Capitalism will implode in the near future
Raymond Karczewski
Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future
jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald) wrote:
>sfei...@mach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
>> > > Anarchy is impossible with capitalism. Capitalism requires laws-
>> > > property laws, for example.
>James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> > The state is the enemy of law, for it makes itself the exception to
>> > all laws.
>pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>> Then what's your idea of "law" -- virtuous anarchists being
>> virtuous?
Ray wrote:
To a "genuine" anarchist, the corruption of "man's law" is
observed as a nonessential accretion, for it is the flow of
Supreme Intelligence which guides such a person in their every
thought, word, and deed. The man known as Jesus Christ
acknowledged that "He was in this world (based in man's corrupted
thought structure) but was not of It." Such would be the
declaration of all true "Divine Anarchists."
>> And what's your idea of enforcement? Vigilante posses?
Since a true anarchist is a responsible human being, (s)he is
no longer caught in the contradiction of their dualistic
consciousness, and therefore one finds they no longer locked in
continual psychological battle with the intellect's projected
opposites, i.e. "the other." The true anarchist is a
clear-sighted individual, capable of direct, uncontradictory
(nonconfused) action. Therefore outer enforcement is not a
demand of his/hers. Being a sovereign, responsible, integral
person, the anarchist possesses the clarity, will, and the means
to solve his own problems and is not easily seduced into
debilitating relationships of codependence by exploitive,
thought-based systems (government) designed toward failure.
His intelligence would allow him to freely support a vastly
pared down, limited structure (formerly called government) to
carry out the most limited of peripheral technical functions of a
society; i.e., fire departments, infrastructure repair, etc.
>Yes: The experience of the North American west was that vigilantism
>was generally just and law abiding, and the trials they conducted
>mostly fair and public.
A truly Anarchistic society based on the "new consciousness"
of enlightened men would be one which transforms the law of the
jungle into the grace of a cooperative paradise. How So? A
simple shift from the present "conditioned," dualistic
consciousness to one of direct, nondualistic clarity. Clearly,
however, such a society exists only for the "integral" meek.
Those holdouts seeking to perpetuate the old way of "might makes
right" will have long since perished by their own hand through
mutual annihilation by refusing to drop their double-edged sword
of dualistic thinking. That is the inevitable system of justice
which declares that all who live by the sword shall die by the
sword. Truely it is the meek (true anarchists) who will be only
ones left to inherit the earth.
>Of course the experience of the North American South was that
>vigilantes were lawless, but that was merely because the blacks were
>disarmed by the state and black membership of militias was prohibited.
>If the blacks had been armed, as they generally were in the west, I
>think the southern vigilantes would have been as law abiding and the
>trials they conducted as visibly fair as those of the western
>vigilantes.
In the survival of one's personal being, killing another in
self defense at a moment of great personal peril is the ultimate
in problem solving. Killing another for any other reason based
in consensus of time-bound, conditioned consciousness is the
ultimate sign of a corrupted collective consciousness called
"civilized society." In the animal kingdom, only man will kill
another over an "idea."
The future of humanity lies in the simple shift of
consciousness. The imminent crisis looming ahead in our world is
the test of our present human intelligence. Political solutions
will end in great bloodshed and massive loss of life. I opt for
the spiritual approach--understanding via Divine Anarchism.
Ray Karczewski
>> > ... States were created by groups of people getting together to
>> > take other peoples property.
>> And what makes as property claim legitimate?
>See Locke: Try my web page
>http://www.jim.com/jamesd/2ndtreat.htm
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
>of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
>right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com
I invite one and all to preview a chapter from my book
"Journey Beyond Thought" Visit my home page.
Raymond Karczewski http://www.cdsnet.net/Business/Ark/
Jet Graphics
Raymond Karczewski wrote:
>
> Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future
IF CAPITALISM MEANS SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF THE
TOOLS OF PRODUCTION, PERHAPS.
> jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald) wrote:
>
> >sfei...@mach3ww.com (John Bicketts) wrote:
> >> > > Anarchy is impossible with capitalism. Capitalism requires laws-
> >> > > property laws, for example.
CAPITALISM ISN'T A PHILOSOPHY, IT'S THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF TOOLS. A
FARMER
WHO OWNS HIS FARM IS A CAPITALIST. A SHOE SHINE BOY WHO OWNS HIS SHOEBOX
IS A CAPITALIST.
CAPITALISM HAS BEEN OVERSHADOWED BY USURY AND INVESTMENT
-THAT IS AN ABOMINATION.
> >James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> >> > The state is the enemy of law, for it makes itself the exception to
> >> > all laws.
HOW DO YOU DEFINE "STATE"? ACCORDING TO LAW DICTIONARY, IN AMERICAN LAW,
IT CAN REFER TO A FEDERAL STATE, A COMMONWEALTH STATE, OR THE PEOPLE.
PEOPLE CAN'T BE THEIR OWN ENEMY....
> >pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
> >> Then what's your idea of "law" -- virtuous anarchists being
> >> virtuous?
ANARCHY IS THE ABSENCE OF LAW. SOVEREIGN AMERICANS ARE THE LAW WHEREEVER
THEY ARE. THUS ANARCHY ONLY OCCURS WHERE SLAVES / SUBJECTS ARE NOT UNDER
THE WATCHFUL GAZE OF THEIR MASTERS, THE GOVERNMENT.
>
> Ray wrote:
>
> To a "genuine" anarchist, the corruption of "man's law" is
> observed as a nonessential accretion, for it is the flow of
> Supreme Intelligence which guides such a person in their every
> thought, word, and deed.
BAFFLEGAB TO HIDE IGNORANCE
The man known as Jesus Christ
> acknowledged that "He was in this world (based in man's corrupted
> thought structure) but was not of It." Such would be the
> declaration of all true "Divine Anarchists."
IF JESUS IS "ONE WITH THE FATHER" AND THE FATHER IS SOVEREIGN, AND
ALL LAW FLOWS FROM HIS POWER, THEN JESUS IS NOT AN ANARCHIST.
>
> >> And what's your idea of enforcement? Vigilante posses?
>
> Since a true anarchist is a responsible human being, (s)he is
READ THE LEGAL DEFINITION BEFORE YOU SPOUT OFF.
> no longer caught in the contradiction of their dualistic
> consciousness, and therefore one finds they no longer locked in
> continual psychological battle with the intellect's projected
> opposites, i.e. "the other." The true anarchist is a
> clear-sighted individual, capable of direct, uncontradictory
> (nonconfused) action. Therefore outer enforcement is not a
> demand of his/hers. Being a sovereign, responsible, integral
> person,
LAWFUL SOVEREIGNS CAN'T BE LAWLESS ANARCHISTS. PEOPLE WHO ARE
RESPONSIBLE
MUST HAVE THE POWER TO RESPOND. SLAVES AREN'T RESPONSIBLE - HAVE NO
POWER
TO BE RESPONSIBLE AND CAN'T RESPOND.
> the anarchist possesses the clarity, will, and the means
> to solve his own problems and is not easily seduced into
> debilitating relationships of codependence by exploitive,
> thought-based systems (government) designed toward failure.
ARE YOU REFERING TO SOCIALISM? WHICH IS CLEVERLY DISGUISED PIRACY?
> His intelligence would allow him to freely support a vastly
> pared down, limited structure (formerly called government) to
IF YOU READ THE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS, YOU'LL SEE THAT THAT IS ALREADY THE
LAW OF THE LAND, GOVERNMENT IS SERVANT TO THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE.
THE RECENT CHANGE IS DUE TO THE PEOPLE SURRENDERING THEIR PROPERTY
RIGHTS,
TO GET ACCESS TO BENEFITS OF SOCIALISM.
> carry out the most limited of peripheral technical functions of a
> society; i.e., fire departments, infrastructure repair, etc.
>
> >Yes: The experience of the North American west was that vigilantism
> >was generally just and law abiding, and the trials they conducted
> >mostly fair and public.
>
> A truly Anarchistic society based on the "new consciousness"
I'D RATHER ENJOY MY REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT WHERE I HAVE THE
POWERS OF SOVEREIGNTY AND CAN EXERCISE THEM DIRECTLY. ANARCHISTS HAVE
NO LAW NOR ACCESS TO IT.
> of enlightened men would be one which transforms the law of the
> jungle into the grace of a cooperative paradise. How So? A
FALSE ENLIGHTENMENT WILL FAIL TO DO ANYTHING CONSTRUCTIVE.
NOT ACCORDING TO THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. GOVERNMENTS ARE
INSTITUTED
AMONG MEN TO SECURE RIGHTS (INALIENABLE RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND
PROPERTY).
> >> And what makes as property claim legitimate?
ALL LAW IS THE PROTECTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS, ALL ELSE IS POLICY.
IF YOU OWN YOURSELF, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO LABOR TO SUPPORT YOUR LIFE.
IF YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO LABOR, THEN YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE FRUITS OF
YOUR LABOR. IF YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXCHANGE
YOUR FRUITS FOR OTHER PROPERTY.
IN AMERICAN LAW, NO RIGHT IS TAXABLE - BUT GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE
IS TAXABLE.
> >See Locke: Try my web page
> >http://www.jim.com/jamesd/2ndtreat.htm
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> >of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> >right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
CLOSE - BUT NO CIGAR!
> >http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com
>
> I invite one and all to preview a chapter from my book
> "Journey Beyond Thought" Visit my home page.
>
> Raymond Karczewski http://www.cdsnet.net/Business/Ark/
--
>>DO>NOT>USE>THE>SPAM>BLOCKED><<ADDRESS<TO<REPLY<<<<
Jeff Ganaposki
mailto:livin...@freeyellow.com
http://www.freeyellow.com/members/living-word
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
G*rd*n
jgbis...@AMavana.net:
| CAPITALISM ISN'T A PHILOSOPHY, IT'S THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF TOOLS. A
| FARMER
| WHO OWNS HIS FARM IS A CAPITALIST. A SHOE SHINE BOY WHO OWNS HIS SHOEBOX
| IS A CAPITALIST.
How about a guy whose caps key is stuck?
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
-----------------------------------------------
NOTE: if your ISP permits junkmailing, you will
probably not be able to reach me by email.
Lepore
it is not correct to say that
> A SHOE SHINE BOY WHO OWNS HIS SHOEBOX
> IS A CAPITALIST.
The term "capitalist" denotes a person who doesn't have to
perform work, due to ownership of sufficient profit-producing
assets so that the individual is able to live on dividends,
rent, or interest income.
See Marx, "Capital", chapter 13
http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1867-C1/Part4/ch13.htm
--
James A. Donald
Lepore <lep...@mhvx.net> wrote:
> The term "capitalist" denotes a person who doesn't have to
> perform work, due to ownership of sufficient profit-producing
> assets so that the individual is able to live on dividends,
> rent, or interest income.
Funny: All the capitalists I know work damn hard.
Do you think capital descended from the heavens, and the wicked
capitalists grabbed it all?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com
John Bicketts
On 25 Jun 1997 19:55:49 -0400, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>jgbis...@AMavana.net:
>| CAPITALISM ISN'T A PHILOSOPHY, IT'S THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF TOOLS. A
>| FARMER
>| WHO OWNS HIS FARM IS A CAPITALIST. A SHOE SHINE BOY WHO OWNS HIS SHOEBOX
>| IS A CAPITALIST.
>| ...
Ouch, dont yell...
--John Bicketts
Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
Jet Graphics
Lepore wrote:
>
> it is not correct to say that
> > IS A CAPITALIST.
>
> perform work, due to ownership of sufficient profit-producing
> assets so that the individual is able to live on dividends,
> rent, or interest income.
>
> http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1867-C1/Part4/ch13.htm
>
> --
>
> lep...@mhv.net
FROM WEBSTER'S:
CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production,
distribution, and exchange are privately owned and operated for private
profit.
In other words, private property and the freedom to use it.
The anti-capitalists therefore must be against private ownership of
the means of production, i.e. land, tools, and labor.
Michael LeBlanc
In article <5ovldj$msl$3...@nntp2.ba.best.com>,
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>Lepore <lep...@mhvx.net> wrote:
>> The term "capitalist" denotes a person who doesn't have to
>> perform work, due to ownership of sufficient profit-producing
>> assets so that the individual is able to live on dividends,
>> rent, or interest income.
>
>Funny: All the capitalists I know work damn hard.
That would depend on one's definition of "work".
>Do you think capital descended from the heavens, and the wicked
>capitalists grabbed it all?
No, silly boy... it came up from the earth. All capital has its ultimate
origin in the idea of land ownership.
Land which was either seized, or at the very least laid claim to under
threat of force. Read your own .sig sometime <g>.
>We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
>of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
>right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
:Michael
--
================+++==============================================
= Michael \\ "Kismet is a feather, =
= dj...@shore.net \\ Karma is the whole chicken." =
=================+++=============================================
JMH
Michael LeBlanc wrote:
>
> In article <5ovldj$msl$3...@nntp2.ba.best.com>,
> >Do you think capital descended from the heavens, and the wicked
> >capitalists grabbed it all?
>
> No, silly boy... it came up from the earth. All capital has its ultimate
> origin in the idea of land ownership.
Well there are a few odd-balls who think the Earth
came from the "heavens."
JMH
--
"Once conform, once do what others do because they do it, and
a kind of lethargy steals over all the finer senses of the soul."
Montaigne
James A. Donald
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> > Do you think capital descended from the heavens, and the wicked
> > capitalists grabbed it all?
dj...@shore.net (Michael LeBlanc) wrote:
> No, silly boy... it came up from the earth. All capital has its ultimate
> origin in the idea of land ownership.
Yet curiously, very few of today's rich are descendants of major
landowners or derived their wealth from land. Indeed in America there
has been radical and rapid turnover amongst the rich, with very few of
the rich inheriting significant wealth.
The six richest Americans all built their fortunes from scratch.
According to the Stanley Danko survey, fewer than one fifth of
American millionaires inherited ten percent or more of their wealth,
and most did not inherit any.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com
G*rd*n
Lepore <lep...@mhvx.net> wrote:
| > > The term "capitalist" denotes a person who doesn't have to
| > > perform work, due to ownership of sufficient profit-producing
| > > assets so that the individual is able to live on dividends,
| > > rent, or interest income.
James A. Donald wrote:
| > Funny: All the capitalists I know work damn hard.
kay...@bouldernews.infi.net:
| Some due but it's not a prerequisite for being a capitalist. I've known
| some who are able to sit on their asses living off of stock dividends.
| ...
These people will be said to be not "real" capitalists.
To be exact, the accumulation and management of capital is a
kind of labor. However, unlike some other forms of labor,
it is rewarded at a rate proportional to the amount of
capital, not the amount of labor. That is, a capitalist who
keeps 10 million dollars in the bank does about as much
labor as one who keeps 20 million dollars in the bank, but
the latter is rewarded at about twice the rate of the
former. Possession and reward are unlimited, so that the
amount of labor per unit of wealth becomes vanishingly small
as the amount of wealth becomes large.
Capitalists have to work (labor); what they don't have to do
is sell their labor to a capitalist -- at a disadvantage.
Terrell
>Ray wrote:
>
> To a "genuine" anarchist, the corruption of "man's law" is
>observed as a nonessential accretion, for it is the flow of
>Supreme Intelligence which guides such a person in their every
>thought, word, and deed. The man known as Jesus Christ
>acknowledged that "He was in this world (based in man's corrupted
>thought structure) but was not of It." Such would be the
>declaration of all true "Divine Anarchists."
Why must we perceive of ourselves as supreme? Why intelligent? These
perceptions are very probably at the root of the human problem. An
awareness that we all are indeed of and in this world, and that our
being is no more supreme or intelligent than any other miniscule
building block of the cosmos, is essential in achieving the kind of
individual behavior which could lead to a responsible society, a
healthy, natural interaction with all elements of our surroundings.
The Christian idea of a blissful afterlife only distracts from the
urgency of an honest and humble approach to dealing with the present.
Just maybe...there is nothing atrewards. Just maybe...ALL of one's
existence is here, right were we all are now. Just maybe...if we had
the courage to think this way, the indifference with which the
individual behaves in our social and natural environments would be
unthinkable.
> Since a true anarchist is a responsible human being, (s)he is
>no longer caught in the contradiction of their dualistic
>consciousness, and therefore one finds they no longer locked in
>continual psychological battle with the intellect's projected
>opposites, i.e. "the other." The true anarchist is a
>clear-sighted individual, capable of direct, uncontradictory
>(nonconfused) action. Therefore outer enforcement is not a
>demand of his/hers. Being a sovereign, responsible, integral
>person, the anarchist possesses the clarity, will, and the means
>to solve his own problems and is not easily seduced into
>debilitating relationships of codependence by exploitive,
>thought-based systems (government) designed toward failure.
Proposal: There is no such thing as absence of order. Order and
disorder are related one to the other in a way similar to mass and
energy, as if the two make one sum. Increased order ultimately results
in disorder and conversely disorder in order. Then, an anarchist
cannot limit himself to the concept of carving away at structural
systems. Much more, he must seek to determine what is NATURAL, what
systems, what structures. Part of this natural order, or disorder,
that he should accept is contradiction. A supreme being who presumes
to think with no contradiction is no anarchist, much more a fascist.
psychopomp
James A. Donald wrote:
>
> Lepore <lep...@mhvx.net> wrote:
> > The term "capitalist" denotes a person who doesn't have to
> > perform work, due to ownership of sufficient profit-producing
> > assets so that the individual is able to live on dividends,
> > rent, or interest income.
>
Yes, it's damn hard work keeping track of all the wealth that thousands of others
produced. :,{D
>
> Do you think capital descended from the heavens, and the wicked
> capitalists grabbed it all?
No, it came from workers, and the capitalists grabbed it all up, and then redistributed
it as THEY saw fit. I don't think most capitalists are "wicked". I have capitalist
friends. I just think they are misguided and I tell them so.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are.
agreed.
>True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent
>state.
Don't forget the arbitrary power of omnipotent corporation or bank. Oh, I know, they
never hurt nobody, they's good folks. And your right, they just have the government do
it for them. So, if you remove the government where do you think the guns of the armed
guards they have now are going to be pointing?
Loren Petrich
In article <33B6E0...@mail.sover.net>,
psychopomp <cyko...@mail.sover.net> wrote:
>James A. Donald wrote:
>> Do you think capital descended from the heavens, and the wicked
>> capitalists grabbed it all?
>No, it came from workers, and the capitalists grabbed it all up, and then
redistributed >it as THEY saw fit. I don't think most capitalists are
"wicked". I have capitalist >friends. I just think they are misguided
and I tell them so.
And they do so by (ab)using their positions in corporate
hierarchies. That seems to be a very difficult thing for some people to
understand, except when it is President Clinton who is suspected of
abusing his position.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Michael LeBlanc
In article <5p4u58$9pf$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>,
>> > Do you think capital descended from the heavens, and the wicked
>> > capitalists grabbed it all?
>
>> No, silly boy... it came up from the earth. All capital has its ultimate
>> origin in the idea of land ownership.
>
>Yet curiously, very few of today's rich are descendants of major
>landowners or derived their wealth from land. Indeed in America there
>has been radical and rapid turnover amongst the rich, with very few of
>the rich inheriting significant wealth.
>The six richest Americans all built their fortunes from scratch.
>According to the Stanley Danko survey, fewer than one fifth of
>American millionaires inherited ten percent or more of their wealth,
>and most did not inherit any.
Who said anything about inheritance???
The notion of "capital" (in the sense of "ability to create wealth") has
its origin in the notion of land ownership. Whether land ownership is attained
through force, through inheritance, or through commerce is irrelevant.
If you doubt this, then I'm sure you'll have no problem abolishing private
property since this will clearly have no effect on the workings of capitalism.
Big John
kayak3 wrote:
>
> James A. Donald wrote:
> >
> > > The term "capitalist" denotes a person who doesn't have to
> > > perform work, due to ownership of sufficient profit-producing
> > > assets so that the individual is able to live on dividends,
> > > rent, or interest income.
> >
> > Funny: All the capitalists I know work damn hard.
>
> some who are able to sit on their asses living off of stock dividends.
>
> >
> > capitalists grabbed it all?
>
> took it.
Bushwa!
There are people who can do work, people who can create work to be done,
people who can create opportunities for work to be created, etc. Hard
working laborers who don't have the ability to create their own market
or gather the raw materials to produce goods deserve only that portion
of the finished product's price that they can command from their efforts
in the process. Being a capitalist implies having the ability to attract
capital formation.
Our government would be more efficient if it favored the job creators
more than it currently does and extracted a penalty from those who
choose not to work. Instead of a minimum wage law, there should be a
minimum productivity tax assessed against all adults capable of
productive effort. Productive people, those that produce more than they
consume, are penalized for their success to pay for the shortcomings of
the net consumers. Since our government is itself a large net consumer,
it can be said to be favoring itself and others like it.
There are thousands of entepreneurs in this country who could create
businesses that would produce high paying jobs for hard working laborers
if they had the ability to defer their taxes while growing their
business. I wold love to see a contest where the government awards
$1,000,000.00 to a contest winner who submits a business plan showing
how he or she would use the award to create a business that would
produce jobs that would repay the Million from the income taxes paid by
the newly created labor force in the shortest period of time.
Years ago, when the government guaranteed a loan of about 1.6 Billion to
Chrysler, they knew that if the loan kept Chrysler in business for a
certain number of months, the income taxes received from Chrysler
workers not needing unemployment insurance payments and retraining would
cover any loss they might sustain if Chrysler ultimately went under
without repaying the loan. They won on that gamble when the company
prospered and the loan was repaid early. They would have won anyway, but
most people didn't understand that simple fact.
Big John
Bill Reid
In article <5pc74i$et2$1...@news9.gte.net>, Roger Dapson <rda...@gte.net> wrote:
>Michael LeBlanc wrote:
>>
>> In article <5p4u58$9pf$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>,
>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>> >> > Do you think capital descended from the heavens, and the wicked
>> >> > capitalists grabbed it all?
I'd say capital was produced via human creativity and labor, and the
wicked capitalists grabbed it all, via the enforced rules of capitalism.
>> >dj...@shore.net (Michael LeBlanc) wrote:
>> >> No, silly boy... it came up from the earth. All capital has its ultimate
>> >> origin in the idea of land ownership.
>> >
>> >Yet curiously, very few of today's rich are descendants of major
>> >landowners or derived their wealth from land. Indeed in America there
>> >has been radical and rapid turnover amongst the rich, with very few of
>> >the rich inheriting significant wealth.
How did you find out "there has been radical and rapid turnover amongst
the rich"? Of course all rich people inherited or were handed their
wealth some other way. Capitalism does not reward producers of wealth
with wealth.
>> >The six richest Americans all built their fortunes from scratch.
What do you mean they "built their fortunes from scratch"?
>> >According to the Stanley Danko survey, fewer than one fifth of
>> >American millionaires inherited ten percent or more of their wealth,
>> >and most did not inherit any.
So according to Danko's "survey," possibly four fifths of all Am
millionaires started out with inheritances of $100,000. Wow, guess that
proves they really eked out those fortunes "from scratch." Where are the
workers who produced all that wealth? Deciding between health insurance
and college for their kids?
>> Who said anything about inheritance???
>>
>> The notion of "capital" (in the sense of "ability to create wealth") has
>> its origin in the notion of land ownership. Whether land ownership is
attained
>> through force, through inheritance, or through commerce is irrelevant.
>>
>> If you doubt this, then I'm sure you'll have no problem abolishing private
>> property since this will clearly have no effect on the workings of
capitalism.
>>
>> :Michael
>> Why would anyone want to.
Having clean air and water, having rain forests, eliminating hunger and
eliminating lack of medical care for everyone are just a very few examples
of why people may want to abolish private property.
> Private property is the basis of all civil
>liberties and freedoms as well as economic prosperity.
Please provide the proof for this "fact."
> Who in their
>right mind would want to induce the entire economy to be reduced to a
>subsistence level of existence with masters controlling every aspect
>of their existence.
Who needs straw men, and why?
Bill Reid
In article <5pc7cg$et2$2...@news9.gte.net>, Roger Dapson <rda...@gte.net> wrote:
>Jet Graphics wrote:
>>
>> Lepore wrote:
>> >
>> > it is not correct to say that
>> > > A SHOE SHINE BOY WHO OWNS HIS SHOEBOX
>> > > IS A CAPITALIST.
>> >
>> > The term "capitalist" denotes a person who doesn't have to
>> > perform work, due to ownership of sufficient profit-producing
>> > assets so that the individual is able to live on dividends,
>> > rent, or interest income.
>> >
>> > See Marx, "Capital", chapter 13
>> > http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1867-C1/Part4/ch13.htm
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > lep...@mhv.net
>> Leave it to MARX to LIE, misstate and confuse his readers.
Hey, you're not trying to confuse your readers here are you? Oh yeah, I
forgot capitalist advocates sometimes have trouble hiding their beloved
authoritarianism by which only they may form definitions, thus rendering
authors of alternate defs lyars, etc.
>> FROM WEBSTER'S:
>> CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production,
>> distribution, and exchange are privately owned and operated for private
>> profit.
Wouldn't it have been easier to compare a Webster's def of "capitalist" to
Marx's def of the *same* word?
>> In other words, private property and the freedom to use it.
Are you granting everyone the "freedom" to use private property? What are
you some kind of commie?
>> The anti-capitalists therefore must be against private ownership of
>> the means of production, i.e. land, tools, and labor.
>> An inherent characteristic of the condition you described is a fascist
>government to support the allocation of resources. This is true under
>large scale socialism or communism.
>
>Roger
Yay! I like cartoons!
Saulius Muliolis
Michael LeBlanc wrote:
>
>The notion of "capital" (in the sense of "ability to create wealth") has
>its origin in the notion of land ownership. Whether land ownership is attained
>through force, through inheritance, or through commerce is irrelevant.
>
> If you doubt this, then I'm sure you'll have no problem abolishing private
> property since this will clearly have no effect on the workings of capitalism.
>
not previously aware of. Every dictionary or source i have consulted
defines capitalism as a social-econimoc system in which all property is
privately owned. Without property rights, there can be no capitalism.
Saulius Muliolis
Michael LeBlanc
Roger Dapson
Michael LeBlanc wrote:
>
> In article <5p4u58$9pf$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>,
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> >
> >James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> >> > Do you think capital descended from the heavens, and the wicked
> >> > capitalists grabbed it all?
> >
> >> No, silly boy... it came up from the earth. All capital has its ultimate
> >> origin in the idea of land ownership.
> >
> >Yet curiously, very few of today's rich are descendants of major
> >landowners or derived their wealth from land. Indeed in America there
> >has been radical and rapid turnover amongst the rich, with very few of
> >the rich inheriting significant wealth.
>
> >American millionaires inherited ten percent or more of their wealth,
> >and most did not inherit any.
>
>
> its origin in the notion of land ownership. Whether land ownership is attained
> through force, through inheritance, or through commerce is irrelevant.
>
> If you doubt this, then I'm sure you'll have no problem abolishing private
> property since this will clearly have no effect on the workings of capitalism.
>
> Why would anyone want to. Private property is the basis of all civil
liberties and freedoms as well as economic prosperity. Who in their
subsistence level of existence with masters controlling every aspect
of their existence.
Roger
Roger Dapson
Jet Graphics wrote:
>
> Lepore wrote:
> >
> > it is not correct to say that
> > > IS A CAPITALIST.
> >
> > perform work, due to ownership of sufficient profit-producing
> > assets so that the individual is able to live on dividends,
> > rent, or interest income.
> >
> > See Marx, "Capital", chapter 13
> > http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1867-C1/Part4/ch13.htm
> >
> > --
> >
> > lep...@mhv.net
> Leave it to MARX to LIE, misstate and confuse his readers.
>
> CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production,
> distribution, and exchange are privately owned and operated for private
> profit.
>
>
John Bicketts
>James A. Donald wrote:
>>
>> Lepore <lep...@mhvx.net> wrote:
>> > The term "capitalist" denotes a person who doesn't have to
>> > perform work, due to ownership of sufficient profit-producing
>> > assets so that the individual is able to live on dividends,
>> > rent, or interest income.
>>
>> Funny: All the capitalists I know work damn hard.
So do most thieves. So what?
--John Bicketts
Mailto:sfei...@mach3ww.com
Loren Petrich
>> Why would anyone want to. Private property is the basis of all civil
>liberties and freedoms as well as economic prosperity. Who in their
>right mind would want to induce the entire economy to be reduced to a
>subsistence level of existence with masters controlling every aspect
>of their existence.
Which can happen if these masters are the sole owners of
everything, and decide to exercise unlimited rights over what they own
(there go civil liberties!).
Consider slavery, for example. Property-rights absolutists get
tied up in knots by it, for reasons that everybody else in the world can
clearly see. In the US, one of the big issues surrounding slavery was
whether slaveowners should be compensated for being deprived of their
property when the slaves were freed. As it happened, they weren't, thanx
to that great Communist traitor Abraham Lincoln.
psychopomp
Jet Graphics wrote:
> > The term "capitalist" denotes a person who doesn't have to
> > perform work, due to ownership of sufficient profit-producing
> > assets so that the individual is able to live on dividends,
> > rent, or interest income.
> >
> > See Marx, "Capital", chapter 13
> > http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1867-C1/Part4/ch13.htm
>
> FROM WEBSTER'S:
> CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production,
> distribution, and exchange are privately owned and operated for private
> profit.
Nothing from this definition contradicts what Marx said. And besides, he was talking
about a capitalIST not capitalISM.
> In other words, private property and the freedom to use it.
Slaves were private property.
> The anti-capitalists therefore must be against private ownership of
> the means of production, i.e. land, tools, and labor.
You are correct. And Anarchists are also against the state privately owning property,
as in the USSR and China. Anarchists are for use rights(how many times must I tell
people this). In other words, if you use it, it's yours, if someone else uses it, like
workers using factory machinery, it and the wealth produced from it, is their's.
Saulius Muliolis
psychopomp wrote:
>
> Jet Graphics wrote:
>
> > FROM WEBSTER'S:
> > CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production,
> > distribution, and exchange are privately owned and operated for private
> > profit.
>
> Nothing from this definition contradicts what Marx said. And besides, he was talking
> about a capitalIST not capitalISM.
>
> > In other words, private property and the freedom to use it.
>
> Slaves were private property.
But they or their parents were kidnapped into slavery. Slavery is a
violation
of the slave's property rights, namely his right to himself and his
life. No
person has the right to violate another person's rights.
>
> > The anti-capitalists therefore must be against private ownership of
> > the means of production, i.e. land, tools, and labor.
>
> You are correct. And Anarchists are also against the state privately owning property,
> as in the USSR and China. Anarchists are for use rights(how many times must I tell
> people this). In other words, if you use it, it's yours, if someone else uses it, like
> workers using factory machinery, it and the wealth produced from it, is their's.
Then if I decide I need to use your car, it's mine? I need your car to
make
some deliveries for my courier service. Does it matter that you bought
the car,
that you picked it out and paid for it with your own money, and bought
it
specifically for your own use? I need it to do my work. It should be
mine,
by your theory, since I use it. Does it matter that I have to hot-wire
it, or
hold a gun to your head to gain access to it?
I heard anout a gang that car-jacked someone, then rented out the car.
Were they
only being good Anarchist-Socialists?
Saulius Muliolis.
mul...@en.com
Alexander J Russell
In article <33BE2F5B...@en.com>, muli...@en.com says...
Car-jackings are done at gunpoint. A car with a driver is not unused.
>
>Saulius Muliolis.
>mul...@en.com
You are being thief. If you find an unused car, you could claim it. You can't
just use anyone's car - they are already using it. A parked car is not unused.
In some places people have tried leaving bicycles out that can be used by
anyone. They were painted a distinctive colour and left at public places. the
idea was you would grab one, ride where you are going then leve the bike for
the next person. If enough bikes were scattered about the city there should
always be a bike handy.
In the pilot project I read about all the bikes were stolen after about 6
months.
--
The AnArChIsT! Anarchy! Not Chaos!
aka
Alex Russell
ale...@uniserve.com
psychopomp
> just use anyone's car - they are already using it. A parked car is not unused.
Wow, Alex to the rescue. You're the last person I expected to get any help from.
Thanx. Why the sudden turn to the...oh! I won't even say it. I don't want to interfere
and screw things up. Just stay on the track your on now. You are corect. And I should
have added to my definition of use rights, posession. If you use the car it is your
posession, even when not presently in use.
Saulius Muliolis
What if you BORROW the car, then refuse to give it back because you are
still
using it for your business? Your theory still adds up to theft, since
you claim
that a worker in a factory should have the right to the machines and
tools
he is using. The factory has an owner who bought and paid for the
machines.
just because he hred some workers to do most of the physical work for
him,
doesn't mean that those workers should then own the factory. Their labor
does give them the right to a paycheck, which they have earned, and
that's
what they contracted for. If they claim more than they agreed to, then
that's breach of contract, which is theft. If they don't like the
paycheck,
then they should either negotiate for a raise, or work somewhere else.
Saulius Muliolis.
muli...@en.com
Alexander J Russell
In article <33C34B...@mail.sover.net>, cyko...@mail.sover.net says...
>
>Alexander J Russell wrote:
> Anarchists are for use rights(how many times must
[misconceptions about property rights and use]
>Wow, Alex to the rescue. You're the last person I expected to get any help
from
>.
>Thanx. Why the sudden turn to the...oh! I won't even say it. I don't want to
i
>nterfere
>and screw things up. Just stay on the track your on now. You are corect.
And
>I should
>have added to my definition of use rights, posession. If you use the car it
is
>your
>posession, even when not presently in use.
Didn't you notice the little rider, "a parked car may be in use".
I still belive in property rights, but not the absolute, forever and ever ones
we have now. Your property rights are a combination of owning your own work,
and the things you improve with your work, and the right to continue using
things you use regularly that you have aquired justly.
If you do truly abandon a property, others should be free to claim it.
So I still belive in possesion, and property rights, but with some limits.
Alexander J Russell
In article <33C365A0...@en.com>, muli...@en.com says...
>
>psychopomp wrote:
>>
>> Alexander J Russell wrote:
>
>What if you BORROW the car, then refuse to give it back because you are
>still
If you refuse to return when you agreed to you are no longer borrowing it, you
are stealing it.
>using it for your business? Your theory still adds up to theft, since
>you claim
>that a worker in a factory should have the right to the machines and
>tools
>he is using. The factory has an owner who bought and paid for the
>machines.
You are lending the tools to the workers. the factory owner still owns the
factory and its tools as long as he/she continues to play an active role in
running tha factory. The owner is still 'using' the tools.
>just because he hred some workers to do most of the physical work for
>him,
>doesn't mean that those workers should then own the factory. Their labor
>does give them the right to a paycheck, which they have earned, and
>that's
>what they contracted for. If they claim more than they agreed to, then
>that's breach of contract, which is theft. If they don't like the
>paycheck,
>then they should either negotiate for a raise, or work somewhere else.
I agree fully.
>
>Saulius Muliolis.
>muli...@en.com
What if the factory owner hires a manager, then goes on a extended vaction. No
one hears from him for two years. Should the workers, and the current manager
have the right to assume the ownership of the factory?
Saulius Muliolis
Alexander J Russell wrote:
>
> In article <33C365A0...@en.com>, muli...@en.com says...
> >
> >psychopomp wrote:
> >>
> >> Alexander J Russell wrote:
> >
> >What if you BORROW the car, then refuse to give it back because you are
> >still
>
> If you refuse to return when you agreed to you are no longer borrowing it, you
> are stealing it.
That is exactly my point. However, under this "use rights" theory, if I
understand it correctly, if you use it, then it's yours, and therefore
it is not theft.
If I misunderstand, then please explain this theory.
>
> >using it for your business? Your theory still adds up to theft, since
> >you claim
> >that a worker in a factory should have the right to the machines and
> >tools
> >he is using. The factory has an owner who bought and paid for the
> >machines.
>
> You are lending the tools to the workers. the factory owner still owns the
> factory and its tools as long as he/she continues to play an active role in
> running tha factory. The owner is still 'using' the tools.
Yes. But that is not what gives him the right to that factory as his
property.
What does give him that right is the fact that he earned (or borrowed
and paid
back) the money to buy or build that factory. It is a business that he
created
with his own labor and labor that he paid for in wages.
>
> >just because he hred some workers to do most of the physical work for
> >him,
> >doesn't mean that those workers should then own the factory. Their labor
> >does give them the right to a paycheck, which they have earned, and
> >that's
> >what they contracted for. If they claim more than they agreed to, then
> >that's breach of contract, which is theft. If they don't like the
> >paycheck,
> >then they should either negotiate for a raise, or work somewhere else.
>
> I agree fully.
>
Then what are we arguing about?
>
> What if the factory owner hires a manager, then goes on a extended vaction. No
> one hears from him for two years. Should the workers, and the current manager
> have the right to assume the ownership of the factory?
>
No. What happens if the owner never returns is a complex legal issue,
which
depends on such things as whether he has any heirs, what kind of a will
he
left, what debts he has, and so forth. But the workers at the factory
have
no claim on it unless they have not been paid. If they have been
properly
compensated for their work, as was contracted, then the only claim they
have
on the factory is the fact that it would be a good idea for the next
owner
to hire them, since they have experience in that factory.
My problem with this whole "use rights" theory is that this guy
"psychopomp"
seems to use it as an excuse for stealing from legitimate business
owners.
Otherwise, how is he proposing to implement his anarcho-socialist
theories?
Saulius Muliolis
muli...@en.com
Alexander J Russell
In article <33C43DCD...@en.com>, muli...@en.com says...
>
>Alexander J Russell wrote:
>>
>> In article <33C365A0...@en.com>, muli...@en.com says...
>> >
>> >psychopomp wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Alexander J Russell wrote:
>> >
>> >What if you BORROW the car, then refuse to give it back because you are
>> >still
>>
>> If you refuse to return when you agreed to you are no longer borrowing it,
you
>> are stealing it.
>
>That is exactly my point. However, under this "use rights" theory, if I
>understand it correctly, if you use it, then it's yours, and therefore
>it is not theft.
>If I misunderstand, then please explain this theory.
You may buy property, you may work to create property, and it is your, as long
as you continue to use it. If you abondon it, others may then claim it. You may
also sell your property instead of abandoning it. Parking your car for a week
or two is not abandoning it.
This prevents hoarding scarce resources.
[snip - factory owner is using the factory when he hires workers]
>Then what are we arguing about?
I think we are not, but others will be happy to arhue with us.
>>
>> What if the factory owner hires a manager, then goes on a extended vaction.
No
>> one hears from him for two years. Should the workers, and the current
manager
>> have the right to assume the ownership of the factory?
>>
>No. What happens if the owner never returns is a complex legal issue,
>which
>depends on such things as whether he has any heirs, what kind of a will
>he
>left, what debts he has, and so forth. But the workers at the factory
>have
>no claim on it unless they have not been paid. If they have been
>properly
>compensated for their work, as was contracted, then the only claim they
>have
>on the factory is the fact that it would be a good idea for the next
>owner
>to hire them, since they have experience in that factory.
>
There is no will. His potential heirs are not involved in the bussiness at all,
and thus have no claim on it. Wouldn't the current manager and the workers
then have the best claim on the factory?
>My problem with this whole "use rights" theory is that this guy
>"psychopomp"
>seems to use it as an excuse for stealing from legitimate business
>owners.
>Otherwise, how is he proposing to implement his anarcho-socialist
>theories?
Some do seem to think that 'use rights' means the can grap anything that isn't
being actively use right now, but i so not think that is reasonable.
On the other hand 'use rights' is a nice fair tool to help prevent the
concentration of wealth in only a few large rich families or corporations.
>
>Saulius Muliolis
>muli...@en.com
Saulius Muliolis
Alexander J Russell wrote:
>
> Some do seem to think that 'use rights' means the can grap anything that isn't
> being actively use right now, but i so not think that is reasonable.
>
> On the other hand 'use rights' is a nice fair tool to help prevent the
> concentration of wealth in only a few large rich families or corporations.
>
the workers hands? How is such concentration prevented if they keep tabs
on it?
By the way, what you call "hoarding", other people call "saving for a
rainy day".
Saulius Muliolis
muli...@en.com
Craig Shields
> >> >dj...@shore.net (Michael LeBlanc) wrote:
> >> >> No, silly boy... it came up from the earth. All capital has its
ultimate
> >> >> origin in the idea of land ownership.
> >> >
> >> >Yet curiously, very few of today's rich are descendants of major
> >> >landowners or derived their wealth from land. Indeed in America
there
> >> >has been radical and rapid turnover amongst the rich, with very few
of
> >> >the rich inheriting significant wealth.
>
> How did you find out "there has been radical and rapid turnover amongst
> the rich"? Of course all rich people inherited or were handed their
> wealth some other way. Capitalism does not reward producers of wealth
> with wealth.
Um...Bill Gates? The founders of 3-Com and Netscape? Hell, I design new
products that people want to buy. When they buy the products which I
have designed (because they believe these products to be the best bang for
their respective buck or because my products help them to become more
efficient) I am rewarded. I have created something new and sold it,
therefore
creating wealth, and I am rewarded for it.
Or maybe you have a different definition of whom created wealth.
> >> >The six richest Americans all built their fortunes from scratch.
>
> What do you mean they "built their fortunes from scratch"?
How about Sam Walton? He started putting stores into areas which
K-Mart, etc. thought to be unprofitable. It was his vision which caused
him to build his fortune. How about Gates. As much as Windows irks
me, he certainly built his fortune.
> >> >According to the Stanley Danko survey, fewer than one fifth of
> >> >American millionaires inherited ten percent or more of their wealth,
> >> >and most did not inherit any.
>
>
> So according to Danko's "survey," possibly four fifths of all Am
> millionaires started out with inheritances of $100,000. Wow, guess that
> proves they really eked out those fortunes "from scratch." Where are the
> workers who produced all that wealth? Deciding between health insurance
> and college for their kids?
Even at 10% interest, $100,000 sitting in a mutual fund will not become a
"fortune". To make it grow into one requires vision, drive, and a certain
degree of luck. Yes, having capital to start with certainly makes the job
easier,
but with the large amount of venture capital floating around, good ideas
with good business plans can easily find funding. Ask Netscape.
> >> Who said anything about inheritance???
> >>
> >> The notion of "capital" (in the sense of "ability to create wealth")
has
> >> its origin in the notion of land ownership. Whether land ownership is
> attained
> >> through force, through inheritance, or through commerce is irrelevant.
> >>
> >> If you doubt this, then I'm sure you'll have no problem abolishing
private
> >> property since this will clearly have no effect on the workings of
> capitalism.
> >>
> >> :Michael
> >> Why would anyone want to.
>
>
> Having clean air and water, having rain forests, eliminating hunger and
> eliminating lack of medical care for everyone are just a very few
examples
> of why people may want to abolish private property.
How would abolishing private property accomplish these goals?
1) Pharmaceutical research is a lengthy and risky operation. Why would
anyone undertake it if there was not the chance to profit off any
discoveries?
2) Market forces have been more effective in curtailing pollution that any
mandate. For example, "Pollution Licenses" caused Clean Air targets to be
met *ahead* of schedule for *less* than anticipated.
> > Private property is the basis of all civil
> >liberties and freedoms as well as economic prosperity.
>
>
> Please provide the proof for this "fact."
Name one society which has been able to provide a comfortable standard
of living without having solid property rights. For that matter, name one
country that has political freedom without property rights. The two are
very heavily intertwined.
-- Craig
--------------------------------
But masters, remember that I am an ass...
-William Shakespeare
--------------------------------
James A. Donald
br...@din.com (Bill Reid) wrote:
> How did you find out "there has been radical and rapid turnover amongst
> the rich"? Of course all rich people inherited or were handed their
> wealth some other way. Capitalism does not reward producers of wealth
> with wealth.
The Forbes 400 changes pretty rapidly.
The Stanley Danko survery, quoted on page 68, US News and Word Report,
April 14, 1997. says that furew than one fifht of millionaires
inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth, and most did not get a
single dollar.
Nearly half of the millionaires in their survey paid their own way
through college with no help from relatives or friends.
>So according to Danko's "survey," possibly four fifths of all Am
>millionaires started out with inheritances of $100,000.
You have this back to front: Less than one fifth, not four fifths, of
all American millionaires inherited ten percent or more at at any
stage of their careers
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com
Alexander J Russell
In article <33C6014F...@en.com>, muli...@en.com says...
By hoarding I mean having more of something than you could use in your life.
e.g. 20 pickup trucks of the same type for one person.
You are right that these "use rights" will not help alot if people are careful.
Loren Petrich
In article <01bc8e40$b0ce4310$5749d0cf@pumpboy>,
Craig Shields <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>Um...Bill Gates?
Niccolo Machiavelli would have admired him.
[other groveling before Heroes of Capitalist Labor deleted...]
Lepore
Huh? I defined "capitalist" [noun form] and then you said I
was wrong, and you defined "capitalism"! They're different
words. Notice that one word has an "m" in it where the other
has a "t".
...
...
> > Lepore wrote:
> > > it is not correct to say that
> > > > A SHOE SHINE BOY WHO OWNS HIS SHOEBOX
> > > > IS A CAPITALIST.
> > > The term "capitalist" denotes a person who doesn't have to
> > > perform work, due to ownership of sufficient profit-producing
> > > assets so that the individual is able to live on dividends,
> > > rent, or interest income.
> > > See Marx, "Capital", chapter 13
> > > http://csf.Colorado.EDU/psn/marx/Archive/1867-C1/Part4/ch13.htm
> >
> > Leave it to MARX to LIE, misstate and confuse his readers.
> > FROM WEBSTER'S:
> > CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production,
> > distribution, and exchange are privately owned and operated for private
> > profit....
...
Craig Shields
Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote in article
<petrichE...@netcom.com>...
> In article <01bc8e40$b0ce4310$5749d0cf@pumpboy>,
> Craig Shields <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
> >Um...Bill Gates?
>
> Niccolo Machiavelli would have admired him.
>
> [other groveling before Heroes of Capitalist Labor deleted...]
>
> --
> Loren Petrich
Interesting way to snip my entire post down to three words (and since two
of them involve that guy from Redmond, it makes it even harder to defend).
However, I can't pass this one up. Explain the Macchivelli quote. Gates
may be a shrewd businessman, but I hardly see him in the cast of
Macchiavelli (or have you even read The Prince, Loren). Or course, judging
by the typical oh-so-intellectual responses that you post (that is, you
have never rebutted a single argument of mine - you only throw out vacuous
platitudes), I think good old Niccolo would have something to say about
you..."For the ordinary people are fooled by the appearance and by the
outcome of a thing. And in this world, there is nothing but ordinary
people".
Loren Petrich
In article <01bc906e$0312fe70$5749d0cf@pumpboy>,
Craig Shields <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote in article
><petrichE...@netcom.com>...
>> In article <01bc8e40$b0ce4310$5749d0cf@pumpboy>,
>> Craig Shields <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>> >Um...Bill Gates?
>> Niccolo Machiavelli would have admired him.
>Interesting way to snip my entire post down to three words (and since two
>of them involve that guy from Redmond, it makes it even harder to defend).
>However, I can't pass this one up. Explain the Macchivelli quote. Gates
>may be a shrewd businessman, but I hardly see him in the cast of
>Macchiavelli (or have you even read The Prince, Loren). ...
Simple. Niccolo Machiavelli explained in _The Prince_ how to win
in Italian politics of 5 centuries ago; even popes were known to be very
crooked.
Bertrand Russell suggests in _A History of Western Philosophy_
that NM would have admired Adolf Hitler for such ingenious tricks as the
Reichstag Fire (send your underlings to set a fire and then howl that the
Commies are on the march and how it is necessary for him to take over in
order to restore order) and the breach of faith at Munich (he claimed that
the Sudetenland regions of Czechoslovakia were the last bit of territory
he wanted -- and then took over the rest of that nation), while deploring
what he had tried to do.
Thus, NM might have admired Bill Gates for his ingenious scams,
while deploring the sort of inadequate software that BG has foisted upon
the world.
As BR notes, NM was remarkably free from superstition; in his
political theorizing, he does not discuss what happened in the Garden of
Eden, as many later political theorists were to do -- he was not
concerned with theories of legitimacy; only with what works best.
T.Asquith
On Thu, 17 Jul 1997 15:59:02 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
wrote:
>In article <01bc906e$0312fe70$5749d0cf@pumpboy>,
>Craig Shields <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>>Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote in article
>><petrichE...@netcom.com>...
>>> In article <01bc8e40$b0ce4310$5749d0cf@pumpboy>,
>>> Craig Shields <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>>Interesting way to snip my entire post down to three words (and since two
>>of them involve that guy from Redmond, it makes it even harder to defend).
>
>>However, I can't pass this one up. Explain the Macchivelli quote. Gates
>>may be a shrewd businessman, but I hardly see him in the cast of
>>Macchiavelli (or have you even read The Prince, Loren). ...
Petrich:
> Simple. Niccolo Machiavelli explained in _The Prince_ how to win
>in Italian politics of 5 centuries ago; even popes were known to be very
>crooked.
TA:
And in the Discoursi, he demonstrated the importance of democracy, and
in the Art of War, he clarified the importance of involving the
citizenry in the defence of their nation. So?
--
Petrich:
> Bertrand Russell suggests in _A History of Western Philosophy_
>that NM would have admired Adolf Hitler for such ingenious tricks as the
>Reichstag Fire (send your underlings to set a fire and then howl that the
>Commies are on the march and how it is necessary for him to take over in
>order to restore order) and the breach of faith at Munich (he claimed that
>the Sudetenland regions of Czechoslovakia were the last bit of territory
>he wanted -- and then took over the rest of that nation), while deploring
>what he had tried to do.
TA:
But Bertrand Russell has been criticized as one of those people who
didn't really read Machiavelli or understand him for that matter.
Further, Hitler doesn't quite fit the Machiavellian mould. He
listened to flatterers. He over-extended his forces and used
outsiders to form the base of his army. He even used mercenaries
at a couple of points during the war--a lousy example of Machiavellian
politics, to say the least. Francesco Franco or Margaret Thatcher
would have been better examples.
--
Petrich:
> Thus, NM might have admired Bill Gates for his ingenious scams,
>while deploring the sort of inadequate software that BG has foisted upon
>the world.
> As BR notes, NM was remarkably free from superstition; in his
>political theorizing, he does not discuss what happened in the Garden of
>Eden, as many later political theorists were to do -- he was not
>concerned with theories of legitimacy; only with what works best.
Ok, I would agree with you that Machiavelli was concerned to a certain
extent on what would be the most effective means of doing things
(politics wise). But I still can't believe that you would think that
Mach would have liked him.
As I see it, Machiavelli would have found Bill Gates to be rather
pathetic--for the same reasons he found the nobles to be of
questionable nature: he buys influence turning citizens into
partisans. He is even alienating himself from his nearby neighbors
(if we are to believe the last two articles that have come off the
newswire about "Pearly Gates" Manor). He fits Machiavelli's mould
rather badly.
True, he has built an empire--but he has set himself apart from
his community's and his nation's concerns. Indeed, he runs
the risk of personally alienating himself from the majority of the
buying public--which I suspect could potentially spell the end
of Microsoft (if he is not too careful).
----
Tom Asquith
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
University of Alberta
tasquith 'at' gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
To reply: kill the "SPAMBOT" in the replyto address
*************************************************************************
* "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent *
* suffer." *
* -- Sir William Blackstone *
*************************************************************************
T.Asquith
On Sat, 12 Jul 1997 07:17:20 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
wrote:
>In article <01bc8e40$b0ce4310$5749d0cf@pumpboy>,
>Craig Shields <postmaster@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>>Um...Bill Gates?
>
> Niccolo Machiavelli would have admired him.
>
> [other groveling before Heroes of Capitalist Labor deleted...]
I don't know if he would have.
Mach was a 14th century political scientist and historian. How he
could possibly have admired him is a puzzle to me. He has neither
showed signs of virtu nor any real desire to contribute to civil
republicanism. He has shown very little evidence of building basic
citizenship--only making money and engulfing smaller businesses.
I'm sorry but I can't agree.
Loren Petrich
In article <3424676...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>,
T.Asquith <tasq...@SPAMBOT.gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>Mach was a 14th century political scientist and historian. How he
>could possibly have admired him is a puzzle to me. He has neither
>showed signs of virtu nor any real desire to contribute to civil
>republicanism. He has shown very little evidence of building basic
>citizenship--only making money and engulfing smaller businesses.
>I'm sorry but I can't agree.
You are certainly correct if you consider the goals of NM and BG.
What BG might admire is NM's "The Prince" -- he seems as if he has taken
that as a manual on how to succeed. Like say how great OS/2 was, then pull
out Windoze 3.0, complete with a suit of apps for it.
T.Asquith
On Wed, 23 Jul 1997 08:45:13 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
wrote:
>In article <3424676...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>,
>T.Asquith <tasq...@SPAMBOT.gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>>Mach was a 14th century political scientist and historian. How he
>>could possibly have admired him is a puzzle to me. He has neither
>>showed signs of virtu nor any real desire to contribute to civil
>>republicanism. He has shown very little evidence of building basic
>>citizenship--only making money and engulfing smaller businesses.
>
>>I'm sorry but I can't agree.
>
> You are certainly correct if you consider the goals of NM and BG.
>What BG might admire is NM's "The Prince" -- he seems as if he has taken
>that as a manual on how to succeed. Like say how great OS/2 was, then pull
>out Windoze 3.0, complete with a suit of apps for it.
Regardless of whether it is true or not, you have proposed an
interesting thesis. Does Bill Gates (whom I respect immensely)
actually follow Machiavelli's prescription for a leader in "The
Prince"? I think you might be wrong on this one.
Machiavelli's Prince, as we both seem to know, described a means by
which Florence could be taken back by the Italians (and it seems that
part of the reason for the Prince was that Machiavelli believed that
it might be through the "tyrant" that the people might once again get
control over their destinies--see XXVI). This doesn't seem to
describe Gates very well--indeed, if he is the true capitalist, he is
basically out for himself (despite the appearance of such in the AP
article which appeared three years ago).
It does seem though that he has followed the cruelty/mercy policy
that Mach suggests in XVII--if the rumour that he chops the lower
less productive echelon at Microsoft is in fact true. But
realistically speaking, if he was really concerned about his image
he would have hired an Orco to do his dirty work for him. Instead
what we see is the blame is transferred directly to him when things go
wrong.
I don't think you're on the right track with this one. Donald Trump
would have worked better (but he seems to be constantly held hostage
by women, which suggests otherwise). Also, how could you fix him
with the fox and lion metaphor that Machiavelli so loves? I can't
really see that sticking.
Don Ballanger
I think the problem here is not who most deserves to be millionaires,
those that inherit an advantage or those that carve one out but why
it is necessary for humanity to have millionaires at all !
I mean, what useful function do they serve on their way up, when they're
there, and after they're gone ? All they do is perpetuate the myth of
success which is then used to justify all means of exploitation and
inhumanity in our society.
The big problem is what exactly to do about aggressiveness and
individual egoism that is socially destructive not only
specifically but also indirectly by the example it sets for
others.
T.Asquith
On Sat, 12 Jul 1997 03:40:09 GMT, jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
wrote:
>br...@din.com (Bill Reid) wrote:
>> How did you find out "there has been radical and rapid turnover amongst
>> the rich"? Of course all rich people inherited or were handed their
>> wealth some other way. Capitalism does not reward producers of wealth
>> with wealth.
>
>The Forbes 400 changes pretty rapidly.
>
>The Stanley Danko survery, quoted on page 68, US News and Word Report,
>April 14, 1997. says that furew than one fifht of millionaires
>inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth, and most did not get a
>single dollar.
>
>Nearly half of the millionaires in their survey paid their own way
>through college with no help from relatives or friends.
It depends on how you define relatives and friends. How does one
usually qualify for a scholarship or a bursary? How about working
through college--could you count in such a list the people who get
a nifty job with a firm via a friend's reference or assistance? What
about getting the position in a company after graduating?
The myth of the self-made man is alive and kicking, it seems.
--
----
Tom Asquith
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
University of Alberta
tasquith-AT-gpu-DOT-srv-DOT-ualberta-DOT-ca
To reply: kill the "SPAMBOT" in the replyto address
*************************************************************************
* "It is possible to own too much. A man with one watch knows what * *
* time it is; a man with two watches is never quite sure." *
* --Lee Segal *
*************************************************************************
Alexander J Russell
In article <33DC9F...@idirect.com>, boi...@idirect.com says...
>
>James A. Donald wrote:
[snip - most millionaires earned it]
>
>I think the problem here is not who most deserves to be millionaires,
>those that inherit an advantage or those that carve one out but why
>it is necessary for humanity to have millionaires at all !
>
>I mean, what useful function do they serve on their way up, when they're
>there, and after they're gone ? All they do is perpetuate the myth of
>success which is then used to justify all means of exploitation and
>inhumanity in our society.
>
>The big problem is what exactly to do about aggressiveness and
>individual egoism that is socially destructive not only
>specifically but also indirectly by the example it sets for
>others.
Why should we be worried about overly ambitious people - as long as they are
not directly harming anyone? Most millionaires spread a lot of wealth around,
jobs, factories, etc... this is a good thing.
Their being rich doesn't mean someone else is poorer.
Unless you can prove the millionaire's actions are directly harming someone
else, no one has any right to interfere with them.
James A. donald
On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 08:31:34 -0500, Don Ballanger
<boi...@idirect.com> wrote:
> I think the problem here is not who most deserves to be millionaires,
> those that inherit an advantage or those that carve one out but why
> it is necessary for humanity to have millionaires at all !
Think what would be necessary to stop people from becoming
millionaires.
Those people who became millionaires, became millionaires because
other people chose to pay them for goods or services they created.
To prevent this sort of thing you need a vast and intrusive apparatus
to interfere in the minute details of peoples lives.
Loren Petrich
In article <33e87786...@news.jps.net>,
James A. donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>Those people who became millionaires, became millionaires because
>other people chose to pay them for goods or services they created.
That's right -- you give most of your money to the richest people
you know.
And goverments get revenues by people choosing to live under
their authority and paying the requisite fees (taxes).
Taxes are 100% voluntary; if you don't like them, you can move to
international waters. Nobody will stop you, so don't whine.
JMWindgate
In article <33e87786...@news.jps.net>, jam...@echeque.com (James A.
donald) writes:
>
>Think what would be necessary to stop people from becoming
>millionaires.
>
>
What's needed is for humans to stop being so greedy and to mature with
regards as to how they realate to each other, and to themselves....
Be Well...
Shalom,
Nicole Maschke
aka/Jupiter Windgate
P.O. Box 602696, Cleve., OH, 44102
http://members.aol.com/jmwindgate/jmwindgate.html
ICQ # : 439028
Pager #: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/439028
The Mind is Like A Book.. Open it and learn...
Lepore
James A. donald wrote:
...
> Think what would be necessary to stop people from becoming
> millionaires.
It would take the availability of nonprofit industries, so
that consumers could get everything they need by paying
only the cost of production.
> Those people who became millionaires, became millionaires because
> other people chose to pay them for goods or services they created.
An event occurs due to a long chain of events and preconditions,
but you say it occurs "because..." -- and you name only one of
the preconditions. I think you are omitting the most important
one: the *magnitude* of what people pay. I chose to buy a new
car; I didn't choose the fact that a new car costs $15,000.
If I could get the identical new car for $3000, I wouldn't be
so insane as to pay $15,000. So if we want to list a "because"
for some people becoming millionaires, I would focus on the
magnitude of the dollars, not on the fact that buyers choose
to be buyers. We need nonprofit industries.
> To prevent this sort of thing you need a vast and intrusive apparatus
> to interfere in the minute details of peoples lives.
So it's like this? Taking from the poor to give to the rich
is normal, but ceasing that flow would be an intrusion?
JMH
Lepore wrote:
>
> James A. donald wrote:
>
> ...
> > Think what would be necessary to stop people from becoming
> > millionaires.
>
> It would take the availability of nonprofit industries, so
> that consumers could get everything they need by paying
> only the cost of production.
I presume that the non-profit businesses in your theory
will actually behave differently than they currently do.
JMH
--
"Once conform, once do what others do because they do it, and
a kind of lethargy steals over all the finer senses of the soul."
Montaigne
Caesar
Yes, millionaires are needed. They give right-wing politicans
lots of campaign contributions :)
Henry Blaskowski
Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <33e87786...@news.jps.net>,
> James A. donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
> >Those people who became millionaires, became millionaires because
> >other people chose to pay them for goods or services they created.
> That's right -- you give most of your money to the richest people
> you know.
I don't do any such thing. I give my money to those who serve me best.
Sometimes it is the owner of a large corporation. Sometimes it is
millions of small investors like myself who managed to scrape a few
dollars together and buy into a promising company. Sometimes it is
a struggling sole proprietor. In one sense, you are right, though.
I keep careful track of my spending, and the majority of my money
does go to the parasitic rich. In fact, more of my money goes to taxes
than to housing, food, clothes, cars and computers all put together.
Yes, that's right, most of my money goes to the undeserving rich
whose only ability in life is to win elections and sell me out for
lobbyist treats.
> And goverments get revenues by people choosing to live under
> their authority and paying the requisite fees (taxes).
> Taxes are 100% voluntary; if you don't like them, you can move to
> international waters. Nobody will stop you, so don't whine.
Yes, I know you like to repeat this nonsense, but it still isn't true.
First of all, none of the existing countries will allow you to move
outside their reach and form your own community. One of them would
claim you and your assests as soon as your success made it worth
their time.
Oh, and just inserting the word "whine" into a paragragh randomly
isn't the same as discussion. It's name calling and does nothing
for your credibility.
Also, I got a random phrase generator, too: Loren moved to international
waters with Ayn Rand and whined about the recent episode of Star Trek
that took place in Somalia.
How do you like it?
hblask
Chris Nelson
Too bad the billionaires (Gates, Riady, et al) are giving to the other
side.
Caesar <Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<870372...@augur.demon.co.uk>...
:
: Yes, millionaires are needed. They give right-wing politicans
:
:
:
Saulius Muliolis
Don Ballanger wrote:
>
> I think the problem here is not who most deserves to be millionaires,
> those that inherit an advantage or those that carve one out but why
> it is necessary for humanity to have millionaires at all !
>
blacks. No it is not, but they do have every right to exist.
> I mean, what useful function do they serve on their way up, when they're
> there, and after they're gone ? All they do is perpetuate the myth of
> success which is then used to justify all means of exploitation and
> inhumanity in our society.
>
They don't have to "serve a function", except their own. They are
people, too,
and have every right to exist for their own sake. Every person is an end
in
him/herself.
> The big problem is what exactly to do about aggressiveness and
> individual egoism that is socially destructive not only
> specifically but also indirectly by the example it sets for
> others.
Individualism is not destructive. It is actually constructive. A person
who has no self esteem is incapable of productive work.
Saulius Muliolis
muli...@en.com
G*rd*n
Don Ballanger wrote:
| > I think the problem here is not who most deserves to be millionaires,
| > those that inherit an advantage or those that carve one out but why
| > it is necessary for humanity to have millionaires at all !
Saulius Muliolis <muli...@en.com>:
| That's like asking if it is necessary for humanity to have Jews or
| blacks. No it is not, but they do have every right to exist.
| ...
Yes, and so do the millionaires. I think the only way Don's
question makes any sense is to understand it as "Does
humanity need to construct the social role 'millionaire'?"
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
-----------------------------------------------
NOTE: if your ISP permits junkmailing, you will
probably not be able to reach me by email.
mar...@juno.com
Microsoft employees who donated money to the homeless shelter I ran for 3
years (very left, very anarchistic) were matched 1-1 by bill gates'
personal funds. You would get a letter from each donor. The bill gates
one was a signed personal one. That means if 10 people each donated 5000
to the shelter, he donated that same amount and sent 10 personal letters
as well. Anyone private individs, I don't care how "yuppy scum" they are,
who kept us away from United Way, was alright in my book. s/ prime
In article <01bc9ef6$af171440$4b6f8ecf@our-computer>,
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Lenny Gray
If the kings of old _took_ what they could and then _let_ people use it,
did that make its "ownership" by that king anything other than "taking"?
If, later, it was decided that _others_ could "own" the land which was
_taken_, does that cancel the fact that it was "taken" to start with?
If everyone agrees that "nothing can be done" about "conquered people"
_losing_ the "right" to their land, does that erase the fact that the
"taking" happened?
If someone buys something from a thief, fair-and-square, is it then "just
too bad" about the guy whose stuff was originally "taken", if recompense
by the thief is not an option?
If, rather than as is normally assumed, "Nature's God" originally gave
the land to "the _people_" and those who took it from them are _not_
"recognized" by that God, then isn't it possible the "stolen property"
_should_ be returned to the rightful original owners?
If theft victims forcibly take back their stolen stuff, is that "theft"?
If a large group of "the weak" do something describable as "ganging up"
on one or a small group of "the strong", is that worse than when one or
a small group of "the strong" gang up on or victimize one or a group of
"the weak"?
Is it worse than when _one_ of the strong victimizes one or a small
number of "the weak"?
Is it worse if that large group of the weak constitute a "majority"
or a "trade union"?
Would it be _so_ "wrong" if such a group _took_ lots of stuff?
- Lenny Gray -
Lenny Gray
On 6 Aug 1997 00:40:11 GMT, ale...@uniserve.com (Alexander J Russell) wrote:
>In article <33e77510...@news.alt.net>, lenn...@calwest.net says...
>>
>>
>>If the kings of old _took_ what they could and then _let_ people use it,
>>did that make its "ownership" by that king anything other than "taking"?
>
>No. It was just taking if the king didn't do something usefull with it, and not
>force anyone off the land to get it. If you use force to do or get something it
>is wrong unless defending yourself.
Ahhhh. So, if I come across "your" car, and _declare_ that it is mine, then
that's okay (assuming I declare it so when you're not around so no force is
used). I _will_ do something useful with it.
And after establishing that ownership by such un-wrong "taking", I kill you
when you come around to "steal" it, because I'll be defending myself (or, as
you seem to take as implicit in okaying the "ownership" after the fact --
defending "my" _property_.)
>>If, later, it was decided that _others_ could "own" the land which was
>>_taken_, does that cancel the fact that it was "taken" to start with?
>
>Eventually, if the current owner is actually using the land productively it
>might make the initial 'taking' moot. This is a big sticky question.
As will my use of "your" car. I think I may find your house empty at some
point, too, since I now have the mobility of a car.
>>If everyone agrees that "nothing can be done" about "conquered people"
>>_losing_ the "right" to their land, does that erase the fact that the
>>"taking" happened?
>
>It doesn't erase it, but after a few hundred years the people it was taken from
>are all dead, and who actually has a valid claim can be unclear. It is then
>impractical to try to rectify the origianl taking, but it may be practical to
>repair existing inequeties based on the current situation.
So, perhaps Cuba might be acknowledged as "belonging" to Castro and friends?
Or will _that_ claim be _forever_ rejected because the claimant is, well,
just "EVIL"? It matters not that Castro's group-possession is now just as
long-standing as was the previous generation who _took_ it before them. Eh?
>>If someone buys something from a thief, fair-and-square, is it then "just
>>too bad" about the guy whose stuff was originally "taken", if recompense
>>by the thief is not an option?
>
>Depends on how long ago it was stolen. If the situation is discovered within a
>a few(?) years the person who bought the stole property should return it to the
>rightful owner, and then seek out the thief for compensation.
Please actually do _read_ the words. The case I asked about was when
"recompense by the thief is _not_ an option".
Anyway, so you seem to be implying that once it's not _practical_ to render
"justice", said "justice" is no longer _necessary_?
>Oh, and it can't be fair if it stolen.
The buyer, not _knowing_ the item is stolen, does his _buying_ "fairly",
doesn't he? That's where _his_ claim comes from, doesn't it?
>>If, rather than as is normally assumed, "Nature's God" originally gave
>>the land to "the _people_" and those who took it from them are _not_
>>"recognized" by that God, then isn't it possible the "stolen property"
>>_should_ be returned to the rightful original owners?
>
>The righful owner is the person who did the work to make the land valuable. If
>the land is unimproved the next person who comes along should be able to claim
>it.
There's a natural "value" to land that comes from the fact that _weeds_
grow on it, in the sun and rain. Animals (sufficient for food) thrive
on such weeds, and thus they _are_ "food", supplied by "Mother Nature".
Cultivation does not "make" land valuable. It may _increase_ its value.
But then, perhaps, a similar argument might be made of _all_ property --
"_I_ can do better with that stuff, so it's my right to take it from you".
Is _that_ the meaning of "Manifest Destiny"?
>It becomes unclear when people are forced off land, long ago, then the current
>owner actually uses it productively, and enough time has passed that it is
>unclear who should be compensated for the original theft.
There's direct evidence that "we" (the USofA) forcefully "steal" the land
(and lives) of the rest of the world (just as we did the Native Americans --
just by uttering the magic words "Manifest Destiny") to this day.
>>If theft victims forcibly take back their stolen stuff, is that "theft"?
>No.
Good answer.
>>If a large group of "the weak" do something describable as "ganging up"
>>on one or a small group of "the strong", is that worse than when one or
>>a small group of "the strong" gang up on or victimize one or a group of
>>"the weak"?
>
>All violence is equally wrong.
What about when the ganging up _is_ a case of "theft victims forcibly
taking back their stolen stuff"?!
>>Is it worse than when _one_ of the strong victimizes one or a small
>>number of "the weak"?
>
>Equally wrong.
In other words, NO, right? It _isn't_ "worse".
>>Is it worse if that large group of the weak constitute a "majority"
>>or a "trade union"?
>
>Force is never right, no matter what name it goes by.
In other words _NO_, right? It _isn't_ "worse". Right?
>>Would it be _so_ "wrong" if such a group _took_ lots of stuff?
>
>Yes. 'Took' implies using force to take the stuff from its rightful owners.
Not necessarily. What if it's the case of "took _back_"?!
>>- Lenny Gray -
>>
>
>Sorting out the very real wrongs commited by governments of the past regarding
>land ownership is not a simple question to sort out. I have no idea how it
>might be rectified fairly - without punishing current innocent owners.
What about the wrongs committed by governments in the _present_? One of
the reasons "our" government can't _consider_ "apologizing" to Blacks for
"slavery" and its resulting perpetuated inequities, is that "we" _continue_
to believe that it _wasn't_ wrong, and that "we" can and should continue
to do it today. Different victims, but the principle is still considered
good. Chinese, VietNamese, and Indonesian peasants, producing Nike shoes,
etc, for just the value of enough _food_ to survive for the same number of
days they _work_, is tantamount to slavery.
But, in the bigger context, we can put "justice" off, as "out of sight out
of mind". And then, when the victims are dead, it's _over_. Or when it's
too inconvenient to adjudicate recompense, it's similarly _over_. How
totally _Christian_!! _Take_ the Lives of others (or at least their time
and freedom to live them) -- then claim the gift: "My sins are forgiven."
>--
>The AnArChIsT! Anarchy! Not Chaos!
I've often wondered, whether people, seeing the word "Anarchist" actually
see it as "Anti-Christ", and just hate those who claim the word as their
own, merely because it reminds them of the pre-defined synonym for "evil".
Similarly, I wonder how the major religion of our times, "Anti-Socialism"
isn't noticed to be "anti-social-ism" and finally "Antisocial"-ism.
>aka
>Alex Russell
>ale...@uniserve.com
- Lenny Gray -
Victor Levis
Lenny Gray <lenn...@calwest.net> wrote in article
<33e941ac...@news.alt.net>...
> On 6 Aug 1997 00:40:11 GMT, ale...@uniserve.com (Alexander J Russell)
wrote:
>
> >In article <33e77510...@news.alt.net>, lenn...@calwest.net says...
> >>
> >>
> >>If the kings of old _took_ what they could and then _let_ people use it,
> >>did that make its "ownership" by that king anything other than "taking"?
> >
> >No. It was just taking if the king didn't do something usefull with it,
and not
> >force anyone off the land to get it. If you use force to do or get
something it
> >is wrong unless defending yourself.
>
> Ahhhh. So, if I come across "your" car, and _declare_ that it is mine,
then
> that's okay (assuming I declare it so when you're not around so no force
is
> used). I _will_ do something useful with it.
Aha, but you ignored Mr. Russell's OTHER caveat: that no one had
been forced OFF the land in question. In other words if nature provided
a car (absurd assumption to begin with) that no one had ever been using,
it would NOT be wrong to come along, take it and start using it
productively.
In actual fact, cars don't work that way though.
> And after establishing that ownership by such un-wrong "taking", I kill
you
> when you come around to "steal" it, because I'll be defending myself (or,
as
> you seem to take as implicit in okaying the "ownership" after the fact --
> defending "my" _property_.)
See above.
> >>If, later, it was decided that _others_ could "own" the land which was
> >>_taken_, does that cancel the fact that it was "taken" to start with?
> >
> >Eventually, if the current owner is actually using the land productively
it
> >might make the initial 'taking' moot. This is a big sticky question.
>
> As will my use of "your" car. I think I may find your house empty at some
> point, too, since I now have the mobility of a car.
Same error. Houses are not produced by nature either.
> >>If everyone agrees that "nothing can be done" about "conquered people"
> >>_losing_ the "right" to their land, does that erase the fact that the
> >>"taking" happened?
> >
> >It doesn't erase it, but after a few hundred years the people it was
taken from
> >are all dead, and who actually has a valid claim can be unclear. It is
then
> >impractical to try to rectify the origianl taking, but it may be
practical to
> >repair existing inequeties based on the current situation.
>
> So, perhaps Cuba might be acknowledged as "belonging" to Castro and
friends?
> Or will _that_ claim be _forever_ rejected because the claimant is, well,
> just "EVIL"? It matters not that Castro's group-possession is now just as
> long-standing as was the previous generation who _took_ it before them.
Eh?
I agree that Castro is effectively a private, illegitimate feudal lord. So?
If ever there remain no victims of his around to claim property he stole,
I imagine that some new regime would come along eventually, which IMO
would need to rely upon productive use of land to have any legitimacy.
OTOH, if individual claimants have evidence and can provide it to a
competent
court, I see nothing wrong with the original owners getting their property
back
if that's possible.
> >>If someone buys something from a thief, fair-and-square, is it then
"just
> >>too bad" about the guy whose stuff was originally "taken", if recompense
> >>by the thief is not an option?
> >
> >Depends on how long ago it was stolen. If the situation is discovered
within a
> >a few(?) years the person who bought the stole property should return it
to the
> >rightful owner, and then seek out the thief for compensation.
>
> Please actually do _read_ the words. The case I asked about was when
> "recompense by the thief is _not_ an option".
Fair enough.
> Anyway, so you seem to be implying that once it's not _practical_ to
render
> "justice", said "justice" is no longer _necessary_?
Oops. Now YOU should read the words. If something is no longer practical,
why would you insists on doing it anyway?
> >Oh, and it can't be fair if it stolen.
>
> The buyer, not _knowing_ the item is stolen, does his _buying_ "fairly",
> doesn't he? That's where _his_ claim comes from, doesn't it?
Yes, and the only person with a legitimate claim against him is the original
victim. Certainly not other malcontents looking for an excuse to take
produced items such as cars and houses from people.
> >>If, rather than as is normally assumed, "Nature's God" originally gave
> >>the land to "the _people_" and those who took it from them are _not_
> >>"recognized" by that God, then isn't it possible the "stolen property"
> >>_should_ be returned to the rightful original owners?
> >
> >The righful owner is the person who did the work to make the land
valuable. If
> >the land is unimproved the next person who comes along should be able to
claim
> >it.
>
> There's a natural "value" to land that comes from the fact that _weeds_
> grow on it, in the sun and rain. Animals (sufficient for food) thrive
> on such weeds, and thus they _are_ "food", supplied by "Mother Nature".
Try capturing and eating this food without any effort on your part.
> Cultivation does not "make" land valuable. It may _increase_ its value.
> But then, perhaps, a similar argument might be made of _all_ property --
> "_I_ can do better with that stuff, so it's my right to take it from you".
> Is _that_ the meaning of "Manifest Destiny"?
Again, please remember that Mr. Russell did not justify the taking of land
people were ALREADY using. This is a major error on your part.
> >>If theft victims forcibly take back their stolen stuff, is that "theft"?
> >No.
>
> Good answer.
>
> >>If a large group of "the weak" do something describable as "ganging up"
> >>on one or a small group of "the strong", is that worse than when one or
> >>a small group of "the strong" gang up on or victimize one or a group of
> >>"the weak"?
> >
> >All violence is equally wrong.
>
> What about when the ganging up _is_ a case of "theft victims forcibly
> taking back their stolen stuff"?!
In even semi-liberal systems, there is broad popular support for private
property. People in general will want to see courts deal fairly with such
questions rather than have putative victims taking the law in their own
hands. However, in fiefdoms such as Cuba, where no court can even possibly
rule fairly on claims such as these, I would sympathize with some ganging up
on Castro to take back some land, i.e. remove land from Castro's control and
return it to the people, assuming the people taking it back have some
legitimate right to do so.
> >>Is it worse than when _one_ of the strong victimizes one or a small
> >>number of "the weak"?
> >
> >Equally wrong.
>
> In other words, NO, right? It _isn't_ "worse".
>
> >>Is it worse if that large group of the weak constitute a "majority"
> >>or a "trade union"?
> >
> >Force is never right, no matter what name it goes by.
>
> In other words _NO_, right? It _isn't_ "worse". Right?
>
> >>Would it be _so_ "wrong" if such a group _took_ lots of stuff?
> >
> >Yes. 'Took' implies using force to take the stuff from its rightful
owners.
>
> Not necessarily. What if it's the case of "took _back_"?!
In the absence of any Dispute Resolution Mechanisms such as independent and
fair courts, any taking back is essentially an acto of war, and whether you
see it as defensive war, or aggressive probably depends on your point of
view. Morality is usually one of the first victims of war.
> >Sorting out the very real wrongs commited by governments of the past
regarding
> >land ownership is not a simple question to sort out. I have no idea how
it
> >might be rectified fairly - without punishing current innocent owners.
>
> What about the wrongs committed by governments in the _present_? One of
> the reasons "our" government can't _consider_ "apologizing" to Blacks for
> "slavery" and its resulting perpetuated inequities, is that "we"
_continue_
> to believe that it _wasn't_ wrong.....
Well, any apologies were made after the Civil War, and subsequent immoral
behaviour by Southern Governments was essentially never apologized for. But
I disagree that most people think slavery 'wasn't wrong'.
> and that "we" can and should continue
> to do it today. Different victims, but the principle is still considered
> good.
Unfortunately for you, though, most people don't think voluntary employment
is exactly the same as slavery. People do not legally shoot departing
employees in America.
> Chinese, VietNamese, and Indonesian peasants, producing Nike shoes,
> etc, for just the value of enough _food_ to survive for the same number of
> days they _work_, is tantamount to slavery.
Actually it is NOT, provided that such jobs are not offered simultaneously
with some OTHER coercive measure (supported by the employer) depriving those
people of other alternatives that they had.
Unfortunately, the governments of these countries are by and large barbaric,
statist, coercive entities. Having said that, I don't know if you can prove
that NOT buying goods made there would improve the lot of the residents of
those countries. It's quite a sad situation when BILLIONS of people are
subjugated by evil regimes.
--
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
Victor Levis
Tommy the Terrorist <may...@super.zippo.com> wrote in article
<5sdt9g$d...@snews2.zippo.com>...
> In article <5ruelp$k4q$3...@neptune.uniserve.com> Alexander J Russell,
> ale...@uniserve.com writes:
> >Pool the resources they EARN. It has been done. If this freedom from the
> >tryanny of the capitalists was important to these workers it could be
done.
>
> The question is, DO they "EARN" those resources?
>
> Do they earn those resources when they donate to the governor, then get a
> license for $100,000 to run a gambling casino that's worth $200 million a
> year later?
Unjust use of power. Not a free market enterprise.
> Do they earn those resources when they offer a piece of software on the
> market, but hold PATENTS on all the important steps in the software, so
> that if you and your workers tried to start up a fresh competitor from
> scratch, by the time their lawyers were finished with you you'd owe them
> your mothers?
More ambiguous. Software is much more generally subject to COPYRIGHT law
than patent law. Personally, I agree that it should be illegal to copy the
independent work of another human being without permission. However, I
agree some legal reform IS absolutely necessary to prevent predatory abuse
of good-faith transactors.
> Do they earn those resources when they have extensive holdings in real
> estate, and get "redevelopment" projects targeted to the neighborhoods
> they own, so that undesirable minorities can be driven out, capital
> improvements made, and property values doubled?
Absolutely not. A good example, BTW, of 'leftist' good intentions being run
over by naked power and politics.
> Do they earn those resources when they file lawsuits like the McLibel
> suit or the U.S. equivalent against Oprah Winfrey, to suppress any
> suggestion that the products they're getting rich on might be dangerous?
> (or there's the Food Lion verdict against ABC, or the Sears suit against
> "The Moral Compass...)
I don't know the facts of these cases. In general, the truth should be a
perfectly good defense against a libel suit.
> Do they earn those resources when they "own" the right to SPEAK in the
> radio spectrum, which you, from birth, was told was an "economic asset"
> that YOU don't have, so that they can try to tell you what to buy, what
> to think, what to believe?
There is certainly some injustice in the allocation of electromagnetic
spectrum by the government bodies responsible for same. However, it is
dangerous to assume that all advertising is inherently 'dictatorial'. In
actual fact, COUNTLESS products have failed despite large advertising
budgets. In the end, if we don't trust people to make intelligent
decisions, then even democracy is unworkable.
> Do they earn those resources when they buy and sell politicians who levy
> taxes on the working poor but grant the rich a thousand special
> exemptions to get them out of everything?
IT is NOT a free market transaction to 'buy' politicians to get them to
impose taxes on other people, no matter how much or how little money those
others have.
> When it can be as simple as
> Bill Gates ALLOWING a school to possess a copy of his software, so as to
> count it as a "charitable donation" he doesn't have to pay a cent on?
If Bill Gates allows a school to get a copy of a piece of software without
paying for it, then naturally, Microsoft will not have reveneue from that
transaction and so no income is to be taxed. OTOH, if the accountants have
COUNTED the revenue in some way, then the subsequent write-off of the
receivable should legitimately count as a deduction from that income.
> Open your eyes. The world you and I live in, it's a world of "trade",
> where you give something, you get something, and it seems "fair" to hold
> to capitalistic ideas of commerce. But the world THEY live in, it's a
> world of POWER, and to have an asset means to have a state-sanctioned
> method of commanding other people to do your will.
>
> And those assets must be obliviated.
In general, I don't agree, though in many specific cases, I actually DO
agree but only because the asset was stolen in the first place. With
property that is PRODUCED (eg software, food, etc.) production of some
object does not really give you the means to 'command others to do your
will'. I will grant that wholesale grabbing and claiming of land, backed up
by the guns of the state, can often result in injustice, and
***especially*** when the land (or water or other UNIMPROVED natural
resource) was previously being used by people to earn a living. But IMO I'm
still defending the free market and rejecting government interference on
behalf of powerful 'capitalists'.
Tommy the Terrorist
In article <5ruelp$k4q$3...@neptune.uniserve.com> Alexander J Russell,
ale...@uniserve.com writes:
>Pool the resources they EARN. It has been done. If this freedom from the
>tryanny of the capitalists was important to these workers it could be done.
The question is, DO they "EARN" those resources?
Do they earn those resources when they donate to the governor, then get a
license for $100,000 to run a gambling casino that's worth $200 million a
year later?
Do they earn those resources when they offer a piece of software on the
market, but hold PATENTS on all the important steps in the software, so
that if you and your workers tried to start up a fresh competitor from
scratch, by the time their lawyers were finished with you you'd owe them
your mothers?
Do they earn those resources when they have extensive holdings in real
estate, and get "redevelopment" projects targeted to the neighborhoods
they own, so that undesirable minorities can be driven out, capital
improvements made, and property values doubled?
Do they earn those resources when they file lawsuits like the McLibel
suit or the U.S. equivalent against Oprah Winfrey, to suppress any
suggestion that the products they're getting rich on might be dangerous?
(or there's the Food Lion verdict against ABC, or the Sears suit against
"The Moral Compass...)
Do they earn those resources when they "own" the right to SPEAK in the
radio spectrum, which you, from birth, was told was an "economic asset"
that YOU don't have, so that they can try to tell you what to buy, what
to think, what to believe?
Do they earn those resources when they buy and sell politicians who levy
taxes on the working poor but grant the rich a thousand special
exemptions to get them out of everything? When it can be as simple as
Bill Gates ALLOWING a school to possess a copy of his software, so as to
count it as a "charitable donation" he doesn't have to pay a cent on?
Open your eyes. The world you and I live in, it's a world of "trade",
Tommy the Terrorist
In article <01bca3e8$3a34a4c0$2bac9a8e@viclevis> Victor Levis,
vicl...@ican.net writes:
>> Do they earn those resources when they offer a piece of software on the
>> market, but hold PATENTS on all the important steps in the software, so
>> that if you and your workers tried to start up a fresh competitor from
>> scratch, by the time their lawyers were finished with you you'd owe them
>> your mothers?
>More ambiguous. Software is much more generally subject to COPYRIGHT law
>than patent law. Personally, I agree that it should be illegal to copy the
>independent work of another human being without permission. However, I
>agree some legal reform IS absolutely necessary to prevent predatory abuse
>of good-faith transactors.
First, where the degree of patent law is concerned: consider the
Microsoft-Apple deal that went through a day or two ago. One of the
crucial ingredients was simply that they agreed, for five years, to
cross-license all patents on their software.
Of course, the independent programmer has no such pull.
While I believe in free inquiry and free speech - and therefore, I don't
believe in copyright law in general - the effect of such laws on merely
COPYING is in some sense minor, since anything done once could be done
again. The problem is that they go far, far beyond copying. If you want
to set up a Web page for "Dungeons and Dragons" scenarios (make-believe
fantasy heroes with swords and so on) you'll be informed by their lawyers
that any product of YOUR mind using their rules is their property, and
must be censored. Even in cases where the courts ostensibly uphold one's
right to copy "user interfaces" (like Windows being sued by Apple because
it "looked like" MacIntosh) the suits drag on endlessly and become simply
a method of material attack, in which poor contestants will certainly
lose.
This is not an aberration, an occasional crime committed by a few
businessmen who could ultimately be brought to justice and forced to hand
over compensation after the Revolution; this is STANDARD OPERATING
PROCEDURE, as far as I can tell, among businesses in general. They play
"hard ball", they fight using the state-granted power, they SEIZE assets
from one another, from their workers, from you, not by any means
necessary, but by any means POSSIBLE.
>> Do they earn those resources when they file lawsuits like the McLibel
>> suit or the U.S. equivalent against Oprah Winfrey, to suppress any
>> suggestion that the products they're getting rich on might be dangerous?
>> (or there's the Food Lion verdict against ABC, or the Sears suit against
>> "The Moral Compass...)
>I don't know the facts of these cases. In general, the truth should be a
>perfectly good defense against a libel suit.
Remember, "Any Means POSSIBLE". In the Food Lion case the undercover
reporters got themselves hired, so that they could film rotten fish being
bleached, washed and put out for people to buy, and various abusive
practices against labor (what would be "theft" if the victims weren't
workers). So the company sued for FRAUD, saying that ABC's workers had
put in a fake week of work. Collected a thousand some odd in wages (not
unjustifiably) ... and the entire value of the decrease in stock in the
company when the story broke, something like $10 million. Thanks to
this, of course, we can all rest easy, knowing that no unscrupulous
reporters will trouble the people in the back room of whatever
supermarket serves up fish near you.
In the Sears suit, it was "demeaning a trademark" by mentioning it in
context of nasty statements, more or less.
>> Do they earn those resources when they "own" the right to SPEAK in the
>> radio spectrum, which you, from birth, was told was an "economic asset"
>> that YOU don't have, so that they can try to tell you what to buy, what
>> to think, what to believe?
>There is certainly some injustice in the allocation of electromagnetic
>spectrum by the government bodies responsible for same. However, it is
>dangerous to assume that all advertising is inherently 'dictatorial'. In
>actual fact, COUNTLESS products have failed despite large advertising
>budgets. In the end, if we don't trust people to make intelligent
>decisions, then even democracy is unworkable.
Democracy IS unworkable, it never HAS worked, and it never WILL work.
But that's a digression. I'm not saying that advertising is bad - quite
to the contrary, I think everyone should have the right to advertise
anything, including all those nasty things like booze and cigarettes and
XXX Web sites. What I'm saying is bad is the doctrine that THE RIGHT TO
USE A METHOD OF COMMUNICATION is something that is not innate, not
inalienable, but which can be sold off by a government to a few mercenary
corporations, and forever denied to each new baby being born. I'm saying
that each person should have a fundamental right to do the same things as
others, and if it's not possible for everyone to run 1 megawatt
transmitters at once then fine, let people lend, rent, and pool their
rights if they want bigger transmitters, but by individual choice over
how one's inalienable right will be exercised.
>> When it can be as simple as
>> Bill Gates ALLOWING a school to possess a copy of his software, so as to
>> count it as a "charitable donation" he doesn't have to pay a cent on?
>If Bill Gates allows a school to get a copy of a piece of software without
>paying for it, then naturally, Microsoft will not have reveneue from that
>transaction and so no income is to be taxed. OTOH, if the accountants have
>COUNTED the revenue in some way, then the subsequent write-off of the
>receivable should legitimately count as a deduction from that income.
I was under the impression that when you make a "charitable donation",
you just subtract that amount off the amount taxed (in the U.S., at
least). When Bill Gates "donates" 100 copies of a $500 program to a
school, I presume he subtracts $50,000 from his net income, even though
cost him next to nothing. Right?
>In general, I don't agree, though in many specific cases, I actually DO
>agree but only because the asset was stolen in the first place. With
>property that is PRODUCED (eg software, food, etc.) production of some
>object does not really give you the means to 'command others to do your
>will'. I will grant that wholesale grabbing and claiming of land, backed up
>by the guns of the state, can often result in injustice, and
>***especially*** when the land (or water or other UNIMPROVED natural
>resource) was previously being used by people to earn a living. But IMO I'm
>still defending the free market and rejecting government interference on
>behalf of powerful 'capitalists'.
[I'm posting from a.s.a where "command" is held to a stringent
standard...]
Holding onto material goods, keeping a private residence, operating an
individual business; these clearly do not require commands, except a
command for other people to leave you alone, which is always implicit in
a right. But how can you possibly claim that software can be "protected"
as an "asset", if there is not some police force out their spying on
private conversations, tracking down people who post stuff, etc. How can
you say that land ownership, beyond one's fair share as an inhabitant of
the Earth, is something that can be enforced without some kind of
security apparatus?
My belief is that there are many kinds of "property" under the current
system which are unjustifiable, and that only very literal forms of
earned wealth should be protected by a system that focuses more on
maintaining non-interference between individuals as somtimes assisted by
tracking property claims, than on worship of "property" as an imbued,
sanctified attribute of a physical object, non-physical phenomenon, or
state institution. I am NOT arguing for communism here - the free market
works very well for real things, for actual labor - but capitalism as we
are seeing it is totally out of control as the ideological excuse for a
ruling class.
Victor Levis
> In article <01bca3e8$3a34a4c0$2bac9a8e@viclevis> Victor Levis,
> vicl...@ican.net writes:
>
> >Tommy the Terrorist wrote:
> >
> >> Do they earn those resources when they "own" the right to SPEAK in the
> >> radio spectrum, which you, from birth, was told was an "economic asset"
> >> that YOU don't have, so that they can try to tell you what to buy, what
> >> to think, what to believe?
>
> >There is certainly some injustice in the allocation of electromagnetic
> >spectrum by the government bodies responsible for same. However, it is
> >dangerous to assume that all advertising is inherently 'dictatorial'. In
> >actual fact, COUNTLESS products have failed despite large advertising
> >budgets. In the end, if we don't trust people to make intelligent
> >decisions, then even democracy is unworkable.
>
> I'm not saying that advertising is bad - quite
> to the contrary, I think everyone should have the right to advertise
> anything, including all those nasty things like booze and cigarettes and
> XXX Web sites. What I'm saying is bad is the doctrine that THE RIGHT TO
> USE A METHOD OF COMMUNICATION is something that is not innate, not
> inalienable, but which can be sold off by a government to a few mercenary
> corporations, and forever denied to each new baby being born.
Yep. Same as selling off taxi medallions. It's illegitimate monopoly.
However, if there is REAL scarcity, not artificial scarcity, consider the
fact that charging people for using SCARCE airwaves and having the community
collect the fees is one of several ways of resolving disputes over who gets
to tuse the scarce spectrum. Other methods of resolution (bribing an FCC
panel, for example) seem even worse to me. You?
> I'm saying that each person should have a fundamental right to do the same
> things as others, and if it's not possible for everyone to run 1 megawatt
> transmitters at once then fine, let people lend, rent, and pool their
> rights if they want bigger transmitters, but by individual choice over
> how one's inalienable right will be exercised.
I think we agree here.
> >> When it can be as simple as
> >> Bill Gates ALLOWING a school to possess a copy of his software, so as
to
> >> count it as a "charitable donation" he doesn't have to pay a cent on?
>
> >If Bill Gates allows a school to get a copy of a piece of software
without
> >paying for it, then naturally, Microsoft will not have reveneue from that
> >transaction and so no income is to be taxed. OTOH, if the accountants
have
> >COUNTED the revenue in some way, then the subsequent write-off of the
> >receivable should legitimately count as a deduction from that income.
>
> I was under the impression that when you make a "charitable donation",
> you just subtract that amount off the amount taxed (in the U.S., at
> least). When Bill Gates "donates" 100 copies of a $500 program to a
> school, I presume he subtracts $50,000 from his net income, even though
> cost him next to nothing. Right?
Wrong. Actually, this is a very common error. Most people are totally
confused on the subject of 'corporate write-offs'. Suffice it to say that
if the
donor is Microsoft DIRECTLY, then the amount of the write-off (deduction
from net income) is NOT the suggested retail selling price (for example $500
per program) but rather the producer's cost per unit (a much lower figure).
OTOH, if I buy the Microsoft product for $500 at Office Depot and then
contribute it to my kid's school board, I would get a $500 deduction,
because
that is MY cost. Office Depot will pay income tax on the difference between
$500 and the price they pay Microsoft, and Microsoft will pay tax on the
difference between their wholesale price and their cost of production.
Dennis Eijs
american's complain about taxes but love the "free" television
how do companies get the money for advertisement?
well they charge the public and put it on the price you pay for the
product
(so actually is taxation)and then they bother you with adds
in programs you have paid for
(using propaganda techniques even better than the nazi's etc. used)
like the the IAA says in their adds"without adds it would be a whole
different ball game"they even threaten us now.
Yes it would be a different ball game ,and they have now clearly shown
us that they control the ball game and that democracy is just the
mockary.They forgot to tell us that it was paid by our money.
So everybody knocks government(who only have limited power because of
money power from multinationals)and applaud the multinationals.
(who tax them too but invisibly)
I think that people have forgotten where there ancestors fought for.
It's a shame to see them all day blind.
O+-3~ ankhORION
Tommy the Terrorist
In article <01bca4b8$df1d2c20$38ac9a8e@viclevis> Victor Levis,
vicl...@ican.net writes:
>Yep. Same as selling off taxi medallions. It's illegitimate monopoly.
>However, if there is REAL scarcity, not artificial scarcity, consider the
>fact that charging people for using SCARCE airwaves and having the community
>collect the fees is one of several ways of resolving disputes over who gets
>to tuse the scarce spectrum. Other methods of resolution (bribing an FCC
>panel, for example) seem even worse to me. You?
>> I'm saying that each person should have a fundamental right to do the same
>> things as others, and if it's not possible for everyone to run 1 megawatt
>> transmitters at once then fine, let people lend, rent, and pool their
>> rights if they want bigger transmitters, but by individual choice over
>> how one's inalienable right will be exercised.
>I think we agree here.
I also think that the two plans are similar, but I much prefer my
semantics.
You propose a plan in which "the community" (defined how?) collects the
money proportional to how much power you broadcast with (I presume), and
then disburses that money (?) equally to all members. Presumably, if you
broadcast at a certain low "fair share", then, you don't pay or receive
money. But the phrasing implies a central bureaucracy that would be
tempted to put its hand in the till, and which would be responsible for
figuring out how much each person broadcast (tax forms, anyone?)
The plan I proposed was numerically equal, but starts with the assumption
that people agree that the air waves have become congested when everyone
broadcasts with X watts of power. Persons who seriously exceed that
quota can be subject to various personal and economic measures intended
to dissuade them. Or they can go ahead, bite the bullet, and rent the
rights from other people who aren't broadcasting, according to mutually
agreed terms. If they are non-profit broadcasters it's likely that they
would simply COLLECT rights, voluntarily given, from those who aren't
using their full capacity. By such means, fairly powerful combinations
would appear so that radio would still have long-range stations.
Informal rules of "radio etiquette", enforced mostly by nasty comments,
would keep the technical parameters right. ESPECIALLY for commercial
users most likely to violate those terms, because anyone mad enough at
them could start broadcasting without regard to their signal, ruining
their ad revenue.
What we propose is similar; in both cases there is even a role for "the
community"; so our discord on this is relatively minor, and deals with
implications that probably neither of us would wish to make.
I should add that a particularly simple case to analyze is the cellular
phone industry. People are supposed to pay corporations for "air time"
that is using a broadcast right taken away from the people and
arbitrarily given to the corporations as an "asset". In short, people
are being told that they start life IN DEBT, because the government said
so, and pay off that debt on their cellular telephone bills. This is not
fair dealing.
(Yes, I realize that even this is more complicated, since the cell phone
rebroadcasting network isn't free to build or run, and part of the
cellular telephone bill goes to pay those legitimate expenses - but
access to the markets is severely limited by "rights" to the radio
frequencies.)
Lenny Gray
On 8 Aug 1997 11:21:08 GMT, "Victor Levis" <vicl...@ican.net> wrote:
>Lenny Gray <lenn...@calwest.net> wrote in article
><33e941ac...@news.alt.net>...
>
>> On 6 Aug 1997 00:40:11 GMT, ale...@uniserve.com (Alexander J Russell)
>wrote:
>>
>> >In article <33e77510...@news.alt.net>, lenn...@calwest.net says...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>If the kings of old _took_ what they could and then _let_ people use it,
>> >>did that make its "ownership" by that king anything other than "taking"?
>> >
>> >No. It was just taking if the king didn't do something usefull with it,
>> >and not force anyone off the land to get it. If you use force to do or
>> >get something it is wrong unless defending yourself.
>>
>> Ahhhh. So, if I come across "your" car, and _declare_ that it is mine,
>> then that's okay (assuming I declare it so when you're not around so no
>> force is used). I _will_ do something useful with it.
>
>Aha, but you ignored Mr. Russell's OTHER caveat: that no one had
>been forced OFF the land in question.
Ahhh. The myth of the empty world -- well, if you'd bother to think
about it, you'd realize that his _car_ was about as empty as the world
was when claimed by those "kings".
- Lenny Gray -