from that to "the dictionary says," as though
>that confirmed your authoritative quote of Rand.
>
>Then you load up a question using that concoction of
>bullshit and think you're a smart guy because you've asked
>me whether or not I'm a collectivist.
>
>I also noted in your response that now the terrible yoke of oppression
>and the armed thugs aren't so important. You're doing just fine.
>The government is just engaging in some mild extortion now.
>You're really quite happy here in America, and you'll raise your
>children here despite the fact that one post back the yoke
>fell heavy upon you.
I've always been happy here Martin, how do you figure that gives you a
right to bill me for the things you think we need?
>So, what it comes down to is that you're just an intellectually
>lazy crank with an unreal political philosophy that doesn't
>even have standing in *theory,* let alone fact. When you've
>painted yourself into a corner you cringe there about the
>"armed thugs" that the person you're having the discussion
>with has "hired" by paying the same taxes that you pay. And
>then when you're asked why you don't just throw off this
>terrible yoke of oppression and head for greener pastures,
>suddenly the paint is dry and you walk out of the corner
>and everything is just great with you, you're not suffering
>at all.
Fact is I'm happy. But isn't it true that you hire armed men to take
my property, life, and liberty if I sufficiently resist your
government?
Isn't it simply true?
>And then you lie, just like you did in that sequence above.
>Misuse a quote from a philosopher, back it up with a "the
>dictionary says," and then load up a question.
>
>This is why an intellectual invalid like John McCloskey
>can come into the newsgroups and kick your head around
>like a soccer ball from his wheelchair.
>
>Every little boy can flatten out the entire history of
>human civilization and ask, in effect, "why is the sky
>blue?" Why is there government rather than not? Why is
>there history rather than a tabula rasa every morning at
>six? And the answer is, in part, because there are imbeciles
>like you.
You're getting your clock cleaned Martin, as demonstrated by the way
you have to back off from one after another. You talk about national
interest and I challenge you on it, and suddenly those words can no
longer be found in your posts. I cite conscription as the clearest
example of your nation as a collective and you can't argue it because
you'd either have to take my side or get diced.
Yeah, you think individual rights have primacy, but the morality of
conscription is arguable - how the hell is it arguable if individual
rights have primacy?
Yeah you think individual rights have primacy, unless someone wants to
buy, sell, or ingest crack cocaine, at which point you invoke the
common interest as superior to individual rights.
You say individual rights have primacy, unless someone from somewhere
else wants to cross a line that you don't own, at which point you
again invoke common interest as superior to his rights.
Like hell you think individual rights have primacy Martin, you're not
even being honest with yourself.
John T. Kennedy
night I had the strangest dream...
>"Martin McPhillips" <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
What would it take to put you in a fertile woman, Broward?
Michael Schneider
> >
> >
> > Darwinian selection?
> >
> > It would make a creepy sort of sense
> > for Billy to self-select himself out
> > of the population.
Billy will finally settle down with a Polynesian girl or two in about
ten years. They'll be a pontoon-plane moored to the dock, a generator
powering really, really load amplifiers, and no bureacrats within two
hundred miles.
Oh, he'll get to the stage where he's got the gas and the match and a
map of DC all ready to go, but when it comes down to actually doing it, I
think he'll re-consider, because the sad fact of the matter is that
"America" now simply wouldn't what to make of a human torch sprawled on
the Capitol steps. It'd be just another "Real TV" bit for Browards to
laugh at.
As he always does, he'll live for himself.
--
American_Liberty: Refuge while waiting for The Ruination
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/files/al.htm
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
Rob Robertson
"John T. Kennedy" <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yNISO=kL=fmn5CEXLF...@4ax.com...
>
> "Who Cares" <vene...@home.net> woke me and said hey rooster: Last
> night I had the strangest dream...
>
> >"Martin McPhillips" <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:3B12AA52...@nyc.rr.com...
> >>
> >> This is why an intellectual invalid like John McCloskey
> >> can come into the newsgroups and kick your head around
> >> like a soccer ball from his wheelchair.
> >
> >
> > I take issue with this.
> >
> > I can't see Kennedy's head doing
> > business as a soccer ball. Even
> > as an inferior substitute.
> >
> > True, it's easy to score goals with
> > his head, but I can't see it rolling
> > straight and true.
> >
> > And I'm concerned that my toe
> > might get caught on an eye socket
> > or something.
>
>
> What would it take to put you in a fertile woman, Broward?
A giant hypodermic needle, a really cool mini-submarine, and
a machine to shrink it all down to microscopic scale. I think I
saw it on a documentary long, long ago.
> -
>
> John Thomas Kennedy III
> The Wild Shall Ever Wild Remain!
> http://www.mindspring.com/~jtkennedy/itswhatitisnow.html
_
Rob
Who Cares
news:Titan-28050...@c8-200.xtlab.com...
>
> Oh, he'll get to the stage where he's got the gas and the match and a
> map of DC all ready to go, but when it comes down to actually doing it, I
> think he'll re-consider, because the sad fact of the matter is that
> "America" now simply wouldn't what to make of a human torch sprawled on
> the Capitol steps. It'd be just another "Real TV" bit for Browards to
> laugh at.
So I stopped Billy from "defending
freedom" as a human Tiki Torch?
I doubt it. He's already over the edge.
Pennsylvania's "unregulated electricty"
market is heavily regulated.
http://puc.paonline.com/electric/elect_comp_act.asp
Holy cow! Texas's "unregulated electricity"
market is... surprise! surprise! heavily regulated.
http://www.puc.state.tx.us/electric/projects/20970/20970.cfm
So where's the next excuse?
Who Cares
news:r5DQ6.45751$9D5.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "John T. Kennedy" <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:yNISO=kL=fmn5CEXLF...@4ax.com...
> >
>
> A giant hypodermic needle, a really cool mini-submarine, and
> a machine to shrink it all down to microscopic scale. I think I
> saw it on a documentary long, long ago.
Hmm. I missed this response from John. :)
It would take a lot more than a mini-submarine.
I *like* not having kids now. :) My decisions are
so much easier now that I don't have progeny or
retirement options. :)
Martin McPhillips
>
> Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> woke me and said hey
> rooster: Last night I had the strangest dream...
>
> >"John T. Kennedy" wrote:
> >>
> >> "Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group." -
> >> Ayn Rand
> >>
> >> The dictionary says collectivism means collective control.
> >>
> >> *Do* you deny that you are advocating collective control of people and
> >> their resources?
> >
> >Now there's a perfectly manageable package of both your
> >rank imbecility and your dishonesty.
> >
> >Ayn Rand wasn't an anarchist and used "collectivism" to refer
> >to Marxism and socialism. She was not opposed to government
> >per se, and understood the importance of the rule of law.
> >The implication of your quote is that she saw things the
> >way you do. She didn't.
>
> That of course is not the implication of my quote, since I have
> pointed out many times that Rand was no anarchist. No reasonable
> person could imagine I'm confused about that, or would seek to
> misrepresent it. The quote demonstrates what I mean by collectivism.
That's a pretty good Lochner impersonation. I'm impressed. Ayn
Rand wasn't an anarchist but quoting her demonstrates that
government per se, which she supported, is "collectivism."
You tried to do exactly what I described you as trying to
do.
What do we have here...
> "The tribal notiopn of "the common good" has served as the the moral
> justification of most social systems - and of all tyrannies -in
> history. The degree of society's enslavement or freedom corresponded
> to the degre to which that tribal slogan was invoked or ignored.
>
> "The common good" (or "the public interest") is an undefined and
> undefinable concept: there is no such entity as "the tribe" or "the
> public"; the tribe (or the public or society) is only a number of
> individual men. Nothing can be good for the tribe as such; "good" and
> "value" pertain only to a living organism - to an individual living
> organism - not to a disembodied aggregate of relationships."
>
> ...
>
> "It is accepted precisely for it's elastic, undefineable, mystical
> character which serves, not as a moral guide, but as an escape from
> morality.Since the good is not applicabale to the disembodied, it
> becomes a moral blank check for those who attempt to embody it."
>
> - from What is Capitalism?
Well, that's just fine. Where does Rand suggest that there should
be no government? You brought Rand into this because you wanted her
to define the state as "collectivism" for you. Now you're scrambling
to divert attention from that scam by quoting her on the proclivities
of government, which she nonetheless sees a need for.
But your attempt to play your stupid game is hanging out there
like the sad-eyed limp dick it is.
> Now how does your "national interest" differ from "public interest"?
I use the term "common interest." "National interest" is the
common interest of a nation. And you can find all you need to
know about it in Vattel's Laws of Nations or in John Locke and
various other natural law philosophers.
You're confused about a lot of things, because you are a lazy
imbecile.
If I use the term "liberal democracy" does that mean the same thing
to you as calling a Democrat a "liberal?" Do you think that
"classical liberal" means a "really good example of a liberal?"
If Ayn Rand talks about the need for the state, does that mean
that she is a "statist?" A person discussing the "national interest"
in the context of foreign policy isn't necessarily someone arguing
for food stamps in the "public interest." National interest isn't
necessarily *nationalism.* Above, you suggest the "no reasonable
person could confuse" what *you* meant by your dishonest attempt
to use the Rand quote to help yourself out, but your entire
project here is to confuse the meaning of words.
That's what happens when you believe in something that doesn't
conform to reality, like Marxism. You have to begin to redefine
or deconstruct the context and the meaning of words.
A rule of law based on individual rights isn't a negation of
individual rights. Nor is the rule of law *collectivism.*
> When you appeal to national interest your seeking to write a moral
> blank check.
No I don't. There are no moral "blank checks" when discussing
national interest. And when someone tries to write one disaster
is the result. You're just too much of a bimbo to think clearly
about it.
> >You jump right from that to "the dictionary says," as though
> >that confirmed your authoritative quote of Rand.
> >
> >Then you load up a question using that concoction of
> >bullshit and think you're a smart guy because you've asked
> >me whether or not I'm a collectivist.
> >
> >I also noted in your response that now the terrible yoke of oppression
> >and the armed thugs aren't so important. You're doing just fine.
> >The government is just engaging in some mild extortion now.
> >You're really quite happy here in America, and you'll raise your
> >children here despite the fact that one post back the yoke
> >fell heavy upon you.
>
> I've always been happy here Martin, how do you figure that gives you a
> right to bill me for the things you think we need?
I'm not billing you for anything, imbecile. You pay the same taxes
everyone else pays, and then you turn around and talk to others
like that? If you're happy here, then what exactly is it that you
want from others that you're not willing to do yourself?
You want some kind of action from others because you're a coward
without the courage of your convictions. That's not my fault.
If you suddenly once again start to talk about the "armed thugs"
besetting you, the theft of your liberty, and the terrible yoke
of oppression, then leave. Your options are pretty clear,
and if you're happy here and happy to engage in your one-trick
reductive political discourse with this same tired autistic head bobbing,
then be satisfied with the status of imbecile.
>
> >So, what it comes down to is that you're just an intellectually
> >lazy crank with an unreal political philosophy that doesn't
> >even have standing in *theory,* let alone fact. When you've
> >painted yourself into a corner you cringe there about the
> >"armed thugs" that the person you're having the discussion
> >with has "hired" by paying the same taxes that you pay. And
> >then when you're asked why you don't just throw off this
> >terrible yoke of oppression and head for greener pastures,
> >suddenly the paint is dry and you walk out of the corner
> >and everything is just great with you, you're not suffering
> >at all.
>
> Fact is I'm happy. But isn't it true that you hire armed men to take
> my property, life, and liberty if I sufficiently resist your
> government?
Isn't it true, if that's the way you conceptualize it, that in
fact *you* hire them yourself? You pay them every day of your
life, these "hired thugs," so what's your complaint with someone
who doesn't see it through your imbecile glasses? You want them
to take action they see no need for so that you can be a
coward?
"Hired thugs" beset you, but you're "happy here." Your liberty
is "stolen," but you pay for it to be "stolen" every day, yet
you want others to take action you're too cowardly to take
yourself, whatever it might be.
And people around here, including you, complain about what
a nut Broward's become?
Rob Robertson
"Who Cares" <vene...@home.net> wrote in message
news:IyDQ6.6252$yp2.1...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
>
> "Rob Robertson" <rob...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:r5DQ6.45751$9D5.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > "John T. Kennedy" <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:yNISO=kL=fmn5CEXLF...@4ax.com...
> > >
> > > What would it take to put you in a fertile woman, Broward?
> >
> > A giant hypodermic needle, a really cool mini-submarine, and
> > a machine to shrink it all down to microscopic scale. I think I
> > saw it on a documentary long, long ago.
>
>
> Hmm. I missed this response from John. :)
>
> It would take a lot more than a mini-submarine.
Yeah, I think it took some kind of special drug to stop the white
blood cells from attacking the sub. Plus you'd need some hunky
guy to pilot it, a curvaceous babe acting as a "specialist," and an
old guy with a goatee to look sternly at "the readings".
> I *like* not having kids now. :) My decisions are
> so much easier now that I don't have progeny or
> retirement options. :)
No matter how difficult the decisions, the anguish and worry
disappear when I see my laughing children running barefoot
through the new-mown grass.
To each his own, I guess.
_
Rob
Who Cares
>
> > I *like* not having kids now. :) My decisions are
> > so much easier now that I don't have progeny or
> > retirement options. :)
>
> No matter how difficult the decisions, the anguish and worry
> disappear when I see my laughing children running barefoot
> through the new-mown grass.
The difference is that I don't have the
"anguish" and "worry" to start with. :)
Billy Beck
John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Who Cares" <vene...@home.net>...
>> There's no doubt in my mind now that your
>> policies would create absolute havoc
>> with GDP and productivity. You done
>> a good job with California energy so far. :D
>
>You clearly don't know what you're talking about, and you've been
>corrected enough times that you ought to know by now.
He's a lying twit, only here for the trolling.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
Who Cares
>
> http://www.puc.state.tx.us/electric/projects/20970/20970.cfm
I mean, DA-Y-AMN, man!
Go through this thing. It's MASSIVE.
It's HUGE. Texas? Deregulation?!
Holy cow, this thing is an entire new government
department!
Here's just a sample!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Project # Description
23774 Implementation of Capacity Auction (03/30/01)
23571 Rulemaking Concerning True-Up Proceedings Under PURA §39.262
(02/28/01)
23400 Electric Restructuring Transition Implementation Issues
Rulemaking. (02/07/00)
23157 PUC Rulemaking Proceeding to Revise PUC Transmission Rules
Consistent with the New ERCOT Market Design
22834 Implementation Activities Related to Retail Competition Pilot
Projects Pursuant to PURA §39.104 and 39.405, and P.U.C. Subst. R. 25.431
(08/09/00)
21408 Provider of Last Resort (10/27/99)
20970 Electric Industry Restructuring
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
III. Projects to Implement Retail Competition in Electricity
Project # Description
22968 Initial Information Filing Pursuant to P.U.C.Subst.R. § 25.90
22816 Rulemaking on Electricity Labeling Standards for Fuel Mix and
Emissions. (11/01/00)
22540 PUCT Rulemaking Proceeding to Amend Existing
Rules §25.211 and 25.212 (05/17/00)
22429 Rulemaking to Address System Benefit Fee and Associated Programs
Pursuant to PURA Sections 39.901 and 39.903 (04/26/00)
22361 Code of Conduct for Municipally Owned Electric Utilities and
Electric Cooperatives Pursuant to PURA §39.157(e) (04/03/00)
22318 Pre-Certification of Distributed Generation Units Pursuant to
PUC Substantive Rule §25.211(c)(12)(k) (06/28/00)
22241 Energy Efficiency Implementation (03/15/00)
22200 Implementation of Renewable Energy Mandate (02/29/00)
22187 Terms and Conditions of Transmission and Distribution Utilities'
Retail Distribution Service (03/09/00)
22167 Rulemaking to Establish Procedures for Electric Utilities'
Annual Reporting of Workforce Diversity (03/27/00)
(This Project Replaces Project #21521)
21409 Price to Beat (04/07/00)
21405 Capacity Auctions Rulemaking (09/09/00)
21251 Customer Education Program for Electric Choice Bid Process
21081 Market Power Mitigation Plans and Generating Capacity Reports
21079 Certification of Independent Organizations to Perform
Transmission and Distribution Access, Reliability, Information Exchange, and
Settlement Functions; and Possible Market Operation Rules
Completed Rulemaking Projects
Project # Description
22308 Proceeding to Revise Reporting Form for Substantive Rule §25.84
(03/31/00)
22255 Customer Protection Rules for Electric Restructuring (05/05/00)
21965 Draft of the Distributed Generation Manual (10/16/00)
21662 Development of a Standard Protective Order for Use in Senate
Bill 7 Transition Cases
21521 Required Filings by Electric Utilities Regarding Workforce
Diversity
21496 Form for Earnings Monitoring Report for Transmission Service
(11/04/99)
21407 Retail Competition Pilot Projects
21406 Stranded Cost Recovery of Environmental Cleanup Costs
21276 Modification of Rate Filing Package for Transmission (10/05/99)
21232 Conforming Rules
21220 Interconnection of Distributed Generation
21187 System Benefit Fund
21083 Cost Unbundling and Separation of Business Activities
21082 Certification of Retail Electric Providers and Registration of
Power Generation Companies and Aggregators
21080 Terms and Conditions for Transmission and Distribution Access
Including Tariffs and Modifications to Existing Transmission Rules
21078 Standards of Reliability and Integrity Of Electric Service
Aggregators
21077 Securitization of Stranded Costs for River Authorities and
Cooperatives (11/17/99)
21076 Electric Reliability Standards
21075 Form for Annual Report of Revenues, Expenses and Invested
Capital
21074 Energy Efficiency Programs
21073 Electric Service for Public Retail customers (GLO Access)
(07/27/99)
21072 Goal for Natural Gas
21066 ERCOT Independant Organization Funding (10/18/99)
21046 Securitization of Stranded Costs of Investor-Owned Utilities
(07/01/99)
21023 Repeal of Integrated Resource Planning Rules
20944 Renewable Energy Mandate
20936 Code of Conduct for Electric Utilities and Affiliates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
IV. General Information
Description / View Download
Docket 22344 - Pending Final T&D Rates for IOUs (05/14/01) (pdf*)
Final T&D rates and non-bypassable charges for IOUs, pending final
Commission approval. 22344td-rates.xls (108K)
Forcast ERCOT 2001 Four Coincident Peak Non-Unanimous Stipulation and
Agreement. (02/15/01) (pdf*)
22344draft-ercot.doc (28K)
Testimony of Clyde King in support of the Stipulation (02/15/01)
(pdf*)
22344ercot-testimony.doc (36K)
Determination of Retail Transmission Charges Pilot Program and Full
Market Open (03/06/01) (pdf*)
030601retailtrans.doc (24K)
Information on Peak Loads in ERCOT (01/31/01)
The LCRA has provided information on the monthly peak loads in ERCOT
for the period from 1983 to 2000. 013101ercot.xls (21K)
Texas Choice Program
ERCOT activities to implement retail competition in Texas
SB 7 Implementation Plan (04/05/00)
A sequence of projects that the Commission plans to implement retail
competition in electricity. timeline7.xls (144K)
Schedule of Unbundled Cost of Service Cases (03/09/01) (pdf*)
Schedule of Major Milestones in Unbundled Cost of Service Cases.
costservice.xls (18K)
Schedule of Other Proceedings (11/05/99)
This schedule shows the expected filing date and schedules for
processing proceedings relating to Electric Industry Restructuring, other
than rulemaking proceedings. This schedule shows, for example, the expected
schedules for the proceedings relating to business separation plans and cost
unbundling. Persons who participate in these proceedings will have an
opportunity to propose changes in the schedules after these proceedings are
intiated. 110599.xls (142K)
Code of Conduct for Municipally Owned Electric Utilities and Electric
Cooperatives Pursuant to PURA §39.157(e)
Project #22361
Summary
This rulemaking will develop an affiliate code of conduct for
municipally owned electric utilities and electric cooperatives pursuant to
PURA § 39.157(e).
Team Leader
Bridget Rabel, (OPD)
Staff Assigned
Rick Akin, (OPD)
Evan Farrington, (OPD) Sid Lajzer, (ORA/FR)
Project Schedule
Comments on New Subsection (o), Relating to Provisions of Bundled
MOU/COOPs, are due Jan. 24, and reply comments are due Jan. 26
August 3, 2000 - Comments on Questions Due
The rule will be published in the Tex. Reg. on Dec. 1, 2000. Comments
are due Jan. 2, 2001 and reply comments are due Jan. 16. An APA public
hearing is scheduled on Jan. 22. Staff anticipates that the final rule will
be considered for adoption in February.
Documents Available Download
Order Adopting New §25.275 (03/08/01) (pdf *)
New section §25.275, relating to a Code of Conduct for Municipally
Owned Utilities and Electric Cooperatives Engaged in Competitive Activities,
effective March 28, 2001. 030801new25.275.doc(194K)
Staff Draft Rule for Adoption at 2/22/01 Open Meeting (02/16/01) (pdf
*) 021601staffdraft.doc(214K)
Proposed Rule With New Subsection (o), Relating to Provisions of
Bundled MOU/COOPs, Discussed at the January 22nd APA Public Hearing. (pdf *)
Staff Memorandum Regarding Proposed Rule With New Subsection (o),
Relating to Provisions of Bundled MOU/COOPs (pdf *)
Published Rule
Rule published for comment discussed at the November 16th open meeting
(11/20/00) 112000pr.rtf (92K)
Proposed rule for Publication to be Discussed at the November 16th
Open Meeting (11/10/00) (pdf*) 111600om.rtf (136K)
Agenda for October 17, 2000 Workshop (10/13/00) 101300.rtf (8K)
Notice of Public Workshop on October 17, 2000 (10/04/00) 100400pnw.rtf
(8K)
Staff's proposed draft rule (10/03/00) (pdf*) 100300draft.rtf (90K)
August 16 Workshop Agenda (08/15/00) 081600wa.rtf (8K)
Notice of Workshop and Request for Comments (06/29/00) (pdf*)
062900now.rtf (11K)
Pre-Certification of Distributed Generation Units
Pursuant to PUC Substantive Rule §25.211(c)(12)(k)
Project #22318
Summary
This project was established to determine pre-certification criteria
for distributed generation units as provided for in commission rule,
§25.211(c)(12)(k). A working group completed the project document, which was
approved in the 01/25/01 open meeting. Subsection C2.1 has been revised to
change test voltages from 89.9% to 89% and from 105.1% to 106% after late
comments were received on 01-26-01.
Team Leader
Ed Ethridge
512-936-7340
ed.et...@puc.state.tx.us
Staff Assigned
Andy Curtis (Electric)
Documents Available Download
Pre-certification of Distributed Generation Units Pursuant to
PUC Subst. Rule 25.211(c)(12),(k) (02/08/01) 020801pre-dgup.rtf
(607K)
DG Pre-certification Requirements approved in the 1/25/01 Open Meeting
(01/25/01) 020901memo.rtf (607K)
Market Power Mitigation Plans and Generating Capacity Reports
Project #21081
Summary
Rulemaking relating to the filing of market power mitigation plans and
generating capacity reports. The project will implement the following
sections of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA): 39.155(a), 39.156, and
39.157(c).
Team Leader
Richard Greffe
512-936-7404
Staff Assigned
Oguz Ozsahin, Keith Rogas, Eric Schubert, Glenda Spence, Margarita
Fournier
Project Schedule
Timeline
Documents Available Download
Final Reporting Form for Generating Capacity Reports (02/26/01) (pdf
*) 022601gcr_form.doc (39K)
Final Instructions to the Reporting Form for Generating Capacity
Reports (02/26/01) (pdf *) 022601gcr_instruct.doc (44K)
Final Protective Order (for Generating Capacity Reports) (02/26/01)
(pdf *) 022601gcr_spo.doc (30K)
Proceeding to Revise Reporting Form for Substantive Rule §25.84, Relating to
Annual Reporting of Affiliate Transactions for Electric Utilities
Project #22308
Summary
The task of this project is revision of the Report Form for the Annual
Report of Affiliate Activities for Electric Utilities that is required by
PUC. Subst. R. 25.84.
Procedural History. As noticed in the Texas Register on March 31,
2000, comments were requested on the Revision Draft Form posted on this
cite. Comments were received from TXU Electric and Reliant HL&P on April 7,
2000. Staff summarized the comments and filed a recommendation on May 2,
2000, which was approved by the Commission on May 9, 2000.
Project Results. Commission approval of the staff recommendation means
that the approved form available below is in effect until further notice.
The annual reports are to be filed in the Commission's Central Records
Division by June 1 of each year under the control number designated each
year for this purpose. Reports filed pursuant to § 25.84 should not be
combined with reports made pursuant § 25.77 or other rules. The approved
recommendation also specified the following:
a.. The designated control number for reports filed this year is
Project No. 22487, Filings Pursuant To PUC Subst. R. 25.84, Annual Report Of
Affiliate Activities For Electric Utilities (Concerning Calendar Year 1999
Activities),
a.. For this year's report only, upon request, an extension will be
granted until September 1, 2000 for filing the charted information required
by Section III of the new report form for any IOU that has filed a business
separation plan and unbundled cost of service documentation. Requests for
this extension must be made in writing and filed in Project No. 22487. For
parties requesting an extension for Section III data, the remainder of the
report is still due on June 1, 2000.
The most recent editions of relevant documents are available under the
"Current Documents" heading below. Past editions of materials considered in
this project are located in the "Project Archives" section linked below.
Team Leader
Jan Bargen 512/936-7255
jan.b...@puc.state.tx.us
Staff Assigned
Sid Lajzer and Sazanne Bertin (Transition Team Coordinator)
Project Schedule
Documents Available Download
Revised and Approved Report Form (05/10/00) (pdf*) 051000rep.rtf (30K)
Approved Staff Recommendation for Revised Form for the Annual Report
of Affiliate Activities for Electric Utilities (05/10/00) (pdf*)
051000rec.rtf (16K)
Customer Protection Rules for Electric Restructuring
Project #22255
Summary
Project Number 22255, Development of Substantive Rules for Electric
Restructuring Customer Protection, has been established for this proceeding.
This rulemaking seeks to implement the provisions of the Public Utility
Regulatory Act (PURA), Texas Utilities Code Annotated §§39.101, 39.1025 and
subchapters A, C and D of chapter 17.
Team Leader
Patricia Dolese
512-936-7125
patrici...@puc.state.tx.us
Staff Assigned
Carrie Collier
Thelma DeLeon
Shawnee Claiborn-Pinto
Connie Corona
Evan Farrington
Jan Bargen
Kit Pevoto
Margarita Fournier
Sid Guermouche
Project Schedule
Timeline
Documents Available Download
Final Rule (11/28/00) (pdf*)
The final adopted customer protection rules Implementing Electric
Restructuring provisions in SB7 and provisions of SB86. 122000adt.rtf (616K)
Staff Recommendation for Final Adoption - Cover Memo (11/28/00) (pdf*)
OM-memo.rtf (32K)
Staff Recommendation for Final Adoption (11/28/00) (pdf*)
22255_finaldraft.doc (912K)
Proposed Rule for Publication (08/17/00) (pdf*) 081700pr.rtf (255K)
Draft Proposal for Publication (08/08/00) (pdf*) 080800dr.rtf (210K)
Customer Protection Rule Matrix (08/08/00) (pdf*) 080800mat.rtf (89K)
Notice of Workshop - August 30 (08/07/00) 083000now.rtf (3K)
Threshold Issues for Commission Decisions (06/08/00) (pdf*)
060800tic.rtf
Summary of Assignments and Invited Comments From Parties Resulting
from the May 22-23 Workshop (05/25/00) 052500pwa.rtf (5K)
May 22 and 23 Workshop Agenda (05/19/00) 052200wa.rtf (4K)
Staff Strawman (05/15/00) (pdf*) 051500dcpr.rtf (181K)
Issues Chart (05/15/00) (pdf*) 051500iss.rtf (32K)
Notice Of Workshop (05/05/00) (pdf*) 052200now.rtf (4K)
Certification of Retail Electric Providers and Registration of Power
Generation Companies and Aggregators
Project #21082
Summary
This project is charged with establishing the terms and conditions
necessary for the Certification of Retail Electric Providers (REPs) and
Registration of Power Generation Companies (PGCs) and Aggregators in Texas.
Certification and registration are subject to administrative penalty,
suspension and revocation; therefore terms for such action by the Commission
are also addressed in the respective rules.
The project will implement the following sections of the Public
Utilities Regulatory Act (PURA): 39.351, 39.352, 39.353, 39.354, 39.3545,
39.356, 39.357, and17.051 et seq. Due to an overlap of issues, the
rulemaking formerly known as Project No. 21078 (Standards of Reliability and
Integrity of Electric Service Aggregators) is closed and consolidated into
Project No. 21082.
The Certification of REPs rule will be published separately from the
several registration rules. In this rulemaking project, an amendment to an
existing rule and three new rules are under consideration, as follows:
§ 25.105, Registration of Power Marketers (amendment)
§ 25.109, Registration of Power Generation Companies and Self
Generators
§ 25.111, Registration of Aggregators
§ 25.107, Certification of Retail Electric Providers
The most recent drafts of the rules are available under "Current
Documents" below. Past editions of the draft rules, and other developmental
materials concerning this project, are located in the "Project Archives"
(linked below).
Team Leader
Team Leader: Phone: Darryl Tietjen (Financial Review)
(512-936-7436)
darryl....@puc.state.tx.us
Staff Assigned
Terri Eaton
Mel Eckhoff
Matt Troxle
Ruth Stark
Ray Murray
Sally Talberg
Ruth Sakya
Project Schedule
The Registration Rules (PGC and Aggregator) are on an earlier timeline
than the Certification (REP) rule, as charted in the Project Rules Timeline.
(05/18/00)
The Registration Forms (PGC and Aggregator) are on an earlier timeline
than the Certification (REP) form, as charted in the Project Forms Timeline.
(05/25/00)
Current Documents Download
Protective Order
Standard Protective Order as Adopted (08/15/00) (pdf*) 081500spo.rtf
(10K)
PGC/Aggregator Form
Memo to Commissioners (07/11/00) 071100cmem.rtf (8K)
Instructions to the Registration Form for Aggregators - Final
(08/14/00) (pdf*) agginstfin.rtf (69K)
Registration Form for Aggregators - Final (08/14/00) (pdf*)
aggformfin.rtf (69K)
Instructions to the PGC Registration Form - Final (08/14/00) (pdf*)
pgcinstfin.rtf (51K)
PGC Registration Form - Final (08/14/00) (pdf*) pgcformfin.rtf (61K)
PGC/Aggregator Rule
PGC/Aggregator Registration Rules as Approved by the Commission
(§§25.105, 25.109, and 25.111) (06/02/00) (pdf*) 060200apr.rtf (171K)
REP Application Form
Cover Memo (08/08/00) 080800fmem.rtf (19K)
Instructions to the REP Application Form - Final (08/14/00) (pdf*)
repinstfin.rtf (116K)
REP Application Form - Final (08/14/00) (pdf*) repformfin.rtf (79K)
REP Rule
REP Rule as Approved by the Commission (07/27/00) (pdf*)
072700repr.rtf (252K)
Cover Memo (07/06/00) (pdf*) 070600cmem.rtf (25K)
Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Rules: Certification of REPs'
(07/06/00) (pdf*) 070600srec.rtf (288K)
REP Rules Approved for Publication at the April 12
Open Meeting - §§25.107 and 25.108 (04/17/00) (pdf*) 041700pr.rtf
(121K)
Form for Earnings Monitoring Report for
Transmission Service Providers
Project #21496
Summary
This project is presently being used to develop a set of forms and
instructions for non-IOU transmission service providers to file annual
earnings monitoring reports pursuant to PUC Substantive Rule 25.193(a)(5).
It may be used in the future to develop an earnings monitoring report for
all transmission service providers.
The Commission adopted the final form at its April 27, 2000 Open
Meeting. The form is available in Central Records under Project 21496 or
through the files listed below.
Team Leader
Ruth Stark
512-936-7460
ruth....@puc.state.tx.us
Staff Assigned
Glenda Spence, Jerry Huerta, Slade Cutter, Harika Basaran, Damayanti
Ghosh
Project Schedule
Documents Available Download
Instructions for the Earnings Monitoring Report (05/17/00) (pdf*)
051700inst.rtf (424K)
Form for Earnings Monitoring Report for Transmission Service Providers
(05/17/00)
051700frm.xls (225K)
Support Schedule III; Protective Order (05/17/00) (pdf*) 051700dpo.rtf
(84K)
21496 Non-IOU TSP EMR Schedule II - Current Year 051700sch.xls (86K)
21496 Non-IOU TSP EMR Schedule III - Approved TCOS 051700tcos.xls
(93K)
Energy Efficiency Programs
Project #21074
Summary
Project No. 21074, Energy Efficiency Programs, is a rulemaking for the
implementation of the Goal for Energy Efficiency under Senate Bill 7,
Section 39.905. Section 39.905 calls for a reduction in statewide energy
consumption by at least ten percent of the utility's annual growth in demand
by 2004. The goal is to be achieved through market based standard offer
programs and limited market transformation programs. The programs must
result in reduction in consumption and energy costs and be available to all
customer classes.
Team Leader
Nieves López
512 936-7388
Staff Assigned
Danielle Jaussaud, Abbie Klamert, Bridget Rabel, Gillan Taddune (Jess
Totten)
Project Schedule
February 10, 2000 - Adoption of the Final Rule
Proposed Timeline (08/04/99)
Documents Available Download
Substantive Rule §25.101 as Adopted and Signed by the Commission
(03/27/00) (pdf*) 032700ar.rtf (411K)
Cover Memo (02/23/00) (pdf*) 022300cm.rtf (20K)
Preamble Proposal for Adoption at 2/24/00 Open Meeting (02/23/00)
(pdf*) 022300pre.rtf (476K)
Non-Redlined version of the proposed rule incorporating changes from
the 2/10/00 Open Meeting (02/17/00) (pdf*)
Highlighted areas are to be discussed in the workshop scheduled for
2/18/00 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 1-100 of the Travis Building
021700dr.rtf (151K)
Memo regarding filing instructions for general comments and
revenue requirements for energy effciency programs (02/10/00)
021000mem.rtf (4K)
Preamble to proposed rule for adoption (02/07/00) (pdf*)
020700pre.rtf (276K)
Cover memo regarding proposed rule for adoption (02/07/00) (pdf*)
020700mem.rtf (234K)
Redline version of rule up for adoption at Feb. 10, 2000 Open Meeting
(02/07/00) (pdf*)
020700pr.rtf (195K)
Published rule - 25.181 regarding Energy Efficiency Programs *
(11/16/99)
111699.doc (97k)
Stranded Cost Recovery of Environmental Cleanup Costs
Project #21406
Summary
Rulemaking relating to the stranded cost recovery of reducing the
emissions of "Grandfathered Facilities."
Team Leader
Brian Almon
512-936-7355
Staff Assigned
Rick Akin
Slade Cutter
Andrea DeAngelis
Terri Eaton
Troy Neisen
Eric Schubert
Meeting the DFW Reliability Challenge - Seminar and Open Meeting -
November 7th, 2000
Project Schedule
Timeline (08/30/00)
The request for reply comments was inadvertently omitted from the
preamble.
Please file by June 30, 2000.
Materials from the May 25 Workshop
(The following three downloadable items are MS PowerPoint
Presentations) Download
Dallas - Fort Worth Area Possible Generation Reduction
Preliminary ISO Study (05/30/00) dfwimp.ppt (754K)
DFW State Implementation Plan May 25, 2000 (05/30/00) dfwarea.ppt
(118K)
IPP Project Map - RRC (05/30/00)
(The PowerPoint version of this map can be resized) IPPMap.ppt (204K)
Documents Available Download
Recommendation for accounting for possible future environmental
requirements (10/02/00) (pdf*) 100200meth.rtf (7K)
Cover Memo (10/02/00) 100200cm.rtf (15K)
Staff Proposal (10/02/00) (pdf*) 100200.xls (17K)
Proposed Methodology for Accounting for Potential Impact of Possible
Future Environmental Requirements (09/25/00) (pdf*) 092500pma.rtf (8K)
Cover Memo (09/25/00) 092500cm.rtf (7K)
Staff Proposal (09/25/00) (pdf*) 092500.xls (16K)
Proposed Methodology for Accounting for Potential Impact of Possible
Future Environmental Requirements (09/15/00) (pdf*) 091500pma.rtf (7K)
Table of Proposed Methodology for Accounting for Potential Impact of
Possible Future Environmental Requirements (09/15/00) (pdf*)
091500pmatable.xls (18K)
Proposal for Consideration at the September 20, 2000 Workshop
(09/13/00) (pdf*) 092000wmp.rtf (15K)
Adopted rule for Stranded Cost Recovery of Environmental Cleanup
Costs. SUBS R. Section 25.262 (09/12/00) (pdf *) 21406FR.rtf (168K)
DFW Status Report August 28, 2000 (08/28/00) 082800dfw.rtf (14K)
Explanation for Correction to Staff's Proposal for Adoption (08/23/00)
082300cmem.rtf (6K)
Correction to Staff's Proposal for Adoption (08/23/00) (pdf*)
082300prrev.rtf (5K)
Cover Memo (08/21/00) 082100cmem.rtf (12K)
Proposed Rule as Published (08/21/00) (pdf*) 082100pr.rtf (188K)
Proposed Rule §25.261 for Publication (05/01/00) (pdf*) 050100pr.rtf
(49K)
Letter to TNRCC re: Comments on the Dallas-Fort Worth
Enviromental Cleanup Costs (03/06/00) 030600let.rtf (210K)
Cost Unbundling and Separation of Business Activity
Project #21083
Summary
Project 21083 was created to address the following SB 7 implementation
issues:
a.. Separation of competitive energy services business activities
from regulated electric utility activities (§39.051(a)).
b.. Filing of utility plans to separate business activities into a
power generation company, a retail electric provider, and a transmission and
distribution utility (§39.051(e)).
c.. Determination of non-bypassable delivery charges for
transmission and distribution utilities, including transmission and
distribution rates, estimation of stranded costs, system benefit fund
assessment, and nuclear decommissioning charges (where applicable)
(§39.201).
The work products that are expected to result from this project will
be rules related to the business separation plans, the functional and cost
unbundling needed to support development of tariffs under §39.201, the
separation of competitive energy services, a Business Separation Filing
Package for compliance with §39.051(e), and a Rate Filing Package for
compliance with §39.201(a).
Task Force Information
TFGeneralInfo.doc
An initial workshop was held July 6, 1999, during which task forces
were created to address issues identified by the participants. Several of
the task forces then separated into additional sub-groups in order to focus
on specific issues. The four task forces and related sub-groups are:
Separation Plans Task Force
a.. Business Separation Plans Subgroup
b.. Energy Services Subgroup
c.. Metering and Billing Subgroup
Stranded Costs Task Force
a.. Quantification of ECOM Subgroup
b.. Allocation of ECOM Subgroup
Cost Separation Task Force
a.. Rate Filing Package Subgroup
b.. TCOS Subgroup
Rate Design Task Force
Distributed Generation Task Force
Team Leader
Kit Pevoto
512-936-7375
Project Schedule
Timeline (11/10/99) Download
timeline.xls (20K)
Adopted Forms and Rules
Order Adopting §§25.341-25.346 (Cost Unbundling and Business
Separation Activities) as Approved at the Dec. 16, 1999 Open Meeting
(01/19/00) (*pdf)
BSP - Filing Package - Final (02/04/00) (*pdf)
BSP - Filing Package - Preamble (02/04/00) (*pdf)
UCOS - Rate Filing Package - Final (02/04/00) (pdf*)
UCOS - Rate Filing Package - Preamble (02/04/00) (pdf*)
UCOS Sample Forms (02/04/00)
21083adt.doc (467)
020400bspfin.rtf (124K)
020400bsppre.rtf (102K)
020400fin.rtf (294K)
020400pre.rtf (69K)
020400frm.xls (70K)
Other Notices
Notice of a Workshop for Rate Design and Price to Beat (03/01/00)
030100now.rtf (205K)
Electric Reliability Standards
Project #21076
Summary:
This purpose of this project was to revise the Commission's Electric
Reliability Rules to be consistent with PURA §38.005. On December 1, 1999,
the Commission adopted amendments to Section 25.52 relating to Reliability
and Continuity of Service and Section 25.81 relating to Service Quality
Reports, and adopted a new Section 25.53 relating to Emergency Operations
Plans.
Any questions concerning these rules may be addressed to Mel Eckhoff at
mailto:mel.e...@puc.state.tx.us or by phone at 512 936 7348.
Timeline:
August 10, 1999
Staff held a Workshop for Interested Parties
September 10, 1999
Proposed text published in the Texas Register
October 11, 1999
Interested Parties filed Comments on published Rules
October 27, 1999
Staff held a Public Hearing
December 1, 1999
Commission Adopted Rules in Open Meeting
December 29, 1999
Rules Effective
Rules:
§25.52 -- Reliability and Continuity of Service. The amended rule:
a.. requires electric utilities to maintain adequately trained and
experienced personnel throughout its service area so that the utility is
able to fully and adequately comply with the service quality and reliability
standards;
b.. requires that no utility neglect any local neighborhood or geographic
area, including rural areas, communities of less than 1,000 persons, and
low-income areas with regard to system reliability;
c.. establishes a "reporting year" as the 12-month period beginning
January 1 and ending December 31 of each year;
d.. adopts reliability indices (not changed);
a.. System Average Interruption Frequency Index (SAIFI) The average
number of times that a customer's service is interrupted.
b.. System Average Interruption Duration Index (SAIDI) The average
amount of time a customer's service is interrupted during the reporting
period.
e.. establishes system-wide standards (not changed);
a.. Index values for the 2000 reporting year shall not exceed the
interim system-wide standard (established for the 24-month period ending
December 31, 1999) by more than 10%.
b.. Index values for the 2001 reporting year and thereafter, shall not
exceed the system-wide standard (established for the 36-month period ending
December 31, 2000) by more than 5.0%.
f.. establishes the method of evaluating the performance of distribution
feeder with more than ten customers, beginning with the performance in the
2000-reporting year;
a.. No distribution feeder shall sustain a SAIDI or SAIFI value for a
reporting year that is among the highest (worst) 10% of that utility's
feeders for any two consecutive reporting years.
b.. No distribution feeder shall sustain a SAIDI or SAIFI value for a
reporting year that is more than 300% greater than the system average of all
feeders during any two consecutive reporting years.
§25.53 -- Emergency Operations Plan. This section was formerly part of
§25.52. This new section was established to facilitate its amendment in a
subsequent rulemaking to reflect the relationships between the customer, the
retail electric provider (REP), and the transmission and distribution
utility (TDU). The new rule:
a.. requires each utility to file with the Commission a general
description of its emergency operations plan by December 31, 2000;
b.. requires each utility to file an affidavit from the utility's senior
operations officer indicating that all relevant operating personnel within
the utility are familiar with the contents of the plan, and are committed to
following the plan and its provisions in the event of a system or local
emergency;
§25.81 -- Service Quality Reports. The amended rule:
a.. requires utilities to file Service Quality Reports annually on
February 14 (instead of semi-annually) on a form prescribed by the
Commission.
Securitization of Stranded Costs of Investor-Owned Utilities
Project #21046
Summary
The purpose of this project is to develop an application form to be
used by electric IOUs for requesting PUC approval for the securitization of
regulatory assets. A modified version of the application form for
securitizing regulatory assets is expected to be used for the securitization
of electric IOUs' other stranded costs.
Team Leader
Darryl Tietjen
512-936-7436
Staff Assigned
Stephen Journeay, Martha Hinkle, Tom Best, Hal Hughes, Larry Reed,
Ruth Stark, Glenda Spence, Harika Basaran
Project Schedule
Form adopted by Commission at September 23rd Open Meeting
Documents Available
Request for Information for Finacial Advisor to Assist the PUC *
(10/06/99)
Request for Information for Bond Counsel to Assist the PUC *
(10/06/99)
Application * (09/29/99)
Instructions * (09/29/99)
Schedule (09/29/99)
Summary of Costs (09/29/99)
Download
100699ba.doc(49K)
100699r.doc (75K)
092999ap.doc (25K)
092999i.doc (70K)
092999sc.xls (58K)
092999sa.xls (1,211K)
Terms and Conditions of Transmission and Distribution Utilities
"Retail Distribution Service"
Project #22187
Summary
This project is charged with establishing the terms and conditions of
the retail distribution service of the investor owned transmission and
distribution utilities in Texas. The goal is to establish statewide uniform
terms and conditions of retail distribution service that will facilitate a
retail electric provider's participation in the electric market and at the
same time preserve the reliability of the distribution system, customer
safeguards and services, and the transmission and distribution utilities'
financial integrity.
The project will help in implementing §39.203(c) and (d) of Public
Utility Regulatory Act. The most recent documents are available under
"Current Documents" below.
Team Leader
Damayanti Ghosh
512-936-7376
damayan...@puc.state.tx.us
Staff Assigned
Harika Basaran, Connie Corona, Evan Farrington
Sid Guermouche, Kit Pevoto, Jamon White, Brian Lloyd
Project Schedule
The goal is to have a rule adopted by November of 2000. The first
workshop is scheduled on April 6, 2000. Informal comments on the scope of
this rulemaking will be requested before the workshop.
Communication
The e-mail list from P-21083 and P-21082 will be used for timely
announcements and informal communications among parties and Staff. The most
updated version of this e-mail list in a form of an excel spread sheet is
posted here. If you are not on the list and would like to be added or would
like to be removed from this list, please contact Gloria Salas
gloria...@puc.state.tx.us.
Documents Available Download
Order Adopting an Amendment to §25.214 as Approved at the May 8, 2001
Open Meeting.
(05/14/01) (pdf*) 22187ad3.doc (34K)
Tariff for Retail Delivery Service as Approved at the May 8, 2001 Open
Meeting. (05/14/01) (pdf*) 22187AA3.doc (678K)
Proposed for Publication of New 25.215 as Approved at the May 8, 2001
Open Meeting. (05/14/01) (pdf*) 22187pb4.doc (351K)
Proposed Tariff for Competitive Retailer Access as Approved at the May
8, 2001 Open Meeting. (05/14/01) (pdf*) 22187AR4.doc (512K)
Project 22187 MOU/Coop Version - Proposal for Adoption
Memo re Significant Policy Cuts
Preamble/Rule
Pro-forma Access Tariff
(03/15/01) (pdf*) 031501memo.doc (33K)
031501preamble.doc (114K)
031501tariff.doc (606K)
Proposal for Publication to Amend §25.214 and the Tariff for
Retail Delivery Tariff as Approved at the 03/07/01 Open Meeting.
(03/09/01) (pdf*) 25.214proposal.doc (43K)
Adopted Terms and Conditions Rule (01/23/01) (pdf*) 012301adt.rtf
(949K)
Tariff for Retail Delivery Service (01/23/01) (pdf*) 012301tariff.rtf
(1284K)
Contact List (07/11/00) contacts.xls (58K)
Rulemaking to Establish Procedures for Electric Utilities' Annual Reporting
of Workforce Diversity
Project #22167
Summary
Project No. 22167 was established to promulgate rules implementing the
provisions of PURA §39.909(c), which require electric utilities to file an
annual report to the commission and the legislature relating to the
utilities' efforts to improve workforce diversity and contracting
opportunities for small and historically underutilized businesses and will
also eliminate duplicative filing requirements. The project will also amend
Substantive Rules §25.79 , relating to Equal Opportunity Reports, and
§25.80, relating to the Annual Report on Historically Underutilized
Businesses.
Project Leader
Patricia Zacharie (ORA/Legal)
Staff Assigned
Margarita Fournier (OPD)
James Kelsaw (ORA/TIA)
Tamarian Stevens (ORA/TIA)
Project Schedule
Timeline
Documents Available
Download
Workforce Diversity Form (07/12/00) (pdf*) wdform.doc (35K)
22167 Electric Proposed Sub-Rule * (03/27/00) 22167pub.doc (36K)
Proposed Rule
Other Notices
Public Notice and Request for Comments (03/27/00) 032700rfc.doc (22K)
Who Cares
news:3b13291...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Who Cares" <vene...@home.net>...
>
> >> There's no doubt in my mind now that your
> >> policies would create absolute havoc
> >> with GDP and productivity. You done
> >> a good job with California energy so far. :D
> >
> >You clearly don't know what you're talking about, and you've been
> >corrected enough times that you ought to know by now.
>
> He's a lying twit, only here for the trolling.
I posted the links for the "deregulation"
legislation for Texas and Pennsylvania.
You know, the ones where "government
interference" has been removed. :)
Read through it if you dare.
You guys have absolutely no idea of
what you're talking about. :)
I didn't even *check* to see if "deregulation"
was a joke. I already knew it, because there's
absolutely no way to tie power purchases
back to true consumer demand unless
they issue every consumer a palm pilot
and they spend all day bidding on
each kilowatt hour. :)
You guys are killing me. :)
Billy Beck
Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>"John T. Kennedy" wrote:
>> >> "Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group." -
>> >> Ayn Rand
>> >>
>> >> The dictionary says collectivism means collective control.
>> >>
>> >> *Do* you deny that you are advocating collective control of people and
>> >> their resources?
>> >
>> >Now there's a perfectly manageable package of both your
>> >rank imbecility and your dishonesty.
>> >
>> >Ayn Rand wasn't an anarchist and used "collectivism" to refer
>> >to Marxism and socialism. She was not opposed to government
>> >per se, and understood the importance of the rule of law.
>> >The implication of your quote is that she saw things the
>> >way you do. She didn't.
>>
>> That of course is not the implication of my quote, since I have
>> pointed out many times that Rand was no anarchist. No reasonable
>> person could imagine I'm confused about that, or would seek to
>> misrepresent it. The quote demonstrates what I mean by collectivism.
>
>That's a pretty good Lochner impersonation. I'm impressed. Ayn
>Rand wasn't an anarchist but quoting her demonstrates that
>government per se, which she supported, is "collectivism."
Martin, I wonder if you're aware of just how how a point of
contention this is among people who've really studied her.
The fact of the matter is that there is a massive contradiction
between her ethics and her politics. It has never been resolved and
it *cannot* be. It is rife throughout her fiction and a great deal of
what she wrote about politics.
And Kennedy is quite right, throughout this threadlet.
Who Cares
>
> And Kennedy is quite right, throughout this threadlet.
So spoke Billy, before the "deregulation"
legislation was posted. :)
Remember it well, pal.
"Free markets don't scale!"
Who Cares
> John T. Kennedy <kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >You clearly don't know what you're talking about, and you've been
> >corrected enough times that you ought to know by now.
>
> He's a lying twit, only here for the trolling.
It's okay, I don't hold it against y'all.
I've seen it often. Neophytes never understand
the true issues behind managing complexity
and scalability.
Like the weenies that took over my last job.
Zero management experience, zero development
experience, but by Gumbo, they were
going to ship brand-new code in 90 days
with no training or skills, while using
beta tools.
Heck, it took us seven months to hack
existing code into a new product using
tools we knew well. Working, like, almost
every weekend.
Almost ten months have passed now and
they shipped nothing. From the looks of
it, they finally got cancelled this month,
what with the buyout and layoffs and all.
I was like that, too. I could never understand
why it was all so complicated. After you
blew up a few things, you figure it out.
So Beck and JFK blew up California,
torched $14 billion or so. Hey, it happens. :)
John T. Kennedy
night I had the strangest dream...
>
Which brings Martin squarely back to the question Lynette raised and
Martin only waved his hands at.
How am I different from Billy with on the issues of consent and the
legitimacy of government?
Yeah fine, I'm an imbecile and Billy isn't. I'm a one trick pony and
Billy isn't. Granted.
But what is the substance of our difference, Martin?
[blank out]
"I just recently had an extended discussion with Billy about
much the same stuff, but Billy isn't an imbecile, and isn't
a one-trick pony, either. I told him very frankly what I thought
and vice versa. It's in the record."
Uh huh, that's nice Maritin, but it's what's in the record that
counts.
John T. Kennedy
rooster: Last night I had the strangest dream...
>"John T. Kennedy" wrote:
>>
>> Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> woke me and said hey
>> rooster: Last night I had the strangest dream...
>>
>> >"John T. Kennedy" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group." -
>> >> Ayn Rand
>> >>
>> >> The dictionary says collectivism means collective control.
>> >>
>> >> *Do* you deny that you are advocating collective control of people and
>> >> their resources?
>> >
>> >Now there's a perfectly manageable package of both your
>> >rank imbecility and your dishonesty.
>> >
>> >Ayn Rand wasn't an anarchist and used "collectivism" to refer
>> >to Marxism and socialism. She was not opposed to government
>> >per se, and understood the importance of the rule of law.
>> >The implication of your quote is that she saw things the
>> >way you do. She didn't.
>>
>> That of course is not the implication of my quote, since I have
>> pointed out many times that Rand was no anarchist. No reasonable
>> person could imagine I'm confused about that, or would seek to
>> misrepresent it. The quote demonstrates what I mean by collectivism.
>
>That's a pretty good Lochner impersonation.
How could I do that it if I'm just a Gary Roselles?
> I'm impressed. Ayn Rand wasn't an anarchist but quoting her demonstrates that
>government per se, which she supported, is "collectivism."
I quoted Rand on the principle of collectivism. So I guess the
question of whether or not government necessarily embodies that
principle hinges on whether or not Rand was an anarchist, right
Martin?
That is some really lame thinking, son.
>You tried to do exactly what I described you as trying to
>do.
>
>What do we have here...
>
>> "The tribal notiopn of "the common good" has served as the the moral
>> justification of most social systems - and of all tyrannies -in
>> history. The degree of society's enslavement or freedom corresponded
>> to the degre to which that tribal slogan was invoked or ignored.
>>
>> "The common good" (or "the public interest") is an undefined and
>> undefinable concept: there is no such entity as "the tribe" or "the
>> public"; the tribe (or the public or society) is only a number of
>> individual men. Nothing can be good for the tribe as such; "good" and
>> "value" pertain only to a living organism - to an individual living
>> organism - not to a disembodied aggregate of relationships."
>>
>> ...
>>
>> "It is accepted precisely for it's elastic, undefineable, mystical
>> character which serves, not as a moral guide, but as an escape from
>> morality.Since the good is not applicabale to the disembodied, it
>> becomes a moral blank check for those who attempt to embody it."
>>
>> - from What is Capitalism?
>
>Well, that's just fine.
Is it? Then what about national interest? How is it any different from
the "common interest" Rand speaks of here? How is it not an attempt to
write a moral balnk check?
Isn't this blank check the moral rationalization for the subjugation
of the individual to the group, the moral rationalization for
collectivism?
Isn't this your moral rationalization on immigration and the drug war?
Is it really just fine?
> Where does Rand suggest that there should
>be no government? You brought Rand into this because you wanted her
>to define the state as "collectivism" for you. Now you're scrambling
>to divert attention from that scam by quoting her on the proclivities
>of government, which she nonetheless sees a need for.
Oh bullshit, I'm not scrambling. I've posted scores of times on Rand
and anarchism and the idea that I would try to pass her off as an
anarchist doesn't hold any water. You're grasping at straws. It's
absurd to imply that the fact that I quote Rand on the principle of
collectivism means I agree with her on the question of government, or
she me, especailly since I have taken such public exception with her
views on government. I quoted her on collectivism because I recognize
she has captured it's essence.
What I have consistently argued is that government is not morally
defensible in terms of her first principles, which I find largely
sound. Government does embody the principle of collectivism, Rand
evaded this, as do you.
The best short introduction to the argument is the open letter to Ayn
Rand from Roy Childs:
http://members.nbci.com/rational1/wild/Childs_Open_Letter_to_Rand.html
"There is a battle shaping up in the world---a battle between the
forces of archy---of statism, of political rule and authority---and
its only alternative---anarchy, the absence of political rule. This
battle is the necessary and logical consequence of the battle between
individualism and collectivism, between liberty and the state, between
freedom and slavery. As in ethics there are only two sides to any
question---the good and the evil---so too are there only two logical
sides to the political question of the state: either you are for it,
or you are against it. Any attempt at a middle ground is doomed to
failure, and the adherents of any middle course are doomed likewise to
failure and frustration---or the blackness of psychological
destruction, should they blank out and refuse to identify the causes
of such failure, or the nature of reality as it is."
>But your attempt to play your stupid game is hanging out there
>like the sad-eyed limp dick it is.
Yeah, you're doing swell, Martin.
>
>> Now how does your "national interest" differ from "public interest"?
>
>I use the term "common interest." "National interest" is the
>common interest of a nation. And you can find all you need to
>know about it in Vattel's Laws of Nations or in John Locke and
>various other natural law philosophers.
Ya.
"The common good" (or "the public interest") is an undefined and
undefinable concept: there is no such entity as "the tribe" or "the
public"; the tribe (or the public or society) is only a number of
individual men. Nothing can be good for the tribe as such; "good" and
"value" pertain only to a living organism - to an individual living
organism - not to a disembodied aggregate of relationships."
...
"It is accepted precisely for it's elastic, undefineable, mystical
character which serves, not as a moral guide, but as an escape from
morality.Since the good is not applicabale to the disembodied, it
becomes a moral blank check for those who attempt to embody it."
- from What is Capitalism?
>
>You're confused about a lot of things, because you are a lazy
>imbecile.
>
>If I use the term "liberal democracy" does that mean the same thing
>to you as calling a Democrat a "liberal?"
No.
>Do you think that
>"classical liberal" means a "really good example of a liberal?"
No.
>If Ayn Rand talks about the need for the state, does that mean
>that she is a "statist?"
Yes. Absolutely. She is a mild statist, a far milder statist than you.
>A person discussing the "national interest"
>in the context of foreign policy isn't necessarily someone arguing
>for food stamps in the "public interest."
No you're arguing for something else in the "public interest". But
you'll bill me for it the same way as you would for food stamps,
right? You'll bill me for the drug war because you feel it's in the
"common interest". You'll bill me for guards to keep immigrants out,
becuse you feel it's in the public interest. And plenty of people
think food stamps are in the public interest.
So you get together with Erb and Zepp and Roslles and Trebor and you
vote on your floating abstratctions, you vote on what the public
interest is, and look at the fucking result.
>National interest isn't
>necessarily *nationalism.*
I offered a definition of nationalism. Which part of it doesn't apply
to you?
>Above, you suggest the "no reasonable
>person could confuse" what *you* meant by your dishonest attempt
>to use the Rand quote to help yourself out, but your entire
>project here is to confuse the meaning of words.
If my words confused you, that doesn't mean that was my project.
>That's what happens when you believe in something that doesn't
>conform to reality, like Marxism. You have to begin to redefine
>or deconstruct the context and the meaning of words.
>
>A rule of law based on individual rights isn't a negation of
>individual rights. Nor is the rule of law *collectivism.*
You can't base government on individual rights, when you choose to
govern you've already chosen to violate individual rights every time
you find it in the "common interest" to do so.
You can't base your immigration controls on individual rights. Instead
you appeal to the "common interest", and implement collective control.
You can't base conscription on individual rights. Instead nations
appeal to the "common interest", and implement collective control,
they subjugate the individual to the group.
The implementation of collective control in pursuit of the "common
interest", the subjugation of the individual to the group, is indeed
collectivism.
>> When you appeal to national interest your seeking to write a moral
>> blank check.
>
>No I don't. There are no moral "blank checks" when discussing
>national interest.
The hell there aren't. The floating abstraction of "national interest"
can mean your drug war, your immigration controls or it can mean
Roselles government cheese or Hillary's health care and you get
totogether with these idiots to vote on what the national interest
will be today.
>And when someone tries to write one disaster
>is the result.
Got that right, Martin.
>You're just too much of a bimbo to think clearly
>about it.
The Great Overthrown Mind has spoken.
>> >You jump right from that to "the dictionary says," as though
>> >that confirmed your authoritative quote of Rand.
>> >
>> >Then you load up a question using that concoction of
>> >bullshit and think you're a smart guy because you've asked
>> >me whether or not I'm a collectivist.
>> >
>> >I also noted in your response that now the terrible yoke of oppression
>> >and the armed thugs aren't so important. You're doing just fine.
>> >The government is just engaging in some mild extortion now.
>> >You're really quite happy here in America, and you'll raise your
>> >children here despite the fact that one post back the yoke
>> >fell heavy upon you.
>>
>> I've always been happy here Martin, how do you figure that gives you a
>> right to bill me for the things you think we need?
>
>I'm not billing you for anything, imbecile. You pay the same taxes
>everyone else pays, and then you turn around and talk to others
>like that?
Uh, how does the fact that I'm paying the bill mean you're not
responsible for sending it?
> If you're happy here, then what exactly is it that you
>want from others that you're not willing to do yourself?
I want you to not charge me for what I have not contracted with you
for. That doesn't mean I expect *you* to make taxes go away, but you
are morally obliged to decline to collborate in taxing me.
This is not asking you for something that is not mine, just leave me
with what is mine.
>You want some kind of action from others because you're a coward
>without the courage of your convictions. That's not my fault.
Nonsense Martin, the fact that I choose to pay you ransom today
instead of going toe to toe with your armed hirelings does not make me
a coward. I choose the option available to me by which I can best
pursue my own values.
>If you suddenly once again start to talk about the "armed thugs"
>besetting you, the theft of your liberty, and the terrible yoke
>of oppression, then leave.
No Martin, I'm staying. Stop collaborating in theft. Stop
collaborataing in the violation of indivudual rights.
> Your options are pretty clear,
>and if you're happy here and happy to engage in your one-trick
>reductive political discourse with this same tired autistic head bobbing,
>then be satisfied with the status of imbecile.
>
>>
>> >So, what it comes down to is that you're just an intellectually
>> >lazy crank with an unreal political philosophy that doesn't
>> >even have standing in *theory,* let alone fact. When you've
>> >painted yourself into a corner you cringe there about the
>> >"armed thugs" that the person you're having the discussion
>> >with has "hired" by paying the same taxes that you pay. And
>> >then when you're asked why you don't just throw off this
>> >terrible yoke of oppression and head for greener pastures,
>> >suddenly the paint is dry and you walk out of the corner
>> >and everything is just great with you, you're not suffering
>> >at all.
>>
>> Fact is I'm happy. But isn't it true that you hire armed men to take
>> my property, life, and liberty if I sufficiently resist your
>> government?
>
>Isn't it true, if that's the way you conceptualize it, that in
>fact *you* hire them yourself?
No more than I "hire' a mugger.
>You pay them every day of your
>life, these "hired thugs," so what's your complaint with someone
>who doesn't see it through your imbecile glasses?
Yeah, it's like "hiring" an extortionist because you pay his "salary".
It's exactly like "hiring" a protection racket.
> You want them
>to take action they see no need for so that you can be a
>coward?
The mugger? The extortionist? The protection racket? Your government?
I want them to take action? No Martin, I'm pointing out you're all
morally obliged to *refrain* from taking immoral action. I don't want
you to do anything for me, but you ought to stop stealing.
>"Hired thugs" beset you, but you're "happy here." Your liberty
>is "stolen," but you pay for it to be "stolen" every day, yet
>you want others to take action you're too cowardly to take
>yourself, whatever it might be.
I don't pay for my money to be stolen, I surrender ransom to you
today, under the threat of physical violence, by which you and yours
would take my property, my liberty, and my life if I resisted
sufficiently.
I do this because I judge it is the best way to pursue my values
today.
>And people around here, including you, complain about what
>a nut Broward's become?
I enjoy Broward, he's funny.
Who Cares
news:MWITOw5IHzSAOw...@4ax.com...
>
> Yeah fine, I'm an imbecile and Billy isn't. I'm a one trick pony and
> Billy isn't. Granted.
>
> But what is the substance of our difference, Martin?
John Kennedy!
You just blew California to Kingdom Come
with exceptionally poor energy policies!
What are you going to do next?!
" I'm going to DISNEYLAND! But I'm
waiting until the off-season when the
blackouts end "
Martin McPhillips
>
> Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >"John T. Kennedy" wrote:
>
> >> >> "Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group." -
> >> >> Ayn Rand
> >> >>
> >> >> The dictionary says collectivism means collective control.
> >> >>
> >> >> *Do* you deny that you are advocating collective control of people and
> >> >> their resources?
> >> >
> >> >Now there's a perfectly manageable package of both your
> >> >rank imbecility and your dishonesty.
> >> >
> >> >Ayn Rand wasn't an anarchist and used "collectivism" to refer
> >> >to Marxism and socialism. She was not opposed to government
> >> >per se, and understood the importance of the rule of law.
> >> >The implication of your quote is that she saw things the
> >> >way you do. She didn't.
> >>
> >> That of course is not the implication of my quote, since I have
> >> pointed out many times that Rand was no anarchist. No reasonable
> >> person could imagine I'm confused about that, or would seek to
> >> misrepresent it. The quote demonstrates what I mean by collectivism.
> >
> >That's a pretty good Lochner impersonation. I'm impressed. Ayn
> >Rand wasn't an anarchist but quoting her demonstrates that
> >government per se, which she supported, is "collectivism."
>
> Martin, I wonder if you're aware of just how how a point of
> contention this is among people who've really studied her.
I've read what she has to say.
And it's basically what every other political philosopher has to
say, including Mises and Hayek.
> The fact of the matter is that there is a massive contradiction
> between her ethics and her politics. It has never been resolved and
> it *cannot* be. It is rife throughout her fiction and a great deal of
> what she wrote about politics.
>
> And Kennedy is quite right, throughout this threadlet.
You exited a thread where you had the opportunity to discuss this with
me. Now you're jumping in here with no regard for context and endorsing
this imbecile's attempt to use "collectivism" -- a term Rand and
everyone else on the face of the Earth use to describe Marxism
and its derivatives -- to describe my politics. Unfortunately, *your*
politics are those very closely associated with Marxism, and that's
not an accident, and it's not a situation relieved by hyphenating
them with "capitalism."
While Marxism prescribes a size five shoe for the size ten foot of
society, you prescribe a size 20 shoe. But the same operation
is afoot, if you'll pardon the expression. Political theory with
attendant prescriptions that would require any given society to
*transform* and *conform* its order to something that it isn't
by its very nature.
You want to get around this by contending that "principles" of
reality dictate this conformity. Marxists say the same thing,
and history shows the results. Your system is no less transvaluative
and totalitarian in nature than Marxism, with the exception
that it is unstable and would *re*solve itself in predictable
ways. But the good news is that the "one for one, all for none"
nature of it makes it an ineffectual pipe dream along the lines
of one of its mirror images "anti-statist socialism."
The fact of the matter is that there is no politics that takes
a society to anarchy. Only dissolution can accomplish that, and
that includes dissolution of the rule of law. You insist that
"principle" is at work, but *power* and human nature are
principles as well, and your system accounts for them about
as well as Marxism does.
Like Marxists, you have an idea about reality that doesn't
conform to what actually exists, but you insist that you
see the deep principles involved at work everywhere, just
like class struggle. And, of course, the state will wither
away too, once those big ideas take hold.
It's not by accident that having a discussion with a useful
imbecile like Kennedy is precisely the same as having one
with any run of the mill communist. Fortunately, the politics
involved are inconsequential and can be ignored for that
reason. And I've been ignoring them for a good long time.
Billy Beck
Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
And *they're* wrong about this stuff, too.
>> The fact of the matter is that there is a massive contradiction
>> between her ethics and her politics. It has never been resolved and
>> it *cannot* be. It is rife throughout her fiction and a great deal of
>> what she wrote about politics.
>>
>> And Kennedy is quite right, throughout this threadlet.
>
>You exited a thread where you had the opportunity to discuss this with
>me.
At the moment, I see very little prospect of reaching you with
any argument at all. A couple of weeks ago in an e-mail to you, I
hinted at the scale of the project. It's huge. As I said a long time
ago in a passage that Schneider was using as a tagline for a while,
we're not talking about anything less than re-building the entire
project of *thought*, itself, from the ground, up.
However...
>Now you're jumping in here with no regard for context and endorsing
>this imbecile's attempt to use "collectivism" -- a term Rand and
>everyone else on the face of the Earth use to describe Marxism
>and its derivatives -- to describe my politics.
...it's *not* true that I have "no regard for context" in this
matter, and the fact that I'm not getting to you isn't going to stay
my hand when I see someone who's right. I don't care who it is, or
who is involved.
And here is a genuine fact: you have never once faced what this
"collectivism" really is.
>Unfortunately, *your*
>politics are those very closely associated with Marxism,...
That's bullshit. I mean, there's nothing else to say about it.
Marx -- and Marxists -- have nothing to do with reality. *I*, on the
other hand, am so grounded in reality that you don't even see me
anymore because you're steeped in at least a hundred years of lunacy
run now to "conventional wisdom".
>While Marxism prescribes a size five shoe for the size ten foot of
>society, you prescribe a size 20 shoe.
That's not true.
>But the same operation
>is afoot, if you'll pardon the expression. Political theory with
>attendant prescriptions that would require any given society to
>*transform* and *conform* its order to something that it isn't
>by its very nature.
To begin with, you come around here with your very own take on
"political theory", so let's see if we can keep this clean, okay?
Further, I don't give a shit about precedent or habit for their own
sake: I don't care whether something that's *wrong* attempts to claim
a virtue of comfort in indolence. It's wrong, and it can only be
right if it changes.
>You want to get around this by contending that "principles" of
>reality dictate this conformity. Marxists say the same thing,...
But they're *wrong.
I'm right.
And I don't appreciate your equivocation.
Martin McPhillips
It's not a question of them being right or wrong. They're
describing a basic fact of human societies: the rule of law and
by extension a form of government to make that law and
execute and adjudicate it. It's the same thing with human
commerce. "Capitalism" is not a system first invented and
then put into practice. It's an observation and a
description of how commerce works.
Along a horizontal axis through all human societies that
have ever existed, at least to my knowledge, including
tribal societies, certain powers accrue at a focal point,
from the tribal headman to the constitutional republic.
This doesn't have anything to do with "conventional wisdom,"
as you seem to be claiming further down. It does have
something to do with natural law, with societies taking on
a kind of spontaneous order that commerce takes on
as a subset of human society.
> >> The fact of the matter is that there is a massive contradiction
> >> between her ethics and her politics. It has never been resolved and
> >> it *cannot* be. It is rife throughout her fiction and a great deal of
> >> what she wrote about politics.
> >>
> >> And Kennedy is quite right, throughout this threadlet.
> >
> >You exited a thread where you had the opportunity to discuss this with
> >me.
>
> At the moment, I see very little prospect of reaching you with
> any argument at all. A couple of weeks ago in an e-mail to you, I
> hinted at the scale of the project. It's huge. As I said a long time
> ago in a passage that Schneider was using as a tagline for a while,
> we're not talking about anything less than re-building the entire
> project of *thought*, itself, from the ground, up.
That's a Nietzchean project, of course, which is really, in its
less bombastic form, a Comtean project that suggests a
Comtean progression: We'll just rethink everything from the
ground up, including *thought* itself, and announce that we've
arrived at a new stage in human history. In a philosophical sense,
this is what philosophers do with thought, but you're not doing
it as a philosopher. You're doing it as a political ideologist,
and what I mean by that is that you've already decided which
principles society has to conform to, and now have an endeavor to
make new rules for thought itself, which will support the
annunciated principles.
This is what Comte, as a positivist, loans to Marx, and it's
exactly what Marx and Marxists have been doing for 150 years:
redesigning human society. You see, Marx doesn't come out of
the blue even though he does come out of left field.
Martin Malia discusses this with respect to socialism
in general leading up to Soviet Communism in The Soviet
Tragedy, p. 23, in the next to last paragraph beginning:
"This focus on the future is the deepest cause of the
ambiguity surrounding 'socialism,' for of all our terms
designating different types of societies 'socialism' alone
was created before, not after, the fact of that type of
society's existence."
It's the same thing that you're attempting to do, name
a type of society that doesn't exist, with the glaring
exception that an "anarcho-capitalist" society will never
exist, not, at least, for any longer than it takes for it
to *re*solve itself into something else, most likely
a very bloody form of tyranny. And we're talking months,
not years. It happened about that fast in the Soviet
Union, too.
> However...
>
> >Now you're jumping in here with no regard for context and endorsing
> >this imbecile's attempt to use "collectivism" -- a term Rand and
> >everyone else on the face of the Earth use to describe Marxism
> >and its derivatives -- to describe my politics.
>
> ...it's *not* true that I have "no regard for context" in this
> matter, and the fact that I'm not getting to you isn't going to stay
> my hand when I see someone who's right. I don't care who it is, or
> who is involved.
That's not a particularly honest comment. But I'll leave it.
> And here is a genuine fact: you have never once faced what this
> "collectivism" really is.
I know what "collectivist" and "collectivism" mean in contemporary
political discourse, and as I've said before, because various
Weasels and imbeciles want to torture the meanings of words,
it doesn't mean that I'll avoid using a term like "common interest,"
or "public authority," etc., because someone wants to dissolve
meaning and conflate grotesque ideology with the basic
facts of human society.
If what you're trying to say is that I haven't faced the basic
facts of human societies and how they are organized, then you
are wrong. I'm not busy redesigning them "from the ground up,"
but I know which general direction I'd like to see them heading
in.
> >Unfortunately, *your*
> >politics are those very closely associated with Marxism,...
>
> That's bullshit.
Oh, it's not bullshit at all. Anarchy is very closely associated
with Marxism, you know that. I don't think that your hyphenated
variety really changes that, particularly in the way it places
economic principles above everything else, and actually converts
them into political principles. Very similar to Marx. In fact,
you've ideologized (I might have just invented that word) capitalism,
so that it's no longer just a descriptive theory of commerce but a
prescriptive theory of political society which you insist trumps
the descriptive theories of political society.
> I mean, there's nothing else to say about it.
> Marx -- and Marxists -- have nothing to do with reality. *I*, on the
> other hand, am so grounded in reality that you don't even see me
> anymore because you're steeped in at least a hundred years of lunacy
> run now to "conventional wisdom".
I see you quite clearly. You're not over any horizon. Marx and
Marxists don't have an abiding respect for reality, but think that
their logic of history properly perceives an outcome of that process.
You employ a logic of liberty, which is frankly glandular
in its assertion that it is at once grounded in reality but that
only a future reality will reveal that, proceeded by the sweeping
away of all this "conventional wisdom" (bourgeois society?) that
people engage in as they go about their lives. You'll begin to fix
that -- once you somehow come to power -- by abolishing the borders
to their country, which your grounding in reality tells you doesn't
exist anyway. (And I assume your clarification of thought itself,
from the ground up, will clarify that.)
> >While Marxism prescribes a size five shoe for the size ten foot of
> >society, you prescribe a size 20 shoe.
>
> That's not true.
Sure it is. And you know who wears size 20 shoes.
> >But the same operation
> >is afoot, if you'll pardon the expression. Political theory with
> >attendant prescriptions that would require any given society to
> >*transform* and *conform* its order to something that it isn't
> >by its very nature.
>
> To begin with, you come around here with your very own take on
> "political theory", so let's see if we can keep this clean, okay?
Well, I discuss political theory, and often from the ground up.
But I'm not taking on the onerous business of redesigning societies.
I don't have big plans for the world, certainly not in the sense
that it's organization is all wrong and needs to be rebuilt
according to *this* set of principles. I think that we just got
over, to some extent, seventy years of life with the Big Planners.
> Further, I don't give a shit about precedent or habit for their own
> sake: I don't care whether something that's *wrong* attempts to claim
> a virtue of comfort in indolence. It's wrong, and it can only be
> right if it changes.
Marxist Theory 101. Societies and economies are wrongly organized
and must be changed. And we will do this how?
> >You want to get around this by contending that "principles" of
> >reality dictate this conformity. Marxists say the same thing,...
>
> But they're *wrong.
>
> I'm right.
>
> And I don't appreciate your equivocation.
Well if you're right, then you must know everything,
and who would be a better choice to redesign and
rebuild society, not to mention thought itself, from
the ground up.
But of course you don't know everything, and the
world isn't going to be your science project, and
thought itself won't be re-engineered by you, either.
You're a very bright guy, but the Nietzchean redoubts
are very substantially hokey.
Harold
mair fheal) wrote:
>>Sure it is. Privatize the commons and it won't be in anyone's interest
>>to overgraze.
>
>assumes all shared resources can be owned by a single entity other than
>the collective whole
You need to define "shared". Usually the term commons is used to
refer to something that can be generally defined as property.
>
>like water in an aquifier
Well, we do have "water rights" as separate from property rights, I
think.
>
>or air in a wind
Private parties are using the wind now.
Regards, Harold
-----
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised
civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring
that about?"
-- Maurice Strong, Head of the 1992 Rio Earth
Summit, Executive Officer for Reform in the Office
of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
[The Environmentalists' Little Green Book,
ISBN 0-615-11628-0]
Billy Beck
Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
Of *course* it is. It's just exactly that.
>They're describing a basic fact of human societies: the rule of law and
>by extension a form of government to make that law and
>execute and adjudicate it.
*Rubbish*. The "rule of law" *is*, in actual fact, the rule of
*men*. It's the rule of men who get to write the laws. That "by
extension" thing you wrote is an indirect cop to this fact, and they
very same critique attacks *Nazi* law. The Soviets had their
"constitution", too, Martin, and the very same root political
principles apply, no matter which society we're "describing". Hayek &
Mises can describe it all they want, but what they're describing is
somehting inimical to freedom. That's *wrong*, whether you, they, or
anyone else admits it.
>It's the same thing with human
>commerce. "Capitalism" is not a system first invented and
>then put into practice. It's an observation and a
>description of how commerce works.
That's true, and, so far as they go in that direction, they're
*right*, which is a distinction that I think you must admit.
>Along a horizontal axis through all human societies that
>have ever existed, at least to my knowledge, including
>tribal societies, certain powers accrue at a focal point,
>from the tribal headman to the constitutional republic.
So what? You think you're talking to a utopian? Save it for
Erb. I'm the one who has always pointed out that there have always
been evil people on the planet, which is exactly why the whole concept
of government is *wrong*.
>This doesn't have anything to do with "conventional wisdom,"
>as you seem to be claiming further down. It does have
>something to do with natural law, with societies taking on
>a kind of spontaneous order that commerce takes on
>as a subset of human society.
"Spontaneous order" predates laws, Martin. You're absolutely
correct in the point you're hitting on, which is that things like
commerce did not, and do not, require "the rule of law".
>> >> The fact of the matter is that there is a massive contradiction
>> >> between her ethics and her politics. It has never been resolved and
>> >> it *cannot* be. It is rife throughout her fiction and a great deal of
>> >> what she wrote about politics.
>> >>
>> >> And Kennedy is quite right, throughout this threadlet.
>> >
>> >You exited a thread where you had the opportunity to discuss this with
>> >me.
>>
>> At the moment, I see very little prospect of reaching you with
>> any argument at all. A couple of weeks ago in an e-mail to you, I
>> hinted at the scale of the project. It's huge. As I said a long time
>> ago in a passage that Schneider was using as a tagline for a while,
>> we're not talking about anything less than re-building the entire
>> project of *thought*, itself, from the ground, up.
>
>That's a Nietzchean project, of course,...
No, it's not. It's a reaction to the spike driven through the
heart of the Enlightenment by Immanuel Kant (...be quiet, Brown: the
Shi'ite's are right about this) and the consequent active destruction
of thought carried out in the past two centuries. It is a stark
*fact* that people are not thinking now, and you'll be stepping in
deep shit if you try to deny it.
>... which is really, in its
>less bombastic form, a Comtean project that suggests a
>Comtean progression: We'll just rethink everything from the
>ground up, including *thought* itself, and announce that we've
>arrived at a new stage in human history. In a philosophical sense,
>this is what philosophers do with thought, but you're not doing
>it as a philosopher. You're doing it as a political ideologist,...
You know what? I've told you repeatedly that I don't deserve
that sort of insult, and I can't help but wonder why the hell you
continue to do it. This has reached the point where it is now
impossible to even broach subjects like logic with you, because you
think it's all about "ideology" with me. Here's a question for you:
do you think I get on Lochner's ass as a matter of "ideology"? If you
do, you couldn't be more wrong. That guy is a fucking idiot, and
that's the point of attack, *because* "ideology" of any sort is flatly
impossible prior to thinking itself.
>and what I mean by that is that you've already decided which
>principles society has to conform to,...
...and I did that as a matter of analyzing the principles that it
*currently* subscribes. It is *not* true that I've just made this up,
and that's the short-form of your criticism.
It's not true.
And,...
>... and now have an endeavor to
>make new rules for thought itself, which will support the
>annunciated principles.
... I don't need you for this. I can rely on Erb for this sort
of thing.
Billy Beck
Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>> >Now you're jumping in here with no regard for context and endorsing
>> >this imbecile's attempt to use "collectivism" -- a term Rand and
>> >everyone else on the face of the Earth use to describe Marxism
>> >and its derivatives -- to describe my politics.
>>
>> ...it's *not* true that I have "no regard for context" in this
>> matter, and the fact that I'm not getting to you isn't going to stay
>> my hand when I see someone who's right. I don't care who it is, or
>> who is involved.
>
>That's not a particularly honest comment. But I'll leave it.
Maybe *you* will, but I won't. Speak up, then, sir, and get on
with it.
You can fairly bet your ass that if I believe you've lied, I'll
stand right straight up and *say* so, in that many words.
Michael Schneider
<vene...@home.net> wrote:
Who, the potato-chip & cocaine diet ain't working.
Michael Schneider
<jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
How perfectly dense.
Now would you be kind enough to answer John's question as to whether or
not you consider individual rights as primary over those of [nations,
society, pick your euphemism]?
John T. Kennedy
rooster: Last night I had the strangest dream...
>Billy Beck wrote:
True.
>Only dissolution can accomplish that, and that includes dissolution of
>the rule of law.
True.
>You insist that
>"principle" is at work, but *power* and human nature are
>principles as well, and your system accounts for them about
>as well as Marxism does.
>
>Like Marxists, you have an idea about reality that doesn't
>conform to what actually exists, but you insist that you
>see the deep principles involved at work everywhere, just
>like class struggle. And, of course, the state will wither
>away too, once those big ideas take hold.
Nope, the decline of government will have nothing to do with big ideas
taking hold, it will only happen out of simple self interest.
What happens when you can no longer get the money by coercion Martin?
What happens when funding of your regime becomes more and more
voluntary whether you like it or not?
No big idea, it just puts you in the market.
>
>It's not by accident that having a discussion with a useful
>imbecile like Kennedy
Useful! That's sweet of you, Martin.
> is precisely the same as having one
>with any run of the mill communist. Fortunately, the politics
>involved are inconsequential and can be ignored for that
>reason. And I've been ignoring them for a good long time.
What politics? I'm an anarchist.
John T. Kennedy
rooster: Last night I had the strangest dream...
>Along a horizontal axis through all human societies that
>have ever existed, at least to my knowledge, including
>tribal societies, certain powers accrue at a focal point,
>from the tribal headman to the constitutional republic.
Or Microsoft. On a voluntary basis. Isn't it clear that men can and do
organize their affairs on a voluntary basis? Why are you so hell bent
on ruling without consent?
Eagle Eye
<kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> woke me and said hey
>rooster: Last night I had the strangest dream...
>>"John T. Kennedy" wrote:
>>> Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> woke me and said hey
>>> rooster: Last night I had the strangest dream...
>>> >"John T. Kennedy" wrote:
>What I have consistently argued is that government is not morally
>defensible in terms of her first principles, which I find largely
>sound. Government does embody the principle of collectivism, Rand
>evaded this, as do you.
>
>The best short introduction to the argument is the open letter to
>Ayn Rand from Roy Childs:
>
>http://members.nbci.com/rational1/wild/Childs_Open_Letter_to_Rand.html
>
>"There is a battle shaping up in the world---a battle between the
>forces of archy---of statism, of political rule and
>authority---and its only alternative---anarchy, the absence of
>political rule. This battle is the necessary and logical
>consequence of the battle between individualism and collectivism,
>between liberty and the state, between freedom and slavery. As in
>ethics there are only two sides to any question---the good and the
>evil---so too are there only two logical sides to the political
>question of the state: either you are for it, or you are against
>it. Any attempt at a middle ground is doomed to failure, and the
>adherents of any middle course are doomed likewise to failure and
>frustration---or the blackness of psychological destruction,
>should they blank out and refuse to identify the causes of such
>failure, or the nature of reality as it is."
There is no justification for making this division, then
arbitrarily assigning "the good and the evil" to those two sides.
[snip]
>>A rule of law based on individual rights isn't a negation of
>>individual rights. Nor is the rule of law *collectivism.*
>You can't base government on individual rights, when you choose to
>govern you've already chosen to violate individual rights every
>time you find it in the "common interest" to do so.
That's not true. A town elects a sherriff and a judge, who arrest
and imprison people who hurt others. They are paid by voluntary
contributions. What individual rights are violated?
[snip]
>>> >I also noted in your response that now the terrible yoke of
>>> >oppression and the armed thugs aren't so important. You're
>>> >doing just fine. The government is just engaging in some mild
>>> >extortion now. You're really quite happy here in America, and
>>> >you'll raise your children here despite the fact that one post
>>> >back the yoke fell heavy upon you.
>>> I've always been happy here Martin, how do you figure that
>>> gives you a right to bill me for the things you think we need?
>>I'm not billing you for anything, imbecile. You pay the same
>>taxes everyone else pays, and then you turn around and talk to
>>others like that?
>Uh, how does the fact that I'm paying the bill mean you're not
>responsible for sending it?
How does the fact that I'm paying my taxes mean YOU are not
responsible for sending it? Explain what you do differently than
the rest of us who reluctantly pay?
>> If you're happy here, then what exactly is it that you
>>want from others that you're not willing to do yourself?
>I want you to not charge me for what I have not contracted with
>you for. That doesn't mean I expect *you* to make taxes go away,
>but you are morally obliged to decline to collborate in taxing
>me.
>
>This is not asking you for something that is not mine, just leave
>me with what is mine.
What is McPhillips doing to collaborate that you're not doing?
[snip]
>>> >So, what it comes down to is that you're just an
>>> >intellectually lazy crank with an unreal political philosophy
>>> >that doesn't even have standing in *theory,* let alone fact.
>>> >When you've painted yourself into a corner you cringe there
>>> >about the "armed thugs" that the person you're having the
>>> >discussion with has "hired" by paying the same taxes that you
>>> >pay. And then when you're asked why you don't just throw off
>>> >this terrible yoke of oppression and head for greener
>>> >pastures, suddenly the paint is dry and you walk out of the
>>> >corner and everything is just great with you, you're not
>>> >suffering at all.
>>> Fact is I'm happy. But isn't it true that you hire armed men to
>>> take my property, life, and liberty if I sufficiently resist
>>> your government?
>>Isn't it true, if that's the way you conceptualize it, that in
>>fact *you* hire them yourself?
>No more than I "hire' a mugger.
McPhillips isn't out hiring thugs any more than you are.
>>You pay them every day of your life, these "hired thugs," so
>>what's your complaint with someone who doesn't see it through
>>your imbecile glasses?
>Yeah, it's like "hiring" an extortionist because you pay his
>"salary".
No more than you do.
[snip]
>>"Hired thugs" beset you, but you're "happy here." Your liberty is
>>"stolen," but you pay for it to be "stolen" every day, yet you
>>want others to take action you're too cowardly to take yourself,
>>whatever it might be.
>I don't pay for my money to be stolen, I surrender ransom to you
>today, under the threat of physical violence, by which you and
>yours would take my property, my liberty, and my life if I
>resisted sufficiently.
>
>I do this because I judge it is the best way to pursue my values
>today.
He pays taxes, reluctantly. You pay taxes, reluctantly. I pay
taxes, reluctantly.
Again, what's different about you?
>>And people around here, including you, complain about what a nut
>>Broward's become?
>I enjoy Broward, he's funny.
He's too depressing.
=====
EE
Who Cares
news:3B140F20...@nyc.rr.com...
> Billy Beck wrote:
>
> > we're not talking about anything less than re-building the entire
> > project of *thought*, itself, from the ground, up.
Wow.
I told you so.
Beck has totally lost it. :)
I've seen this before on projects. Like my last
employer. Bunch of guys, twinking with
some subset of stuff, thinking that
they know everything now
because they read two
books and wrote
a couple of
VB scripts.
Well, at least it will entertaining to watch
Beck go flippo.
Who Cares
> >
> >And it's basically what every other political philosopher has to
> >say, including Mises and Hayek.
>
> And *they're* wrong about this stuff, too.
That's how it starts, man.
"Everybody else is wrong except me"
I mean, dang, man, did you read your
own post? You *almost* said
hello to Clarence Thomas? What
was that?
I mean, dang! At least *I* actually
held Mr. Whipple's M-1 carbine.
ElChipoDeSilicio
poster would seem perhaps to have a point here as against third-degeneration
four-letter-surname persons with an exotic imported Planet Dilbert ideology.
If it is _in principle_ not permitted ever to say "Everybody is wrong except
me," how can there ever be any Progress at all? Surely somebody has to notice
and describe the New Thing first?
But of course if you only mean THUGNET and THUGNET's tired old Billy....
Who Cares
news:20010529220457...@ng-cv1.aol.com...
>
> If it is _in principle_ not permitted ever to say "Everybody is wrong
except
> me," how can there ever be any Progress at all? Surely somebody has to
notice
> and describe the New Thing first?
If you want to gamble that Billy is the Second
Coming of Christ, it hardly matters to me.
It's a piss-poor bet, though.
John D.
> If it is _in principle_ not permitted ever to say "Everybody is wrong
except
> me," how can there ever be any Progress at all? Surely somebody has to
notice
> and describe the New Thing first?
You're right about that, absolutely right.
Rob Robertson
Yeah, that's what they thought the first time, too.
_
Rev. Rob
Michael Schneider
<kenne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> woke me and said hey
>
....Fortunately, the politics
> >involved are inconsequential and can be ignored for that
> >reason. And I've been ignoring them for a good long time.
>
> What politics? I'm an anarchist.
[What religion? I'm an atheist. -- me, in that increasingly stupid
"Living for Dying" tread over on American_Liberty.]
Martin is mangling the language *just like* Terry Cross up and down
this whole thing. No-ideology-is-an-ideology and
no-religion-is-a-religion. What rot.
Billy Beck
Ti...@outlandic.com (Michael Schneider) wrote:
> [What religion? I'm an atheist. -- me, in that increasingly stupid
>"Living for Dying" tread over on American_Liberty.]
I can't even *believe* that stoopid thing.
I saw that coming on the first lap.
Harold
mair fheal) wrote:
>In article <NrhQ6.61$r4.1...@e420r-atl4.usenetserver.com>, "Lynette
>Warren" <ar...@nospamsurfari.net> wrote:
>
>>morgan mair fheal <mair_...@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>You and the rest of the common grazers have depleted the commons
>>>> so one Sunday morning you and the rest of the villagers get together
>>>> and decide that you need my land to sustain your hungry herds. You
>>>> vote on it. The overwhelming majority decides to take my land at
>>>> gunpoint.
>>>
>>> they might be less peeved you hadnt fenced off the commons
>>
>>Nobody fenced the commons in your scenario. You dumbasses overgrazed
>>it. How is that justification for you to take anything of mine?
>
>its not my scenario
Actually, you were the one who said "fenced off the commons".
>
>and how do you justify that anything beloings to you
>
I make it, it belongs to me. Obtained by my effort or using resources
supplied by me, it belongs to me.
>
>its a parable on shared resources it which nobody can assert ownership
If no one exerts ownership, no one is responsible. Resource
squandered.
>one answer is to give it to one person but that can make them pesky
>peasants cranky
"Give it"? How are you going to acquire something so that you can
"give it" to them?
Do you mean if one person earns it, those who do not will be unhappy?
Maybe, but now they can now use the resource, for a fee. If the
resource is not owned, there is no resource because everyone
squandered it, since it belonged to no one.
>
>another answer is to establish a collective entity that grants and
>restricts access to everybody in the hope that everybody gets enough and
>the despair that nobody profits
If no one profits, then no one does anything they are not forced to.
Collectivists societies produce nothing in quantity except corpses.
Martin McPhillips
No it's not. Common sense tells me two things. First, that
government per se is a means of positive expression of natural
law. Second, that to go beyond that, and the cumulative evidence
found for it throughout the history of civilization is to spend
good time re-examining a thoroughly examined subject for the
purpose of defending it against a challenge that is an
effective nullity, i.e., a system that will never be.
What I have then in front of me as that challenge is really an
idiosyncratic conceit, not a serious proposition. But there are
no intellectual rules that say a non-serious proposition should
not be addressed.
So I'll address it briefly, rather than rethink the collected
wisdom of political thought "from the ground up."
Your claim is essentially that government per se and human freedom
are in contradiction, and that human freedom must prevail and
government must be ended. It will be replaced by a corpuscular
system of sovereign individuals, each a private society unto
himself, engaging in a finite series of contractual relationships
with others. All of this is voluntary, without the compulsions
introduced by the rule of law. All previously public features
are privately owned with their use determined by their owners
under the laws of supply and demand. This would include everything,
such as roads and bridges and even extend to the military, which
would be organized by, presumably, interested parties, etc. A
nation state such as the United States would no longer exist.
This, you argue, is the only way to grant primacy to human freedom,
which is the supreme value from which are derived all other possible
values, all of which are to be interpreted in the economic sense,
as values exchanged in all of their various forms with others on
a completely voluntary basis.
This is freedom, you say, but the very thought of it induces claustrophobia.
You would say to that, no doubt, that I react that way because I have
never properly understood what freedom really is and that I must
learn to live within its laws (principles) because you as an individual
do understand its principles and can't have it any other way.
So what's the problem? The problem is that the rule of law and the
government that sees to it provide a common field of action and
properly understood are not *just* a positive expression of natural
law but a region of human freedom itself. By implicitly and explicitly
understanding implicit and explicit common interests, it facilitates
free human relationships, and when properly organized to protect
individual human rights and private property, which are the primary
factors of human individuals, it presents not a stifling finite
series of corpuscular contractual arrangements based on an ideology
of liberty, but an open common ground of experience in which the
rules are defined and there is recourse to a common body of law and the
adjudication of that law.
The debate in our time is over the proper dimensions of government,
what its natural role is in a free society, not over whether it should
exist at all. This real debate *is* very serious and gets very
complex, and there are issues that specifically involve society
itself before one even gets to the government's role, i.e., what
exactly is happening to Western civilization and what are the
implications of it.
Governments are by their nature built on the concept of force.
But it's not force taken directly from nature, in the sense
implied by physics, but from men in a state of nature. That
force is organized into law, which men, as best they can,
take from the natural law as their best understanding of
it and its relation to human meaning can achieve.
Why do they do this? Precisely to have for themselves a field of
action in which they can undertake all sorts of matters through
an immediate and common ground of rules. It's the way humans
organize themselves politically, in all their imperfection.
Now I could sit here and paint the scenarios of power and force
as they would play out in a corpuscular system of sovereign
individuals, but I think anyone who has ever put his or her
imagination to the task of grasping what a government can do
when it goes wrong can do the same for the imaginary realm
of the corpuscular sovereigns.
When I could see "anarcho-capitalism" as an angle of criticism,
an analysis of government that turned back its involvement in
things it shouldn't be involved in, I could think of it as
pretty effective in that role. But now that I'm finally confronted
with the fact that you've actually integrated this as a political
ideology that supplants the rule of law in your mind, well, I
guess I just ignored that aspect for too long and probably led
you to think that I was open to it. Far from being open to it, I
think it's as ludicrous as "anti-statist socialism."
You've created a logic of liberty that you think corresponds
to and and is directed by the most fundamental principles of
human existence, and you insist that all human thought to the
contrary is in error, and that it's fair for you to ignore, or,
rather, dispose of how things have actually played out through
human history because you, after all, are right, and human
history is a failure.
But you're not right. Your conceptualization of pure
necessity in accordance with your logic of liberty is as frankly
shallow as the pure necessity of Marx's logic of history. And
that is the way it has to be for all systems that would impose
their various logics with their pure necessity on the fundamental
structures of society in such a way that those structures must be
transformed and transvalued to fit the master plan.
You've designed a new regimen of liberty in accordance with
principle that is as confining in its stifling logic as Marxism.
Harold
wrote:
>"Lynette Warren" <ar...@nospamsurfari.net> wrote in message
>news:NrhQ6.61$r4.1...@e420r-atl4.usenetserver.com...
>>
>> morgan mair fheal <mair_...@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>You and the rest of the common grazers have depleted the commons
>> >> so one Sunday morning you and the rest of the villagers get together
>> >> and decide that you need my land to sustain your hungry herds. You
>> >> vote on it. The overwhelming majority decides to take my land at
>> gunpoint.
>> >
>> > they might be less peeved you hadnt fenced off the commons
>>
>> Nobody fenced the commons in your scenario. You dumbasses overgrazed
>> it. How is that justification for you to take anything of mine?
>
>You could at least be charitable and *sell* them your surplus grain.
Did she say she would not?
Regards, Harold
-----
"Economic ignorance is the breeding ground of totalitarianism."
---John Jewkes
John D.
"Harold" <haroldb...@delete.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nn4ahtc185quttls0...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 May 2001 20:13:58 -0500, "John D." <no...@donttry.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Lynette Warren" <ar...@nospamsurfari.net> wrote in message
> >news:NrhQ6.61$r4.1...@e420r-atl4.usenetserver.com...
> >>
> >> morgan mair fheal <mair_...@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >>You and the rest of the common grazers have depleted the commons
> >> >> so one Sunday morning you and the rest of the villagers get together
> >> >> and decide that you need my land to sustain your hungry herds. You
> >> >> vote on it. The overwhelming majority decides to take my land at
> >> gunpoint.
> >> >
> >> > they might be less peeved you hadnt fenced off the commons
> >>
> >> Nobody fenced the commons in your scenario. You dumbasses overgrazed
> >> it. How is that justification for you to take anything of mine?
> >
> >You could at least be charitable and *sell* them your surplus grain.
>
> Did she say she would not?
She didn't say, I bet she would.
Billy Beck
Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
Not to me, it's not.
Now, you might not *like* that fact, but it's a fact,
nonetheless, and your only alternative to accepting it *as* a fact is
resort to force. Understand clearly what's at stake here: you can
have your "positive expression of natural law" if you really need it,
but you need to keep it away from *me*, because I *don't* need it, and
I will not have it.
>Second, that to go beyond that, and the cumulative evidence
>found for it throughout the history of civilization...
Look, Martin: that is nothing in the world but an argument from
*habit*. The Declaration of Independence was, at the time, as great a
departure from "the cumulative evidence throughout the history of
civilization" as anything I'm talking about.
>...is to spend good time re-examining a thoroughly examined subject
>for the purpose of defending it against a challenge that is an
>effective nullity, i.e., a system that will never be.
Two points: 1) you're looking right straight at it, right now, in
the real time of your life, every time you see my name. 2) For the
purposes of this discussion with you, I am content to leave the
verdict to history. We'll see.
>What I have then in front of me as that challenge is really an
>idiosyncratic conceit, not a serious proposition.
It most certainly is just exactly that. It's every bit as
serious as your constitutional government, even if you happen to have
the upper-hand at Washington right now.
>So I'll address it briefly, rather than rethink the collected
>wisdom of political thought "from the ground up."
What, exactly, is your problem with that proposition? Look, man:
the better weezils in any cheez-line would be happy to tell you all
day long that the welfare-state is the "collected wisdom".
What's your problem with thinking about "the collected wisdom"?
>Your claim is essentially that government per se and human freedom
>are in contradiction, and that human freedom must prevail and
>government must be ended. It will be replaced by a corpuscular
>system of sovereign individuals, each a private society unto
>himself, engaging in a finite series of contractual relationships
>with others. All of this is voluntary, without the compulsions
>introduced by the rule of law. All previously public features
>are privately owned with their use determined by their owners
>under the laws of supply and demand. This would include everything,
>such as roads and bridges and even extend to the military, which
>would be organized by, presumably, interested parties, etc. A
>nation state such as the United States would no longer exist.
Correct. What's your problem with voluntary contractual
relationships?
>This, you argue, is the only way to grant primacy to human freedom,
>which is the supreme value from which are derived all other possible
>values, all of which are to be interpreted in the economic sense,
>as values exchanged in all of their various forms with others on
>a completely voluntary basis.
You recently cited Mises. Have you ever read the man? Here's
something about which he was absolutely, incontrovertibly, correct:
"The spheres of rational action and economic action are therefore
co-incident. All rational action is economic. All economic activity
is rational action. All rational action is in the first place
individual action. Only the individual thinks. Only the individual
reasons. Only the individual acts. How society arises from the
action of individuals will be shown in a later part of our
discussion."
("Socialism - An Economic And Sociological Analysis", 1922, Part
II, Ch. 5, sec. 2, p. 97 of the 1981 Liberty Classics edition)
You are, Martin, essentially a proponant of social metaphysics -
a complete inversion of the actual reality of things - in the very
same way of any common socialist around here. You *do not* hold the
primacy of the individual human being: you hold society as a primary,
and I'll give the commies their integrity over you in this regard,
because they are consistent in their philosophy: they do not pick and
choose their implications the way you do. They step right up and
claim other peoples' lives all the way out to the last decimal point.
And it's way past time for you to get in the game and "rethink"
the "collected wisdom".
>This is freedom, you say, but the very thought of it induces claustrophobia.
In *you*.
That's not my problem.
>You would say to that, no doubt, that I react that way because I have
>never properly understood what freedom really is and that I must
>learn to live within its laws (principles) because you as an individual
>do understand its principles and can't have it any other way.
It's not really about me, Martin. It's about dealing with
reality.
>So what's the problem? The problem is that the rule of law and the
>government that sees to it provide a common field of action...
Oh, really? As in the War on Drugs, for instance? How about the
War on Poverty?
>...and properly understood are not *just* a positive expression of natural
>law but a region of human freedom itself.
This is straight-up Orwellian inversion. "Law is freedom."
*Freedom* is freedom, Martin. And it's just too bad if you're
"claustrophobic" around it, but I can't be concerned with that. One
of the main things concerning me these days is finding people with the
courage to deal with reality.
>By implicitly and explicitly
>understanding implicit and explicit common interests,...
*Name* them. Which ones? Among whom are they "common"? Me, for
instance?...or don't I count? If I do, then do I get to choose *my*
interests, or are you choosing them for me and enforcing them at your
"law"?
Don't you see how arbitrary an assertion you're making?
*All* this...
>...it facilitates free human relationships, and when properly organized to
>protect individual human rights and private property, which are the primary
>factors of human individuals, it presents not a stifling finite
>series of corpuscular contractual arrangements based on an ideology
>of liberty, but an open common ground of experience in which the
>rules are defined and there is recourse to a common body of law and the
>adjudication of that law.
...is contingent -- logically dependent -- on answers to my
questions above. You cannot get away with simply *asserting* this
stuff, any more than *Erb* can get away with simply handwaving his
"social constructs".
>The debate in our time is over the proper dimensions of government,...
That's your assertion, and *your* debate. Not mine.
>what its natural role is in a free society, not over whether it should
>exist at all. This real debate *is* very serious and gets very
>complex, and there are issues that specifically involve society
>itself before one even gets to the government's role, i.e., what
>exactly is happening to Western civilization and what are the
>implications of it.
>Governments are by their nature built on the concept of force.
>But it's not force taken directly from nature, in the sense
>implied by physics, but from men in a state of nature.
That's right: it's about the positive *initiation* of force
and/or the exclusive prerogative of *some* men to wield it over others
by way of every rationalization you've brought us in this post, and
others.
>That force is organized into law, which men, as best they can,
>take from the natural law as their best understanding of
>it and its relation to human meaning can achieve.
Well, of course, I maintain that the entire project is a dismal
failure, and I'm not interested in the "best they can", because *I'm*
a lot better than them. No matter what you say, Martin this is a
fact: I would never do to you the things that they're doing with this
force.
>Why do they do this? Precisely to have for themselves a field of
>action in which they can undertake all sorts of matters...
Like forcing me into their pyramid-scheme retirement plans, for
instance and threatening me with prison if I dissent, and/or squeezing
shit-brained accountants to do their dirty-work for them and
positively wrecking my career because I refuse to work for thieves.
Oh?... You don't *like* it when I raise the concept to the level
of an actual concrete? Well, that's just too bad. I'm here to tell
you that these ideas of yours have actual real-life consequences, and
I have goddamned good reason to hate them.
>...through an immediate and common ground of rules. It's the way
>humans organize themselves politically, in all their imperfection.
*Let* 'em. How many times do I have to tell you that they can
"organize themselves" to their hearts' content as long as they keep
their fucking guns out of my face while they're at it?
>Now I could sit here and paint the scenarios of power and force
>as they would play out in a corpuscular system of sovereign
>individuals, but I think anyone who has ever put his or her
>imagination to the task of grasping what a government can do
>when it goes wrong can do the same for the imaginary realm
>of the corpuscular sovereigns.
I sure can, which is one good reason why I own guns. And I would
far rather take my chances with the crack addict on the corner or even
Vinnie the Goombah, because neither one of those rotten bastards is
*lying* to me about my "common interests" like every government
official I've ever laid eyes on, nor are they apt to come at me with
military weapons or a national security state. Say what you will
about the Mafia, for example -- and with which your government has
been positively incompetent to deal, amid decades of, for instance, J.
Edgar Hoover's bizarre denial of its existence -- but this much is a
fact: they have not built a nation of prisons, sent 60,000 of my
countrymen off to die in some far-flung jungle over some dipshit hick
president's idea of "the Churchill of southeast Aisa", or any of the
rest of it. And they don't live where I do, which is one reason why I
live where I do, but you can't say the same thing about your
government, which is busily *manufacturing* prisoners and poverty
everywhere around me even as I type these words.
I am not afraid, Martin, and there is nothing you can say to
change that. And even if I'm being foolish, that's *my* affair* and
you get to butt out of it.
>When I could see "anarcho-capitalism" as an angle of criticism,
>an analysis of government that turned back its involvement in
>things it shouldn't be involved in, I could think of it as
>pretty effective in that role. But now that I'm finally confronted
>with the fact that you've actually integrated this as a political
>ideology...
It's really about time for you clearly explain that term as
something other than a stock perjorative, Martin.
I'm telling you.
>...that supplants the rule of law in your mind, well, I
>guess I just ignored that aspect for too long and probably led
>you to think that I was open to it.
Nope. Never. That's because I always understood you as a
conservative. Always.
>You've created a logic of liberty...
Excuse me: I have *analyzed* and *deduced*. If you're going to
address this stuff, you might do it justice.
>... that you think corresponds
>to and and is directed by the most fundamental principles of
>human existence, and you insist that all human thought to the
>contrary is in error, and that it's fair for you to ignore, or,
>rather, dispose of how things have actually played out through
>human history because you, after all, are right, and human
>history is a failure.
What in the world would it take for you to see the failure if not
what we're living with? Where the hell do you think Bill Clinton
*came* from?
>But you're not right. Your conceptualization of pure
>necessity in accordance with your logic of liberty is as frankly
>shallow as the pure necessity of Marx's logic of history.
<shrug> Fine, then. I'm wrong, and everything's just *peachy*, and
it's going to be a great day when California starts torching energy
CEO's so they can see in the dark. Have it your way.
See if I care.
John D.
(snip)
> Your claim is essentially that government per se and human freedom
> are in contradiction, and that human freedom must prevail and
> government must be ended. It will be replaced by a corpuscular
> system of sovereign individuals, each a private society unto
> himself, engaging in a finite series of contractual relationships
> with others. All of this is voluntary, without the compulsions
> introduced by the rule of law. All previously public features
> are privately owned with their use determined by their owners
> under the laws of supply and demand. This would include everything,
> such as roads and bridges and even extend to the military, which
> would be organized by, presumably, interested parties, etc. A
> nation state such as the United States would no longer exist.
>
Beck is lucky because he's getting to see the endgame of his philosophy
being played out in real time and it is not at all settled as to which way
it will turn.
John D.
Harold
wrote:
>
>"Harold" <haroldb...@delete.yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:nn4ahtc185quttls0...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 27 May 2001 20:13:58 -0500, "John D." <no...@donttry.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Lynette Warren" <ar...@nospamsurfari.net> wrote in message
>> >news:NrhQ6.61$r4.1...@e420r-atl4.usenetserver.com...
>> >>
>> >> morgan mair fheal <mair_...@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >>You and the rest of the common grazers have depleted the commons
>> >> >> so one Sunday morning you and the rest of the villagers get together
>> >> >> and decide that you need my land to sustain your hungry herds. You
>> >> >> vote on it. The overwhelming majority decides to take my land at
>> >> gunpoint.
>> >> >
>> >> > they might be less peeved you hadnt fenced off the commons
>> >>
>> >> Nobody fenced the commons in your scenario. You dumbasses overgrazed
>> >> it. How is that justification for you to take anything of mine?
>> >
>> >You could at least be charitable and *sell* them your surplus grain.
>>
>> Did she say she would not?
>
>She didn't say, I bet she would.
"Would" what? Would sell it?
Are you the best one to tell us what someone else would say?
Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
----
"I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I
have changed government policy solely because of a contribution."
--President Clinton, March 10, 1997