Riots?
Kenny Tilton
are you OK? are the riots anywhere near you? wow, you really walked into
a big story this time. hope you are fine.
peace, k
Kenny Tilton
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
heh-heh. I'll let everyone know how Sabine is doing when I hear back. k
Didier Verna
Sabine sounds french... are you referring to what's going on in the
suburbs of Paris ? I just watched the news on (french) TV and it seems that
the foreign press has literally blown a fuse, speaking of the "muslim
revolution", or riots that are going to "spread all around the country", or
what not. All of this is largely exagerated.
--
Didier Verna, did...@lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (1) 44 08 01 85
94276 Le Kremlin-Bicętre, France Fax.+33 (1) 53 14 59 22 did...@xemacs.org
Kenny Tilton
Didier Verna wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <kti...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>>
>>>Kenny Tilton <kti...@nyc.rr.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>dear sabine,
>>>>
>>>>are you OK? are the riots anywhere near you? wow, you really walked
>>>>into a big story this time. hope you are fine.
>>>>
>>>>peace, k
>>
>>heh-heh. I'll let everyone know how Sabine is doing when I hear back. k
>
>
>
> Sabine sounds french...
Maybe, but she is German, studying in Paris.
> are you referring to what's going on in the
> suburbs of Paris ? I just watched the news on (french) TV and it seems that
> the foreign press has literally blown a fuse, speaking of the "muslim
> revolution", or riots that are going to "spread all around the country", or
> what not. All of this is largely exagerated.
CNN has "Fiery riots spread beyond Paris":
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/11/04/france.riots/index.html
Aside from my concern, Sabine happens to be a fine correspondent, surely
destined for journalism. I'll let everyone know her take.
I just hope this is not related to headscarves.*
* Regrettably long OT thread here on c.l.l.
--
Kenny
Why Lisp? http://wiki.alu.org/RtL_Highlight_Film
"I've wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state
I finally won out over it."
Elwood P. Dowd, "Harvey", 1950
BR
> I just hope this is not related to headscarves.*
Last I heard, it wasn't.
Barry Wilkes
the runoff in the Presidential election was between a crook (Chirac)
and a far right racist nut (Le Pen).
Given that choice, I'll take the crook. I'm very glad that the French
people were of that opinon too.
Barry.
alex...@gmail.com
> Kenny Tilton <kti...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> >> Kenny Tilton <kti...@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> >>
> >>>dear sabine,
> >>>
> >>>are you OK? are the riots anywhere near you? wow, you really walked
> >>>into a big story this time. hope you are fine.
> >>>
> >>>peace, k
> >
> > heh-heh. I'll let everyone know how Sabine is doing when I hear back. k
>
>
> Sabine sounds french... are you referring to what's going on in the
> suburbs of Paris ? I just watched the news on (french) TV and it seems that
> the foreign press has literally blown a fuse, speaking of the "muslim
> revolution", or riots that are going to "spread all around the country", or
> what not. All of this is largely exagerated.
Indeed, in the US, riots are commonplace. I think the big news is that
they are happening in France. The US media didn't pick up the news
until about a week into the riots though.
Espen Vestre
> Is not far right (he's slightly on the left actually, just read his
> economical program). He's not racist.
Are you talking about Le Pen? The guy who - among other horrible
statements - once said that the nazi concentration camps were a just a
detail in the history of WWII?
--
(espen)
jonathon
> Sabine sounds french... are you referring to what's going on in the
> suburbs of Paris ? I just watched the news on (french) TV and it seems that
> the foreign press has literally blown a fuse, speaking of the "muslim
> revolution", or riots that are going to "spread all around the country", or
> what not. All of this is largely exagerated.
I have a French military issue rifle for sale.
Condition: Never fired. Dropped once.
J McKitrick
Jobin Yvon Inc (French company)
Espen Vestre
> Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
> International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
> magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
> WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
/TWO/ orders of magnutude? Only if you're a revisionist nut case...
--
(espen)
Robert Uhl
>
>> Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
>> International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
>> magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
>> WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
>
> /TWO/ orders of magnutude? Only if you're a revisionist nut case...
Last I heard was approx. 6 million Jews and 2 million other souls
murdered by the Nazis; the latest estimates of those killed under
Communist regimes runs over 100 million; that's roughly two orders of
magnitude.
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
Kilometers and Celsius, for instance, annoy more than they inform.
--Deroy Murdock, on French units
Robert Uhl
What US do you live in? There were the LA riots 15 years ago, but those
are the last major riots I recall. Was I asleep for too long or
something?
--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
> > Is "wrongest" an actual word?
> It's a perfectly cromulent word.
Which, when used, embiggens us all.
--Jeff Ramsey, Steed and D. Joseph Creighton in ASR
Tayssir John Gabbour
> Espen Vestre <es...@vestre.net> writes:
> >
> >> Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
> >> International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
> >> magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
> >> WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
> >
> > /TWO/ orders of magnutude? Only if you're a revisionist nut case...
>
> Last I heard was approx. 6 million Jews and 2 million other souls
> murdered by the Nazis; the latest estimates of those killed under
> Communist regimes runs over 100 million; that's roughly two orders of
> magnitude.
Do you recall your source? I'd be interested in a comparative study of
death tolls by economic system; I'm not aware of many sources
describing capitalist death tolls, for example.
It sounds like an impressive undertaking, as I doubt that the US being
a republic/capitalist nation really killed the earlier inhabitants, the
"Native Americans." I'd think this would've occurred even if we'd been
feudalists, as we were revolutionizing the continent to one which
suited our European systems.
Tayssir
Espen Vestre
> Last I heard was approx. 6 million Jews and 2 million other souls
> murdered by the Nazis; the latest estimates of those killed under
> Communist regimes runs over 100 million; that's roughly two orders of
> magnitude.
No, that's roughly /one/ order of magnitude. Besides, the communist
death toll (only some estimates exceed 100 mill., I'd say 80 million
is more probable) includes a large numbers of deaths that were caused
by the famine during Mao's "great leap forward". It's highly debatable
whether you can count all those as "killed under Communist regimes"
(the victims of the ucranian famine may be a different matter, since
many think that this actually was mass murder through famine by
Stalin, a planned famine, so to say).
--
(espen)
verec
> Last I heard was approx. 6 million Jews and 2 million other souls
> murdered by the Nazis; the latest estimates of those killed under
> Communist regimes runs over 100 million; that's roughly two orders of
> magnitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude
Your definition of "order of magnitude" is a bit ... out of magnitude!
And I would have ended-up the last sentence with a :-) rather than a ! if
the underlying subject wasn't so serious.
It's worse than very sad.
--
JFB (defun is more fun than define is fine)
alex...@gmail.com
> Robert Uhl wrote:
> > Espen Vestre <es...@vestre.net> writes:
> > >
> > >> Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
> > >> International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
> > >> magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
> > >> WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
> > >
> > > /TWO/ orders of magnutude? Only if you're a revisionist nut case...
> >
> > Last I heard was approx. 6 million Jews and 2 million other souls
> > murdered by the Nazis; the latest estimates of those killed under
> > Communist regimes runs over 100 million; that's roughly two orders of
> > magnitude.
>
> Do you recall your source?
I don't know about Nazis - they set off WW2 which claimed the lives of
50 million, but liber^W communists are in fact responsible for 100
million victims worldwide.
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html
Yet, we still have them here, in this very newsgroup, urging more class
war.
P.S. "liberal" has very different meanings (opposite almost) depending
on where you live. I'm using it in the American sense of the word.
alex...@gmail.com
> alex...@gmail.com writes:
> >
> > Indeed, in the US, riots are commonplace.
>
> What US do you live in? There were the LA riots 15 years ago, but those
> are the last major riots I recall. Was I asleep for too long or
> something?
>
Depends on what you call "major", I guess.
Armed gangs roving around New Orleans, looting and raping is what I'd
call a riot. Toledo, Ohio "riots" (media usage, not mine) made the news
recently too. And who knows what the media never mentions.
Kenny Tilton
Monthly LispNYK meetings spring to mind.
Kenny Tilton
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Yes. And indeed the concentration camps managed by the Nazional Sozialists
> were only a details in the history of WWII.
Ah, I always wondered where "the devil is in the details" came from.
>
> For one thing, their existance not known by most of the people
> worldwide. So they could hardly have any impact on the events of the
> WWII.
>
> Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
> International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
> magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
> WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
How does the slaughter of humans (six or six million or eight million)
look in this perspective?
The bigger question is, if mentioning Hitler ends a flamewar, when does
a flamewar end if it /begins/ with Hitler?
David Steuber
> I have a French military issue rifle for sale.
> Condition: Never fired. Dropped once.
That's the oldest joke on rec.guns. I'm surprised Magnum let you post
it. Oh. Wait. This is CLL.
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
The UnBlog: An island of conformity in a sea of quirks.
The lowest click through rate in Google's AdSense program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
jtd...@gmail.com
> Espen Vestre <es...@vestre.net> writes:
> >
> >> Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
> >> International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
> >> magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
> >> WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
> >
> > /TWO/ orders of magnutude? Only if you're a revisionist nut case...
>
> Last I heard was approx. 6 million Jews and 2 million other souls
> murdered by the Nazis; the latest estimates of those killed under
> Communist regimes runs over 100 million; that's roughly two orders of
> magnitude.
Welcome to OpenMCL Version 1.0 (DarwinPPC32)!
? (- (log 100 10) (log (+ 6 2) 10))
1.09691
? (nth-value 0 (round *))
1
Hah! That's irrefutable! And, it's in Lisp! We've solved a problem
AND nearly stumbled back on topic... :-)
Justin Dubs
P.S. You can claim it's three orders of magnitude, if you'd like. When
pressed, just explain that you work in base e.
Asbjørn Bjørnstad
> Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
> International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
> magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
> WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
There are too many ways to count who were most brutal:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-1900.htm
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/tyrants.htm
No matter how you count though, I'd say a president should have enough
political insight to avoid calling the best know system for murdering
a huge number of people "a detail".
--
-asbjxrn
Mamut
> the latest estimates of those killed under
> Communist regimes runs over 100 million;
Facts, please, not rumors. The total population of the entire Soviet
Union by 1990s was approximately 200 million people. Do you seriously
believe that 100 million people could be murdered THAT easily during
the Soviet era?
Nazis killed 8-10 million people in concentration camps and the
evidence of those camps was everywhere in Europe - this is *huge*
infrastructure. You have to deliver prisoners, feed them, cloth them,
kill them - this requires paperwork, trains, supplies, trucks, firing
squads - you name it.
However, everyone seems to be talking about hundreds of millions in the
USSR alone and there is simply no infrastructure visible to support
such claims. "Siberia", some say. *Before* you build a conc. camp in
Siberia, there need to be roads, railways and what-nots to the place of
the camp. You simply *cannot* easily deliver millions of people to a
remote place in Siberia - there are no roads, there are no railways.
And 100 million people? Jeez. A number like that would have left the
nation crippled forever. *Every* family in the USSR would have at least
one member killed in those camps. This would have been talked about for
generations. The Nazis killed off the larger part of Belarus's
population and it is still being talked about (see the movie "Come and
See"). How do you seriously expect somebody to kill 100 million and get
away with it?
Barry Wilkes
ignorance of Lisp is surpassed by your political naivety. Thankfully,
the vast majority of the French people don't think like you.
Barry.
Pascal Costanza
> Espen Vestre <es...@vestre.net> writes:
>
>>>Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
>>>International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
>>>magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
>>>WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
>>
>>/TWO/ orders of magnutude? Only if you're a revisionist nut case...
>
> Last I heard was approx. 6 million Jews and 2 million other souls
> murdered by the Nazis; the latest estimates of those killed under
> Communist regimes runs over 100 million; that's roughly two orders of
> magnitude.
Those numbers don't mean anything, they just help people to discuss the
topic at a very abstract level.
Killing _one_ person is killing far too many people!
Pascal
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Closer to MOP & ContextL:
http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
Didier Verna
> Is not far right (he's slightly on the left actually, just read his
> economical program).
Wow. You actually believe he has an "economical program" ?? If it
wasn't that sad, I would be ROTFL right now.
> He's not racist. Much less than Sarkozy who wants to 'clean the clean the
> “scum” out of the rundown estates' as th translated it, and much less than
> Chirac who says things Hitler wouldn't have dared say, only not in front of
> the TV cameras.
Whatever. These days, Le Pen is not as dangerous as Sarkozy or De
Villiers, but not for the reasons you think. He is in a bad political shape
because he is too dumb to disguise his political views under the mandatory
layer of correctness and respectability that would make it acceptable to the
majority of people. His constant use of bad language (too honest to be
politically correct) made people, even from his own camp, take some distance.
Today, Sarkozy is beginning to make the same mistakes.
But Le Pen notoriously *is* a racist and I just don't want a guy like
that for president. Although racism is not the real problem in that case. The
real problem is "national preference"[1].
Le Pen advocates national preference, simply because he wants black people,
muslims and jewish out. He tries to hide this under fallacious arguments, but
fails most of the time because he is a bad politician.
The current government is in the process of actually implementing national
preference, but for different reasons: to gain the rightmost voters, to make
their own voters think they are taking strong and effective (??) political
measures... well, let's just be realistic: to stay in charge. You don't have
to be racist to do that.
What's truely disgusting with this national preference thing is that the
actual solution to the problem is not to solve the problem, but merely to
throw it oustide (outside being either out of the country, or in jail) and let
the "outside" deal with it. Sure, if you throw your garbage out of the window,
your kitchen will be clean. But so much for the street. When this comes to
deal with people living in misery, this is just not acceptable.
Le Pen is a racist, Sarkozy probably not. But that's not the point. They share
the same disgusting view on what should be done with *people*, only Sarkozy's
view looks more respectable; and that's what makes him dangerous. However, he
knows he can't go as far as Le Pen would go. Otherwise, he would loose
electorate and he's too smart for that.
Le Pen for president ? Like HELL. Between two PITAs, choose the least painful.
Better crooks than real racists. What's even more sad is I don't see anybody
on the left capable of being a good president either :-(
> He's no nut, since as a good politician he foresaw the problems we have
And you think the others did not ? It's amazing how one can be so
naive. They just were smart enough not to speak in the open, that's all.
> and proposed simple and effective solutions that unfortunately he hasn't be
> allowed to enact.
Simple and effective, yeah. Throw the garbage outta the window. Thanks
a lot. The very fact of believing that an economical or political measure can
be "simple" and "effective" demonstrates an amazing level of naivety.
>> Given that choice, I'll take the crook. I'm very glad that the French
>> people were of that opinon too.
>
> Because you let yourself be disinformed as easily as most French.
Ah yes, the famous conspiracy theory. Everybody's wrong but me. Total
paranoia. Exactly the irrational fears on which Le Pen plays to attract weak
souls.
Footnotes:
[1] I don't know how well it translates into english. This roughly means
"French first, if there's something left, that's for the others".
--
Didier Verna, did...@lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (1) 44 08 01 85
94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France Fax.+33 (1) 53 14 59 22 did...@xemacs.org
Didier Verna
> Yes. And indeed the concentration camps managed by the Nazional Sozialists
> were only a details in the history of WWII.
>
> For one thing, their existance not known by most of the people
> worldwide. So they could hardly have any impact on the events of the
> WWII.
>
> Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
> International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
> magnitudes!
That's it. If mass murdering simply reduces to a question of numbers
or statistics for you, then I'm not surprised anymore that you voted for Le
Pen. Even just one murder for a question of religious belief or skin color is
not a detail at all.
--
Didier Verna, did...@lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (1) 44 08 01 85
94276 Le Kremlin-Bicętre, France Fax.+33 (1) 53 14 59 22 did...@xemacs.org
Timofei Shatrov
confuse everyone with this message:
>Time for a Russian to step in :)
You are not the only one here...
>> the latest estimates of those killed under
>> Communist regimes runs over 100 million;
>
>Facts, please, not rumors. The total population of the entire Soviet
>Union by 1990s was approximately 200 million people. Do you seriously
>believe that 100 million people could be murdered THAT easily during
>the Soviet era?
>
I think that includes China, North Korea, Cambodia and other similar
countries. And it WAS very easy to murder people during the Soviet era.
Most died from famine and ilnesses though.
--
|a\o/r|,-------------.,---------- Timofei Shatrov aka Grue ------------.
| m"a ||FC AMKAR PERM|| mail: grue at mail.ru http://grue3.tripod.com |
| k || PWNZ J00 || Kingdom of Loathing: Grue3 lvl 18 Seal Clubber |
`-----'`-------------'`-------------------------------------------[4*72]
Thomas Lindgren
"Tayssir John Gabbour" <tayss...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Do you recall your source? I'd be interested in a comparative study of
> death tolls by economic system; I'm not aware of many sources
> describing capitalist death tolls, for example.
R.J. Rummel has a serious site dedicated to death tolls:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html
A bit depressing, of course.
Best,
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren
"It's becoming popular? It must be in decline." -- Isaiah Berlin
Espen Vestre
> Those numbers don't mean anything, they just help people to discuss
> the topic at a very abstract level.
>
> Killing _one_ person is killing far too many people!
Well said, Pascal! I was trying to write something like this
yesterday, but didn't find the right words.
--
(espen)
Revzala Haelmic
> And it WAS very easy to murder people during the Soviet era.
Espen Vestre
> That's it. If mass murdering simply reduces to a question of numbers
> or statistics for you, then I'm not surprised anymore that you voted for Le
> Pen. Even just one murder for a question of religious belief or skin color is
> not a detail at all.
Albert Camus shocked the french intellectual establishment in the 50s
when he compared nazism and communism in "The Rebel". But Camus of
course wasn't interested in a body count comparision, but instead
tried to find out how a justified rebellion can turn into a murderous
system. Roughly, Camus says that the moment the rebel argues that
murders may be justfied by his political cause, he has become a
nihilist.
--
(espen)
Andras Simon
> Espen Vestre <es...@vestre.net> writes:
> > Pascal Bourguignon <sp...@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> >
> >> Is not far right (he's slightly on the left actually, just read his
> >> economical program). He's not racist.
> >
> > Are you talking about Le Pen? The guy who - among other horrible
> > statements - once said that the nazi concentration camps were a just a
> > detail in the history of WWII?
>
> Yes. And indeed the concentration camps managed by the Nazional Sozialists
> were only a details in the history of WWII.
>
> For one thing, their existance not known by most of the people
> worldwide. So they could hardly have any impact on the events of the
> WWII.
>
> Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
> International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
> magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
> WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
>
Idiot.
Andras
Ulrich Hobelmann
> It sounds like an impressive undertaking, as I doubt that the US being
> a republic/capitalist nation really killed the earlier inhabitants, the
> "Native Americans." I'd think this would've occurred even if we'd been
That was hardly Capitalist behavior, not respecting the Natives' use of
the land and stealing their property, killing their people etc...
But it perfectly agrees with one-dimensional mainstream usage of the
word capitalism.
> feudalists, as we were revolutionizing the continent to one which
> suited our European systems.
It was imperialism, just like today's US foreign policy (and that of
most other countries).
(going back to listen to NMA's Another Imperial Day now...)
--
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ulrich Hobelmann
> Those numbers don't mean anything, they just help people to discuss the
> topic at a very abstract level.
>
> Killing _one_ person is killing far too many people!
"One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic." -- Joseph Stalin
alex...@gmail.com
That's just wrong. Nihilists don't believe in any "political causes",
that's why they are called "nihilist".
Vee huh ni-yelists! Vee beh-leef in nuh-thing!
Here's a picture: http://ernieputto.de/lebowski/lebowski08.jpg
Surendra Singhi
> Simple and effective, yeah. Throw the garbage outta the window. Thanks
> a lot.
Oh, I see, you guys are talking about some garbage and not some poor people.
--
Surendra Singhi
http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html
,----
| "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
| -- Orwell, Animal Farm, 1945
`----
David Steuber
No, but the documentation is protected by DRM and EULA, so
verification is more difficult.
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
The UnBlog: An island of conformity in a sea of quirks.
http://www.david-steuber.com/snippets/Boycott_Sony/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Zach
> ... the best know system for murdering
That would be abortion. Murdering a life that is totally innocent and
unable to fight back or advocate for itself in any way. And more lives
have been lost due to this silent genocide than all other conventional
genocides combined. :-(
SDG,
Zach
Raffael Cavallaro
"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
Florynce R. Kennedy
Zach
>
> "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
Only if they share such a cavalier attitude about murder. But do keep
it an abstraction as that is the first step in justifying an immoral
act.
Zach
Ulrich Hobelmann
So we touched both Hitler and abortion issues in this thread now, cool :)
Let me just say that there are rare cases when abortion might be
"justified" (or rather, where it might make sense), such as rape, or a
child with a severe disease that would have real trouble living anyway.
You're probably right that it killed more lives than other genocides,
but I wouldn't file those deaths under abortion, but under stupidity and
lack of responsibility (because those people wouldn't use contraception,
because they didn't take responsibility and maybe give the child free to
adoption...).
In some rare cases abortion is a choice women take, and I don't know any
countries that stopped it by simply prohibiting it.
Espen Vestre
> That's just wrong. Nihilists don't believe in any "political causes",
> that's why they are called "nihilist".
Camus is not talking about self-proclaimed nihilists.
Anyway, I think I'll refrain from trying to clarify this here, but
rather recommend reading The Rebel by Camus,
--
(espen)
Tim X
> Robert Uhl wrote:
> > Espen Vestre <es...@vestre.net> writes:
> >
> >>>Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
> >>>International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
> >>>magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
> >>>WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
> >>
> >>/TWO/ orders of magnutude? Only if you're a revisionist nut case...
> > Last I heard was approx. 6 million Jews and 2 million other souls
> > murdered by the Nazis; the latest estimates of those killed under
> > Communist regimes runs over 100 million; that's roughly two orders of
> > magnitude.
>
> Those numbers don't mean anything, they just help people to discuss
> the topic at a very abstract level.
>
> Killing _one_ person is killing far too many people!
>
Pascal, thanks for a breath of sanity!
I was having trouble grasping a thread which was seemingly degenerating into an
argument over which was the worst evil by comparing which killed more
millions than the other - wtf! and to think it was started by a
rediculous statement that Le Penn's comments were more acceptable because
the Nazis killed less people than the communists of the USSR and
China.
Its rediculous to try and make comparisons like these.
Its even more rediculous when you compare something which lasted for
only a few years to something which lasted closer to 3/4 of a century
(and still lasting in China). anyone want to guess at the number of
people killed in the US and south America since the arrival of
Europeans? What about the numbers killed to hold back the flood of
communism? Lets toss in the numbers killed in the name of
christianity, or Islam or .....
Ultimately, comparisons like this are prety meaningless, but if you
have to make them, then consider other issues, such as intent - many
of the deaths in the USSR and China can be attributed to misguided
ideological factors and poor administration, such as famine caused by
misguided scientific research affecting farm production or the side
effects of policies designed to reduce the rate of population growth.
I think I might just go and clean up my bak yard and make sure there
are no stones lying around near my glasshouse!
Tim
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
Mamut
> You are not the only one here...
:)
>>> the latest estimates of those killed under
>>> Communist regimes runs over 100 million;
>>Facts, please, not rumors. The total population of the entire Soviet
>>Union by 1990s was approximately 200 million people. Do you seriously
>>believe that 100 million people could be murdered THAT easily during
>>the Soviet era?
> I think that includes China, North Korea, Cambodia and other similar
> countries. And it WAS very easy to murder people during the Soviet era.
> Most died from famine and ilnesses though.
Worldwide - yes, undoubtedly.
Tim X
Aha - here you go Kenny, the answer to your question.
The way you stop a flamewar started by a reference to Hitler - throw
in a totally irrelevant anti-abortion reference with a totally bogus
claim on numbers by someone who will never actually have to face the
extremely difficult choice or actually bear the consequences of
whichever choice they make.
IMO While men have the right to an opinion in this area, we should keep
it to ourselves - for us, ultimately, it is just an academic question. For a
pregnant woman, it is a lot more than an academic debate over when
life begins.
(feeling warmer after adding some oxygen to the flames, I now retreat
to loftier pursuits involving the seldom discussed language called
lisp!)
Asbjørn Bjørnstad
So which national, racial, political or ethnic group is targeted by
abortion? Or do you just use "genocide" because it's a nice
emotionally laden word? (I guess the whole totally innocent and
defenceless part wasn't emotional enough.)
BTW, nice way to respond to a post I started with "There are too many
ways to count". With that in mind, I'll point out that far more
lives have been prevented by fake headaches and blanket refusal to
have sex. Now there's a case worth fighting for.
--
-asbjxrn, "Life is the whim of several billion
cells to be you for a while" - unknown
Tayssir John Gabbour
I don't know if anyone's interested, but Michael Albert gave a humorous
talk on "New Left Lessons," pointing out that people who commit acts of
violence in such a rebellion, like Stalin or Che, should be thanked and
given a nice farm somewhere, rather than run the country. (This of
course should be made clear beforehand.) Because whatever violence
tends to sacrifice their humanity.
http://www.radio4all.net/pub/archive/04.01.05/z...@kbfr.org/748-1-20041112-albert_new_left_lessons.mp3
(To not be hypocritical, I'm sure this also applies to the Christopher
Columbuses and Jeffrey Amhersts.)
His fellow leftist Chomsky explained in Hungary that it takes constant
attention to keep centralized control and authority from creeping into
one's groups. Some people naturally have more time or interest to take
on more responsibilities than others, and it can be easy for
bureaucratic, authoritarian decisionmaking control to develop.
http://www.lehetmasavilag.hu/chomsky.html
(The 4th video, "Contradictions.")
Tayssir
Ulrich Hobelmann
> His fellow leftist Chomsky explained in Hungary that it takes constant
> attention to keep centralized control and authority from creeping into
> one's groups. Some people naturally have more time or interest to take
> on more responsibilities than others, and it can be easy for
> bureaucratic, authoritarian decisionmaking control to develop.
And that's exactly why all centralized control is per se wrong. At some
point somebody *will* not pay attention and then BAMM you have a big
central authority that can't be stopped anymore.
It doesn't matter at all if the centralized interventions and controls
benefit workers, poor people, women, Jews, Nazis, space aliens or some
other group. If the majority of society wants change, they can have it:
form a nice organization, plan, build, help.
At least I am happy that Lisp doesn't have a however-benevolent dictator
that works to improve things for whatever noble person. Individual
efforts work quite well, and all that without resorting to aggressive
force. The end result is much more general purpose.
Raffael Cavallaro
> But do keep
> it an abstraction as that is the first step in justifying an immoral
> act.
That's exactly what you are doing. You are turning your egoistic
insistence that *you* get to decide what is or is not a morally correct
choice about the most private aspect of a woman's life into a virtue by
grossly mischaracterizing abortion as "murder." Hang that abusurd
abstract label on it, and now you can justify imposing *your* views on
real, individual women whom you have never met, and the circumstances
of whose lives you know absolutely nothing about. In short, why don't
you just make moral choices for your life and leave women to make
reproductive decisions for themselves without your morally superior
interference.
Louis Theran
Surendra Singhi wrote:
> Didier Verna <did...@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
>
> > Simple and effective, yeah. Throw the garbage outta the window. Thanks
> > a lot.
>
> Oh, I see, you guys are talking about some garbage and not some poor people.
I think the ``garbage'' here is the injustices France inflicts on its
immigrants and minorities, not people. In this interpretation, Verna
has a valid point: The plan of xenophobic right-wingers in Europe and
the US is not to create a more just global system, it is to oppress
people in other countries where the effects are (mostly) invisible in
the ``West.''
^L
alex...@gmail.com
> I see. And the way to get more justice is to make more injustice,
> burning cars and other private property of honest people.
Not to mention burning people themselves.
France is paying for its own naivete and carelessness, if you ask me.
As the Godfather said, women and children can be careless, but not men.
Tayssir John Gabbour
> "Louis Theran" <the...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Surendra Singhi wrote:
> >> Didier Verna <did...@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> >>
> >> > Simple and effective, yeah. Throw the garbage outta the window. Thanks
> >> > a lot.
> >>
> >> Oh, I see, you guys are talking about some garbage and not some poor people.
> >
> > I think the ``garbage'' here is the injustices France inflicts on its
> > immigrants and minorities, not people.
>
> burning cars and other private property of honest people.
Some active citizens discuss and debate this issue in some depth, using
the Seattle WTO protests as a case study:
http://www.zmag.org/trashing.htm
Tayssir
Louis Theran
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> I see. And the way to get more justice is to make more injustice,
> burning cars and other private property of honest people.
A standard problem with trying to engage the racist right is that its
members are typically illiterate morons. That's why my post wasn't
addressed to you.
What exactly was the point of this non-sequitur?
^L
Surendra Singhi
> Surendra Singhi wrote:
>> Didier Verna <did...@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
>>
>> > Simple and effective, yeah. Throw the garbage outta the window. Thanks
>> > a lot.
>>
>> Oh, I see, you guys are talking about some garbage and not some poor people.
>
> I think the ``garbage'' here is the injustices France inflicts on its
> immigrants and minorities, not people.
True, I agree with you. But from what 'Verna' wrote, he was drawing an analogy
between 'garbage' and 'people', which to me is not acceptable.
To quote him:
,----
| What's truely disgusting with this national preference thing is that the
| actual solution to the problem is not to solve the problem, but merely to
| throw it oustide (outside being either out of the country, or in jail) and let
| the "outside" deal with it. Sure, if you throw your garbage out of the window,
| your kitchen will be clean. But so much for the street. When this comes to
| deal with people living in misery, this is just not acceptable.
`----
You cannot expect to solve some problem, by thinking of the oppressed people
as some poor wretch's. It is not material or physical benefits which people
carve most, rather it is respect, and right to be treated as equals.
>In this interpretation, Verna
> has a valid point: The plan of xenophobic right-wingers in Europe and
> the US is not to create a more just global system, it is to oppress
> people in other countries where the effects are (mostly) invisible in
> the ``West.''
>
> ^L
--
Surendra Singhi
http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html
,----
| Great wits are sure to madness near allied,
| And thin partitions do their bounds divide.
|
| (John Dryden, Absalom and Achitophel, 1681)
`----
Louis Theran
Surendra Singhi wrote:
> You cannot expect to solve some problem, by thinking of the oppressed people
> as some poor wretch's. It is not material or physical benefits which people
> carve most, rather it is respect, and right to be treated as equals.
I agree completely. In practice, though, people stuck in a situation
where they cannot avoid being exploited economically aren't going to
feel treated as equals.
^L
Louis Theran
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> What is the point to ask questions to morons?
I forgot that the average Stormfront reader can't be expected to
recognize a rhetorical question.
^L
alex...@gmail.com
> Surendra Singhi wrote:
> > Didier Verna <did...@lrde.epita.fr> writes:
> >
> > > Simple and effective, yeah. Throw the garbage outta the window. Thanks
> > > a lot.
> >
> > Oh, I see, you guys are talking about some garbage and not some poor people.
>
> I think the ``garbage'' here is the injustices France inflicts on its
> immigrants and minorities,
>From what I've heard, France is a very pro-immigrant, Islamophilic
state. How else would Muslims reach 8% of its population? In light of
this, saying that France inflicts injustices on its immigrants and
minorities sounds suspect to me. Are you repeating something someone
else said, or speaking from first-hand experience of administering or
suffering from these injustices?
Coby Beck
news:1131153586....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Robert Uhl wrote:
>> alex...@gmail.com writes:
>> >
>> > Indeed, in the US, riots are commonplace.
>>
>> What US do you live in? There were the LA riots 15 years ago, but those
>> are the last major riots I recall. Was I asleep for too long or
>> something?
>>
>
> Depends on what you call "major", I guess.
>
> Armed gangs roving around New Orleans, looting and raping is what I'd
> call a riot. Toledo, Ohio "riots" (media usage, not mine) made the news
> recently too. And who knows what the media never mentions.
That never happened. Apparently it was just unsubstantiated rumour
amplified by the main stream media megaphone and little or nothing more. No
murder victims found in the Super Dome, no eye witnesses of the reports of
children being raped, no rape victims come forward, no rescuers backing the
claims of rescuees shooting at them.
"''We don't have any substantiated rapes," the New Orleans Police
superintendent Edwin Compass told the British newspaper The Guardian,
speaking of the situation at the Superdome. Nor have any bodies of victims
of foul play turned up there. The Federal Aviation Administration and
military officials have cast doubt on the story of the rescue helicopter
that came under fire outside Kenner Memorial Hospital on Aug. 31"
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/09/11/up_for_grabs/
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
alex...@gmail.com
> "''We don't have any substantiated rapes," the New Orleans Police
> superintendent Edwin Compass told the British newspaper The Guardian,
In other news, "I didn't order Trotsky killed", The Great Leader Stalin
told Pravda newspaper.
Chachie
> Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
>
>>Robert Uhl wrote:
>>
>>>Espen Vestre <es...@vestre.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>>Then they killed in these camps less people than for example the
>>>>>International Socialists of the URSS and China, by two order of
>>>>>magnitudes! Granted, URSS and China operated more than during the
>>>>>WWII, but you must put things in perspective.
>>>>
>>>>/TWO/ orders of magnutude? Only if you're a revisionist nut case...
>>>
>>>Last I heard was approx. 6 million Jews and 2 million other souls
>>>murdered by the Nazis; the latest estimates of those killed under
>>>Communist regimes runs over 100 million; that's roughly two orders of
>>>magnitude.
>>
>
>
> I don't know about Nazis - they set off WW2 which claimed the lives of
> 50 million, but liber^W communists are in fact responsible for 100
> million victims worldwide.
>
> http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/COUBLA.html
>
> Yet, we still have them here, in this very newsgroup, urging more class
> war.
>
> P.S. "liberal" has very different meanings (opposite almost) depending
> on where you live. I'm using it in the American sense of the word.
>
Right. All those fucking anti-capitalists, killing off the Native
American population. All those "liberals", enslaving Africa and every
where else they could make a buck off the backs of others. All those
capitalists and conservatives, sacrificing their very livelihoods from
the days of child labor right through the 20th century, preventing war,
famine, and pestilence, by bravely refusing to exploit humans for the
sake of the almighty pieces of silver.
P.S. The phrase "you're a complete idiot, in this very newsgroup, and
no doubt in all other venues" has very similar meanings regardless of
where you live.
I'm using it in the sense that it fits you, perfectly.
alex...@gmail.com
Well, I'll be damn! After a long hiatus, the puppet strikes again!
Second thread ever on USENET, same pattern. Do you have other interests
in life besides trying to amuse me personally, puppet?
Chachie
<another-inane-thread-attracting-alex.gman>
Well, I'll be damn[ed]! Despite a long hiatus, Little Alex *still*
doesn't quite understand how the big scary world of Usenet and posting,
and little things like headers and dynamic addresses actually work.
Do you have other interests in life besides trying to amuse us all with
your um, vast knowledge of...scheme....and usenet...and, um, history, idiot?
</end fish-in-barrel-shooting>
Ulrich Hobelmann
> That's exactly what you are doing. You are turning your egoistic
> insistence that *you* get to decide what is or is not a morally correct
> choice about the most private aspect of a woman's life into a virtue by
> grossly mischaracterizing abortion as "murder." Hang that abusurd
> abstract label on it, and now you can justify imposing *your* views on
> real, individual women whom you have never met, and the circumstances of
> whose lives you know absolutely nothing about. In short, why don't you
> just make moral choices for your life and leave women to make
> reproductive decisions for themselves without your morally superior
> interference.
While there are reasons where it's justified, IMHO, your point here
could also be used to kill your own (post-natal) children. The others
don't know nothing about your life and circumstances after all. And
what's much different between a child in the 6th month, and one in the
6th year, except that the latter one can usually articulate herself?
Ulrich Hobelmann
In most Western countries, nobody *forces* you to be exploited, so you
could form your own anarchist collective and live happily ever after.
Oh well, there's still some oppression and tax collectors, but that
might be a minor annoyance.
Ulrich Hobelmann
> The plan of xenophobic right-wingers in Europe and
> the US is not to create a more just global system, it is to oppress
> people in other countries where the effects are (mostly) invisible in
> the ``West.''
Like using local farm subsidies and tariffs to drive 3rd-world farmers
out of business (who can't really compete in non-food markets yet, such
as the IT market)?
Nils M Holm
> In most Western countries, nobody *forces* you to be exploited, [...]
man 'wage slavery'
--
Nils M Holm <n m h @ t 3 x . o r g> -- http://www.t3x.org/nmh/
Surendra Singhi
To live happily ever after in Western countries, people need money, and
unfortunately not every one is lucky enough to have lisp coding abilities like
most people in this newsgroup do.
There may not be _overt_ social exploitation or racism, but there are indirect
ways in which people are social exploited, ex. denial of opportunities,
stereotyping, harassment, government not paying attention to their problems or
doing anything to help them, etc.
--
Surendra Singhi
http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html
,----
| "War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength!"
| -- Orwell, 1984, 1948
`----
Surendra Singhi
> Louis Theran wrote:
>> The plan of xenophobic right-wingers in Europe and
>> the US is not to create a more just global system, it is to oppress
>> people in other countries where the effects are (mostly) invisible in
>> the ``West.''
>
> Like using local farm subsidies and tariffs to drive 3rd-world farmers
> out of business (who can't really compete in non-food markets yet,
> such as the IT market)?
>
When you want access to their markets to sell your stuff, or you still
want to be able to purchase that 'plasma TV' or latest 'mac' you have to bear
with some competition.
The Chinese, Indian, Brazilian, Mexican, eastern European and other Asian
nations have helped you *improve* your standard of living, and made the
workforce efficient and productive, so you should rather thank them.
--
Surendra Singhi
http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html
The best-laid plans of mice and men go oft astray.
Ulrich Hobelmann
> Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hob...@web.de> wrote:
>> In most Western countries, nobody *forces* you to be exploited, [...]
>
> man 'wage slavery'
Quoting Wikipedia: "In terms used by critics of capitalism, wage slavery
is the condition where a person must sell his or her labor-power,
submitting to the authority of an employer, in order to merely subsist."
If you buy into that definition, then you seem to believe in a worldwide
conspiracy against workers, i.e. that nearly 100% of employers try to
push everybody down to $4/h wages. If only one employer doesn't, he'll
surely attract the best employees and his business will prosper... But
no, in all of the Western world, everybody who owns business is
absolutely evil, while everybody who doesn't is by definition a worker
and therefore pure good. Ah, the beauty of black-n-white TV...
(In a society with people with brains, such as 1900 Europe, workers
developed the concept of strike, i.e. resistance, to simply refuse to
work under poor conditions. It worked. And decades later, Western
Germany and other industralized countries had wages rising along with
increased productivity, for decades. Yeah, conspiracy...)
Of course there are benefits to things like the minimum wage, and even
WalMart supports it now. That's because their profit margins allow them
to pay maybe $8 on average, while their uprising competitors can't, yet.
Minimum wage rocks because it keeps the little pests out of the
market. Anyway, it's a really cool idea; if you don't want people to
work for a certain wage (because it's "slavery"), simply forbid them to,
so they can't even do that and will have to sit on the street and beg
for money... Now *that*'s an alternative.
Ulrich Hobelmann
> Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hob...@web.de> writes:
>
>> Louis Theran wrote:
>>> The plan of xenophobic right-wingers in Europe and
>>> the US is not to create a more just global system, it is to oppress
>>> people in other countries where the effects are (mostly) invisible in
>>> the ``West.''
>> Like using local farm subsidies and tariffs to drive 3rd-world farmers
>> out of business (who can't really compete in non-food markets yet,
>> such as the IT market)?
>>
> When you want access to their markets to sell your stuff, or you still
> want to be able to purchase that 'plasma TV' or latest 'mac' you have to bear
> with some competition.
>
> The Chinese, Indian, Brazilian, Mexican, eastern European and other Asian
> nations have helped you *improve* your standard of living, and made the
> workforce efficient and productive, so you should rather thank them.
I never said the contrary, did I? In fact I stated the opposite: that
while we gladly accept cheap technology from developing countries, we
don't allow third-world the opportunity to also trade with us. China
sells their TVs to us, but other countries can't sell us grain etc.
because our governments subsidize our farmers and charge import tariffs
so that third-world products are more expensive when they really aren't.
It's selective free-markets, and they greatly hurt poor countries. Of
course if some countries (Argentina today) don't want free markets at
all, that's their choice. Simply don't partake in the separation of
labor and its advantages, if they can produce all their required goods
themselves... (and yes, I fully support refusing to join a free-trade
agreement as long as the US have the mentioned subsidies and tariffs to
prevent fair competition)
Nils M Holm
> Quoting Wikipedia: "In terms used by critics of capitalism, wage slavery
> is the condition where a person must sell his or her labor-power,
> submitting to the authority of an employer, in order to merely subsist."
You omitted the first and most interesting part:
From Wikipedia:
| Wage slavery is a condition in which a person is legally (de jure)
| voluntarily employed but practically (de facto) a slave. It is used
| to express disapproval of a condition where a person feels compelled
| to work in return for payment of a wage.
Aah, the freedom of choice in capitalism: starve to death, be imprisoned,
or be exploited.
BTW, I am not talking about some kind of dark "conspirary", but about
the very visible consequences of an inhumane system.
Ulrich Hobelmann
> You omitted the first and most interesting part:
>
> From Wikipedia:
> | Wage slavery is a condition in which a person is legally (de jure)
> | voluntarily employed but practically (de facto) a slave. It is used
> | to express disapproval of a condition where a person feels compelled
> | to work in return for payment of a wage.
>
> Aah, the freedom of choice in capitalism: starve to death, be imprisoned,
> or be exploited.
I think you didn't read my post.
> BTW, I am not talking about some kind of dark "conspirary", but about
> the very visible consequences of an inhumane system.
Oh yes, because there soo much capitalism in the world... (and not
dictatorship, skewed markets, discriminating laws ...)
Greg Menke
Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hob...@web.de> writes:
OTOH the usual arguments about the welfare of children being of interest
to the state apply. The state certainly has more invested in children
than it does embryos, if from nothing more than social services
benefits, so thats where the focus should be; post-natal. Its probably
reasonable for abortion to be regulated to some arbitrary degree because
there are ethical aspects to abortion not to mention health consequences
for the mother but the rabid moral & spiritual outrage over abortion is
certainly misplaced when it is imposed upon society by those obsessed
with the topic.
Gregm
Nils M Holm
> I think you didn't read my post.
I did. I just thought it is not worth mentioning that if you think
that working conditions are good in Europe, you are either rich or
misinformed.
Hint: good working conditions means more than just getting enough
money to make a living.
Working conditions will not improve as long as there are millions
of desparate, unemployed people who are ready to work under bad
conditions. A system that exploits this fact exploits people, even
if wages are paid. This was my entire point.
Tayssir John Gabbour
> > could form your own anarchist collective and live happily ever
> > after. Oh well, there's still some oppression and tax collectors, but
> > that might be a minor annoyance.
>
> To live happily ever after in Western countries, people need money, and
> unfortunately not every one is lucky enough to have lisp coding abilities like
> most people in this newsgroup do.
>
> There may not be _overt_ social exploitation or racism, but there are indirect
> ways in which people are social exploited, ex. denial of opportunities,
> stereotyping, harassment, government not paying attention to their problems or
> doing anything to help them, etc.
And the thing that keeps this from "whining" is that the governments
are extremely interventionist economically. (These are not tiny federal
governments merely in charge of post offices.) However, they seem to
ignore certain citizens while lavishing aid and market distortions on
others.
"If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly
winning."
-- Warren Buffett
Tayssir
Kenny Tilton
says it all for anyone French?
kt
Alexander Kjeldaas
> Surendra Singhi <efuz...@netscape.net> writes:
>
>>You cannot expect to solve some problem, by thinking of the oppressed people
>>as some poor wretch's. It is not material or physical benefits which people
>>carve most, rather it is respect, and right to be treated as equals.
>
>
> people are the enterprizing people from which the state robs "taxes",
> to distribute the the "oppressed" people.
>
> Or perhaps you're calling welfare oppression? I'd agree, if this would
> lead to stopping distributing it.
>
I have shared your opinion for some time, but recently I have come to an
enlightenment based on the economic principles on which at least the
scandinavian unions were based.
It goes like this: You should never accept low wages. The reason for
this is that if you do, you also accept inefficiencies in the industry.
By forcing high wages you ensure that no inefficient business will
survive. An inefficient business will have to offshore their production
to a cheaper country, while their competitor who restructure by
investing in modern machinery and robots will have no reason to offshore.
By refusing to lower wages you ensure a higher standards of living for
the whole population by forcing creation of high-value jobs.
The other point is: You should never protect jobs! If a company sais
that it will shut your company down unless you reduce your wage, let
them. The fact that they have to compete using wages means that their
efficiency is too low. If they can not restructure to increase their
competitiveness, their business is not worth having in our society.
Another competitor with a smarter way of working who will need fewer
workers in order to get the same productivity will come along and
outcompete the old-fashioned labour-intensive method.
What you need in order to get the above to work is a strong educational
system, and a good welfare system. People must not be too afraid to be
laid off. They have to be sure that they will survive having their
company shut down. They must be given the opportunity to "restructure"
themselves - by getting more education etc. This is why having a
welfare system is a good thing.
Don't blame welfare, taxes or high wages. It is the inability to
change, the inability to restructure and create real value that is
usually the clupit.
In Norway, Telenor who is the state-owned phone company has repeatedly
laid off people while at the same time having huge profits. To me, this
indicates something very valuable. That even though the company is
state-owned, they are allowed to be efficient. People who are laid off
are protected by welfare. You should not protect jobs. Protect profit,
wages, efficiency, education and welfare. Taxation is a necessary part
of all this.
Another example. California has strong employee protection and
relatively high taxes (adjusted for the cost of health-care and
insurance). You can quit your job on short notice, and be fired on
short notice (do not protect jobs). Non-competition agreements are
basically forbidden (protect wages by giving employees freedom of
choice). Wages are high and there is fierce competition between
employers.
To sum it up. Don't attack taxes and welfare - they are a necessary
foundation for a capitalistic society! Attack laws and regulations that
remove incentives for higher efficiency.
astor
Ulrich Hobelmann
> Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hob...@web.de> wrote:
>> I think you didn't read my post.
>
> I did. I just thought it is not worth mentioning that if you think
> that working conditions are good in Europe, you are either rich or
> misinformed.
Hm, maybe I'm not well enough informed. But at least the German social
system seems to work quite well, while our work politics don't.
> Hint: good working conditions means more than just getting enough
> money to make a living.
Depends. Some jobs are just enough, but that's because there's tons of
supply and little demand. People have strong incentives to get a good
education in capitalism. If they choose not to (the vast majority that
doesn't have mental disabilities), that's their issue.
> Working conditions will not improve as long as there are millions
> of desparate, unemployed people who are ready to work under bad
> conditions. A system that exploits this fact exploits people, even
> if wages are paid. This was my entire point.
But without posing an alternative that's pretty pointless. You can give
everybody, no matter what job, a good wage, but then the goverment would
be even more bankrupt than it is already, and nobody would have an
incentive to get an education to do something that society/the market
actually finds *useful*.
Hint: there is a reason why some jobs pay more than others. You don't
like it; even I don't like it in many cases. But at some point
everybody has to accept reality and make their choice. I chose to get
an education; I hope it'll help.
Ulrich Hobelmann
> It goes like this: You should never accept low wages. The reason for
Sure, that's your choice, and a very valid one.
> this is that if you do, you also accept inefficiencies in the industry.
> By forcing high wages you ensure that no inefficient business will
> survive. An inefficient business will have to offshore their production
Now that doesn't sound good to me. Some are just starting out, and they
can't afford high wages. Some suffer temporal trouble. Forcing them to
die is economic murder ;)
If nobody signs up (or nobody worth the low wage), then the company will
fold on its own.
> to a cheaper country, while their competitor who restructure by
> investing in modern machinery and robots will have no reason to offshore.
>
> By refusing to lower wages you ensure a higher standards of living for
> the whole population by forcing creation of high-value jobs.
That's what competition does. Companies pay above average wages to
attract good workers. But small competitors sometimes don't. Do you
want a world where only the Wal Marts survive?
> The other point is: You should never protect jobs! If a company sais
> that it will shut your company down unless you reduce your wage, let
> them. The fact that they have to compete using wages means that their
Right.
> efficiency is too low. If they can not restructure to increase their
> competitiveness, their business is not worth having in our society.
Well, everyone chooses. If they don't offer good deals, the answer is no.
> Another competitor with a smarter way of working who will need fewer
> workers in order to get the same productivity will come along and
> outcompete the old-fashioned labour-intensive method.
Yes. (but isn't than job killing? ;) )
> What you need in order to get the above to work is a strong educational
> system, and a good welfare system. People must not be too afraid to be
If education is free/libre, it will adapt to society's needs. Since
people have incentives to get education, to get the jobs in demand, to
take part in society, they will get the education.
> laid off. They have to be sure that they will survive having their
> company shut down. They must be given the opportunity to "restructure"
> themselves - by getting more education etc. This is why having a
> welfare system is a good thing.
Welfare makes sense, but it should be limited, so people have reason to
work.
> Don't blame welfare, taxes or high wages. It is the inability to
> change, the inability to restructure and create real value that is
> usually the clupit.
Yes, but that's often caused by excessive regulations. High wages also
mean that fewer jobs will be created, product prices for the consumer
rise, cutting even harder on the purse.
> In Norway, Telenor who is the state-owned phone company has repeatedly
> laid off people while at the same time having huge profits. To me, this
> indicates something very valuable. That even though the company is
> state-owned, they are allowed to be efficient. People who are laid off
> are protected by welfare. You should not protect jobs. Protect profit,
> wages, efficiency, education and welfare. Taxation is a necessary part
> of all this.
But jobs, even if the state has to subsidize people so they have enough
to live, are MUCH better than welfare without work! They cost less
welfare, and they do useful things to the economy. That's why you
should not protect (minimum) wages. Just give money to the people who
don't have enough after work (negative income tax).
> Another example. California has strong employee protection and
> relatively high taxes (adjusted for the cost of health-care and
> insurance). You can quit your job on short notice, and be fired on
> short notice (do not protect jobs). Non-competition agreements are
That's NOT employee protection, but it's good because employers aren't
afraid to hire if they could fire at need.
> basically forbidden (protect wages by giving employees freedom of
> choice). Wages are high and there is fierce competition between employers.
Because there's much technology there. That's why people should get an
education instead of rusting away in ghettos.
> To sum it up. Don't attack taxes and welfare - they are a necessary
> foundation for a capitalistic society! Attack laws and regulations that
> remove incentives for higher efficiency.
They are a good thing in a semi-capitalism, which would be much better
than the current system, and much easier to sell to people than pure
capitalism.
Regulations and "artificial" laws (those that aren't valid in virtually
every society) are almost all bad, because they serve the special
interests of small groups, not 100% of society.
Nils M Holm
> Hm, maybe I'm not well enough informed. But at least the German social
> system seems to work quite well, while our work politics don't.
Oh. Must be a different system than the german social system I know.
The one I know is dismantled rather quickly and efficiently. Workers
pay more and more for health insurance and get fewer benefits than
ever before, unemployed people get criminalized and treated without
respect by officials. I know quite a few people who had to sue to get
welfare (and those were people who /really/ needed it). Nice social
system, indeed.
> But without posing an alternative that's pretty pointless. [...]
There are alternatives. Lots of them. They all share one flaw, though:
they make people free, and free people can decide whether they want
to work under bad conditions. Good for the people, bad for the WTO.
> Hint: there is a reason why some jobs pay more than others. [...]
Erm, I just told you that there is /more/ to a decent job than payment.
Payment may be OK (but still not fair) in wide parts of Europe, but
most jobs are not.
> I chose to get
> an education; I hope it'll help.
This is certainly a good start on the way to a decent job. Good luck!
Marco Antoniotti
Kenny Tilton wrote:
> The bigger question is, if mentioning Hitler ends a flamewar, when does
> a flamewar end if it /begins/ with Hitler?
>
Actually this begun with Chirac and Le Pen. Hence, since Hitler was
mentioned after that, it should have died already :)
Cheers
--
Marco
Matthew D Swank
Matt
--
"You do not really understand something unless you can
explain it to your grandmother." — Albert Einstein.
Marco Antoniotti
Since we are at it :) I would also wager that citing "The Black Book of
Communism" should be considered equivalent to mentioning Hitler when it
comes to ending a Usenet thread :)
Cheers
--
Marco
PS. Unless, of course you are a fan of Mr. Berlusconi and received said
book directly from the "source" :)
Raffael Cavallaro
> While there are reasons where it's justified, IMHO, your point here
> could also be used to kill your own (post-natal) children.
Again, this argument falls into the trap of accepting the absurd claim
of anti-abortion forces that abortion is the same as killing a child
after birth. It most certainly is not. Quite simply, if a bunch of
cells cannot survive without a woman, then they are not an independent
human life. Does this mean that advances in incubation may push back
the legal limits of abortion? Quite possibly. None of this makes
abortion of a fetus which cannot survive outside the mother's uterus
murder.
Note also in this context that anti-abortionists also usually oppose
means that would prevent implantation such as taking birth control
pills immediately after accidental or unwanted insemination (broken
condoms, rape, etc.) Yet we know that a majority of fetilized ova do
not implant even if such means are not taken. Since anti-abortionists
believe that life begins when egg and sperm join women should logically
be required to track these unimplanted fertized ova and capture them
for implantation. Failure to do so ought to at least be manslaughter or
wreckless endangerment of a child if abortion is murder.
These are the sorts of absurdities one arrives at when one accepts an
abstract definition of terms that ignore the details and nuances of
reality. Abortion differs from infanticide and child murder in many
ways. Anti-abortionits want others to unthinkingly accept their
characterization of the two as identical so that they can impose a
minority religious view on others (a substantial majority of americans
for example believe abortion should be legal). This is a civil rights
issue which the minority is trying to recast as a criminal issue in
order to gain support for their by definition unthinking position.
Unthinking because they are required to hold that view regardless of
any possible evidence or arguments to the contrary in order to be
members in good standing of their religions. There is no room for laws
based on the unthinking dogma of any religious group in a multi-ethnic
society. The laws that govern us must be based on facts that any
rational person can verify not on the articles of unthinking belief of
this or that religious sect.
Alexander Kjeldaas
> Alexander Kjeldaas wrote:
>
>> It goes like this: You should never accept low wages. The reason for
>
>
> Sure, that's your choice, and a very valid one.
>
>> this is that if you do, you also accept inefficiencies in the
>> industry. By forcing high wages you ensure that no inefficient
>> business will survive. An inefficient business will have to offshore
>> their production
>
>
> Now that doesn't sound good to me. Some are just starting out, and they
> can't afford high wages. Some suffer temporal trouble. Forcing them to
> die is economic murder ;)
>
> If nobody signs up (or nobody worth the low wage), then the company will
> fold on its own.
>
If the company has a good idea, it should be able to finance wages
during startup. If it can not do that, it starts on very fragile ground.
Realistically, a company either starts with little capital and owners
who work for nothing the first few years, or it starts with a decent
amount of capital and will be able to pay its employees. If you have
none of these options, any advisor will tell you to reconsider your
finances and/or business plan.
A company that suffers temporal trouble should be able to finance its
wages. If no investor is willing to finance its wages, its troubles are
not temporary, if the "market is correct".
>> to a cheaper country, while their competitor who restructure by
>> investing in modern machinery and robots will have no reason to offshore.
>>
>> By refusing to lower wages you ensure a higher standards of living for
>> the whole population by forcing creation of high-value jobs.
>
>
> That's what competition does. Companies pay above average wages to
> attract good workers. But small competitors sometimes don't. Do you
> want a world where only the Wal Marts survive?
>
Small competitors can give incentives that large companies sometimes can
not. For example, experience from small start-ups is very valuable in
the IT-industry. A good small company can be a gold mine that within a
larger organization would pay lower wages than as an independent company.
Sometimes larger companies are more efficient, so they should be allowed
to "rule the world". On the other hand, necessary regulations should be
put in place to limit the power and influence of these large companies,
but not their efficiency.
>> The other point is: You should never protect jobs! If a company sais
>> that it will shut your company down unless you reduce your wage, let
>> them. The fact that they have to compete using wages means that their
>
>
> Right.
>
>> efficiency is too low. If they can not restructure to increase their
>> competitiveness, their business is not worth having in our society.
>
>
> Well, everyone chooses. If they don't offer good deals, the answer is no.
>
My point is that the effect of the minimum wage, education and a welfare
system are all linked to each other. If there is no minimum wage and
little welfare, people will not have the ability to effectively increase
their own value/productivity to a level where their net contribution to
society is "worth it". Society as a whole should not accept low wages -
they have a net negative effect.
>> Another competitor with a smarter way of working who will need fewer
>> workers in order to get the same productivity will come along and
>> outcompete the old-fashioned labour-intensive method.
>
>
> Yes. (but isn't than job killing? ;) )
>
Yes, but who cares about useless jobs? The smarter competitor is
freeing up resources that can be better spent elsewhere.
>> What you need in order to get the above to work is a strong
>> educational system, and a good welfare system. People must not be too
>> afraid to be
>
>
> If education is free/libre, it will adapt to society's needs. Since
> people have incentives to get education, to get the jobs in demand, to
> take part in society, they will get the education.
>
>> laid off. They have to be sure that they will survive having their
>> company shut down. They must be given the opportunity to
>> "restructure" themselves - by getting more education etc. This is why
>> having a welfare system is a good thing.
>
>
> Welfare makes sense, but it should be limited, so people have reason to
> work.
>
I agree. On the other hand, welfare should not be so low as to make
people desperate to hold on to their jobs, or so low as to make the risk
of getting more education or changing jobs, high.
There is a "sweet-spot", and the sweet-spot is where people do not
become risk-averse, but choose to invest in their own education, risk
changing jobs etc, but at the same time do not get passified by welfare.
I believe that the "passification" by welfare often is a structural
problem, not an inherent property that humans have. People want to live
interesting lives.
>> Don't blame welfare, taxes or high wages. It is the inability to
>> change, the inability to restructure and create real value that is
>> usually the clupit.
>
>
> Yes, but that's often caused by excessive regulations. High wages also
> mean that fewer jobs will be created, product prices for the consumer
> rise, cutting even harder on the purse.
>
High wages might mean loosing a few jobs, but jobs is not the goal.
High living standards and prosperity is the goal. You do not get that
through jobs, you get it through efficiency.
Higher wages does not mean higher prices! By not focusing on low wages,
companies are forced to be more efficient in order to produce attractive
goods. Cars are better and cheaper today than before. The major reason
is better production methods, not lower wages (although it has happened
that trade unions have given in and accepted wage cuts in europe).
>> In Norway, Telenor who is the state-owned phone company has repeatedly
>> laid off people while at the same time having huge profits. To me,
>> this indicates something very valuable. That even though the company
>> is state-owned, they are allowed to be efficient. People who are laid
>> off are protected by welfare. You should not protect jobs. Protect
>> profit, wages, efficiency, education and welfare. Taxation is a
>> necessary part of all this.
>
>
> But jobs, even if the state has to subsidize people so they have enough
> to live, are MUCH better than welfare without work! They cost less
> welfare, and they do useful things to the economy. That's why you
> should not protect (minimum) wages. Just give money to the people who
> don't have enough after work (negative income tax).
>
No, you should put them on welfare AND give them the tools to change
their worth in the marketplace. This usually means giving them
education. Subsidizing inefficient industries is not effective. The
people who earn less than the minimum wage have incredible potential at
increasing their value by getting just a little more education. Putting
these people into an educational situation where they can improve their
skills is a much better investment than locking them into a life where I
as a high-tax paying citizen will have to subsidize them forever.
I think in modern society the economics will favor welfare and education
over subsidizing people with low wages more than ever. The efficiency
gap between people with high education over people with low education is
getting bigger (I think, I have no facts on this). Thus putting people
on welfare and giving them education is smarter than ever.
>> Another example. California has strong employee protection and
>> relatively high taxes (adjusted for the cost of health-care and
>> insurance). You can quit your job on short notice, and be fired on
>> short notice (do not protect jobs). Non-competition agreements are
>
>
> That's NOT employee protection, but it's good because employers aren't
> afraid to hire if they could fire at need.
>
What is employee protection? In this setting, I think you mean job
protection when you say employee protection. Jobs should not be
protected. Employers should not be afraid to hire. They should be able
to fire people at will, but they should not be able to give people low
wages.
Below a certain wage level, it is better for society that people spend
all of their time educating themselves, instead of them wasting their
lives working for inefficient subsidized businesses.
>> To sum it up. Don't attack taxes and welfare - they are a necessary
>> foundation for a capitalistic society! Attack laws and regulations
>> that remove incentives for higher efficiency.
>
>
> They are a good thing in a semi-capitalism, which would be much better
> than the current system, and much easier to sell to people than pure
> capitalism.
>
> Regulations and "artificial" laws (those that aren't valid in virtually
> every society) are almost all bad, because they serve the special
> interests of small groups, not 100% of society.
>
The important regulations that we have in society (the right to
property, human rights, welfare, unions, stock market regulation etc.)
are all necessary and improves the efficiency of society. We need
regulation to provide a framework to reduce risk. Risk is what makes
people and businesses fear change, and fear of change is a major problem
for progress and improved efficiency.
Reducing risk by protecting property and laying down rules for conduct
in the business world and stock markets is relatively straight forward
for capital markets, but is a bit more tricky for labor markets. Labor
movement, labor risk-taking, employee competition are all important for
a functioning economy, and frameworks and regulations need to be in
place to reduce risk. Welfare and a minimum wage helps to reduce the
risk, improve the efficiency of the economy, and it increases the
quality of life for people in general.
astor
Didier Verna
> Sabine is fine but in the middle of the action. I gather "neuf trois" says
> it all for anyone French?
93***: zip code for a department named « Seine Saint-Denis », located
at the north of Paris. Notoriously « Hot ». High rate of unemployment and the
like.
--
Didier Verna, did...@lrde.epita.fr, http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
EPITA / LRDE, 14-16 rue Voltaire Tel.+33 (1) 44 08 01 85
94276 Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France Fax.+33 (1) 53 14 59 22 did...@xemacs.org
Surendra Singhi
> Surendra Singhi wrote:
>> Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hob...@web.de> writes:
>>
>>> Louis Theran wrote:
>>>> The plan of xenophobic right-wingers in Europe and
>>>> the US is not to create a more just global system, it is to oppress
>>>> people in other countries where the effects are (mostly) invisible in
>>>> the ``West.''
>>> Like using local farm subsidies and tariffs to drive 3rd-world farmers
>>> out of business (who can't really compete in non-food markets yet,
>>> such as the IT market)?
>>>
>> When you want access to their markets to sell your stuff, or you still
>> want to be able to purchase that 'plasma TV' or latest 'mac' you have to bear
>> with some competition. The Chinese, Indian, Brazilian, Mexican,
>> eastern European and other Asian
>> nations have helped you *improve* your standard of living, and made the
>> workforce efficient and productive, so you should rather thank them.
>
> I never said the contrary, did I?
Sorry, I took your comment sarcastically. I should stop reading Usenet
messages late in the night and misconstruing them.
--
Surendra Singhi
http://www.public.asu.edu/~sksinghi/index.html
,----
| Great wits are sure to madness near allied,
| And thin partitions do their bounds divide.
|
| (John Dryden, Absalom and Achitophel, 1681)
`----
Ulrich Hobelmann
> On 2005-11-07 01:28:38 -0500, Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hob...@web.de> said:
>
>> While there are reasons where it's justified, IMHO, your point here
>> could also be used to kill your own (post-natal) children.
>
> Again, this argument falls into the trap of accepting the absurd claim
> of anti-abortion forces that abortion is the same as killing a child
> after birth. It most certainly is not. Quite simply, if a bunch of cells
> cannot survive without a woman, then they are not an independent human
> life. Does this mean that advances in incubation may push back the legal
> limits of abortion? Quite possibly. None of this makes abortion of a
> fetus which cannot survive outside the mother's uterus murder.
Even *born* babies can't survive on their own... While I agree that
there's a point where it's not as bad (first two months?), after a while
what you have is a growing human organism.
> Note also in this context that anti-abortionists also usually oppose
> means that would prevent implantation such as taking birth control pills
> immediately after accidental or unwanted insemination (broken condoms,
> rape, etc.) Yet we know that a majority of fetilized ova do not implant
> even if such means are not taken. Since anti-abortionists believe that
> life begins when egg and sperm join women should logically be required
> to track these unimplanted fertized ova and capture them for
> implantation. Failure to do so ought to at least be manslaughter or
> wreckless endangerment of a child if abortion is murder.
Hehe, yes, I was wondering about that too :D
(Maybe that's why the Pope doesn't permit contraception?)
Ulrich Hobelmann
> There is a "sweet-spot", and the sweet-spot is where people do not
> become risk-averse, but choose to invest in their own education, risk
> changing jobs etc, but at the same time do not get passified by welfare.
> I believe that the "passification" by welfare often is a structural
> problem, not an inherent property that humans have. People want to live
> interesting lives.
There is a curse. They say "may you live in interesting times."
But sure, I like interesting.
> Below a certain wage level, it is better for society that people spend
> all of their time educating themselves, instead of them wasting their
> lives working for inefficient subsidized businesses.
That's an interesting POV. I'd say you're right in that a society
should support that way of life.
> The important regulations that we have in society (the right to
> property, human rights, welfare, unions, stock market regulation etc.)
> are all necessary and improves the efficiency of society. We need
> regulation to provide a framework to reduce risk. Risk is what makes
> people and businesses fear change, and fear of change is a major problem
> for progress and improved efficiency.
For risk there are insurances. But yes, there are some basic insurances
that it makes sense for society to agree on.