When the Market God fails?
Doug Bashford
Everyone agrees that all major ecological
catastrophies were causes by economic reasons.
When the Market God fails?
Of course, gods cannot fail.
Here is one reason.
--Doug
Jay wrote:
If one is going to produce an testable model of human behavior,
one is going to have to use "real" (not abstractions) inputs.
It's a different method than economists are familliar with.
THE METHOD
The "scientific method" is the best way yet discovered for
discovering truth amid a world of lies and delusion. The
simple version looks something like this:
1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
2. Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed.
3. Use the theory to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5. Modify the theory in the light of your results.
Go to step 3. [ http://www.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html ]
But economists do not use the scientific method. Economists
use the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after-the-fact) reasoning"
method. Here's how that method works:
Suppose one were in a primitive jungle village somewhere.
Further suppose, that a child became sick and the local
witch doctor was charged with explaining the sickness.
Perhaps he would say the child "must be" sick
because someone offended the gods. That's the kind of
method that economists use -- the witch doctor method:
"Those who believe society can best be understood as
a series of markets begin by positing a rational, calculating
individual whose goal is to maximize 'utility.' This premise
says everything and nothing, since it is true by definition
in all cases. But it is a key aspect of the market model,
since it is the behavioral part of the logical argument that
whatever the market decides must be optimal." [1]
"Economists enamored of pure markets begin with the theory,
and hang models on assumptions that cannot themselves be
challenged. The characteristic grammatical usage is an
unusual subjunctive -- the verb form 'must be.' For
example, if wages for manual workers are declining,
it must be that their economic value is declining. If a
corporate raider walks away from a deal
with half a billion dollars, it must be that he added
that much value to the economy. If Japan can produce
better autos than Detroit, there must be some
inherent locational logic, else the market would not
dictate that result. If commercial advertising leads
consumers to buy shoddy or harmful products,
they must be 'maximizing their utility' -- because
we know by assumption that consumers always maximize
their utility. How do we know that? Because
to do anything else would be irrational. And how do
we know that individuals always behave rationally?
Because that is the premise from which we begin.
The truly interesting institutional questions -- the
disjunctures between what free-market assumptions
would predict and the actual outcomes -- are
dismissed by the tautological and deductive form of
reasoning. The fact that the real world is already far
from a perfect market is ignored for the sake
of theoretic convenience. The dissenter cannot challenge
the theory; he can only describe the real world." [2]
"There is at the core of the celebration of markets a
relentless tautology. If we begin, by assumption, with
the premise that nearly everything can be
understood as a market and that markets optimize
outcomes, then everything else leads back to the
same conclusion -- marketize! If, in the event, a
particular market doesn't optimize, there is only one
possible inference: it must be insufficiently marketlike.
This epistemological sleight of hand is an astonishing blend
that blurs the descriptive with the normative. It is a
no-fail system for guaranteeing that theory trumps evidence.
Should some human activity not, in fact, behave like an
efficient market, it must be the result of some interference
that should be removed or a stubborn human
refusal to appreciate markets. It cannot possibly be that
the theory fails to specify accurately how human behavior
works." [3]
[1] p. 41, EVERYTHING FOR SALE, Robert Kuttner; Knopf, 1997;
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0394583922
[2] p. 9, Kuttner.
[3] p. 6, Kuttner.
More at http://www.egroups.com/message/dieoff/1
Jay -- www.dieoff.org
=============================
From: "Gary
Jay wrote:
> If you can predict human behavior based on "empathy" (or sugar and spice,
> puppy dog tails, and everything nice), publish in Science and scientists
> around the world rush to replicate your experiment.
>
> Go for it. That Nobel will look nice over your mantel.
Amartya Sen already received a Nobel for doing economics with
empathy. His work on poverty has had a strong element of
empathy (perhaps not using the word directly, but nevertheless,
the concept is there). He writes of the need to provide
opportunity, that the problem of poverty is not one of
constraints, but rather of ensuring access to resources,
knowledge, etc. He also writes, in the seminal 1977
Rational Fools paper (which is a profound
critique of the neoclassical model), of the need for
individuals to consider the "claims of others"
(be empathetic, walk in the shoes of others) before
taking an economic (egoistic) action. He has noted how
neoclassical economics models a human as a kind of
"social moron," i.e., the egoist, acting without empathy.
Gary
> Subject: RE: New Model for H. Sapiens?
Ron Peterson
> Everyone agrees that all major ecological
> catastrophies were causes by economic reasons.
I thought that the Mt. St. Helens eruption was a major ecological
disaster, but I don't see how it was caused by economic reasons.
Ron
mason clark
a pimple
Harold
Bashford ) wrote:
>
>Everyone agrees that all major ecological
>catastrophies were causes by economic reasons.
That's a good joke, dude.
Like the eruption of Mount St Helens?
[deleted]
Regards, Harold
----
"Hundreds of millions of people will soon perish in smog disasters
in New York and Los Angeles...the oceans will die of DDT poisoning
by 1979...the U.S. life expectancy will drop to 42 years by 1980
due to cancer epidemics."
---- Paul Ehrlich, 1969, Ramparts.
JohnT
Harold wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 01:24:50 GMT, see.m...@theBeach.edu ( Doug
> Bashford ) wrote:
>
> >
> >Everyone agrees that all major ecological
> >catastrophies were causes by economic reasons.
>
> That's a good joke, dude.
>
> Like the eruption of Mount St Helens?
Yep. If a certain paving contractor had done his job better and
hadn't used an inferior grade of concrete, Mt. St Helens probably
would have taken the pressure and not blown. Sue the bastard!
BTW, who's the contractor hired to fix the San Andreas fault?
Did anyone even bid on the project?
The Krakatoa eruption that blew a mountain into the stratosphere,
was heard 3000 miles away and made the jet stream dusty for
5 years was even more impressive. There was an even bigger
eruption in southeast Asia around 540 AD. Then there was the
big meteorite that blew up at Tunguska? Siberia in 1908? and
knocked down all the trees for 40 miles around.
Liberal guys, unscientific and absurd assertions like the one in
the quote above "Everyone agrees... by economic reasons" don't
do any good for promoting your concerns.
John
Doug Bashford
>COMMENTS ON EMAIL RECEIVED
>
>eferring to the above statement, “In short, the end of oil
>sgnals the end of civilization, as we know it.” That statement
>is a doomsday statement which could be correct. Then again,
>it could be incorrect.
Some believe that when the crunch arrives, we will all join
hands and sing "We are the World".
However, I believe the downside of the energy curve
will usher in a new era of world wars. This is because
we evolved according to the "maximum power" principle -- it's
innate:
"War is a male reproductive strategy. All that is needed
for the strategy to evolve, is that aggressors fight and win
more often than they lose". [ p. 165, THE DARK SIDE OF
MAN: Tracing the Origins of Male Violence, by Michael
P. Ghiglieri; Perseus, 1999;
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/073820076X ]
"Jim Baker attempted to explain the economic stakes of Iraq's
invasion for the US by saying the issue was 'jobs, jobs,
jobs.' Immediately the press jumped all over him... In fact,
Jim was simply echoing what we had been saying... a point
I myself had made in a speech in mid-August. There was no
inconsistency." [ President George Bush, in p. 399, A WORLD
TRANSFORMED, George Bush & Brent Scowcroft;
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679432485 ]
////////////////
Doug Bashford
On Mon, 01 Jan 2001, mason clark wrote about:
Re: When the Market God fails?
>On 1 Jan 2001 (Ron Peterson) wrote:
>>Doug Bashford wrote:
>>> Everyone agrees that all major ecological
>>> catastrophies were causes by economic reasons.
>>
>>I thought that the Mt. St. Helens eruption was a major ecological
>>disaster, but I don't see how it was caused by economic reasons.
>>
> a pimple
Yep. If these guys think it was a "major ecological
catastrophie," no wonder they chime: "What me worry?"
whenever cued.
But more more important, we notice they could not
respond to the body of that post:
3. Use the theory to make predictions.
4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations.
5. Modify the theory in the light of your results.
Go to step 3. [ http://www.xnet.com/~blatura/skep_1.html ]
But economists do not use the scientific method. Economists
use the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after-the-fact) reasoning"
method. Here's how that method works:
etc....
Whistling in the dark?
Who could blame them?
Ron Peterson
> >On 1 Jan 2001 (Ron Peterson) wrote:
> >>Doug Bashford wrote:
> >>> Everyone agrees that all major ecological
> >>> catastrophies were causes by economic reasons.
> >>
> >>I thought that the Mt. St. Helens eruption was a major ecological
> >>disaster, but I don't see how it was caused by economic reasons.
> Yep. If these guys think it was a "major ecological
> catastrophie," no wonder they chime: "What me worry?"
> whenever cued.
I just thought that you should be more careful in making universal
statements.
> But more more important, we notice they could not
> respond to the body of that post:
I believe that the scientific method is the best way to go, but
sometimes statistical analysis may give adequate results.
Ron
mason clark
>
>Harold wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 01:24:50 GMT, see.m...@theBeach.edu ( Doug
>> Bashford ) wrote:
>> >
>> >Everyone agrees that all major ecological
>> >catastrophies were causes by economic reasons.
>>
>> That's a good joke, dude.
>>
>> Like the eruption of Mount St Helens?
>
>Yep. If a certain paving contractor had done his job better and
>hadn't used an inferior grade of concrete, Mt. St Helens probably
>would have taken the pressure and not blown. Sue the bastard!
>
>BTW, who's the contractor hired to fix the San Andreas fault?
>Did anyone even bid on the project?
>
>The Krakatoa eruption that blew a mountain into the stratosphere,
>was heard 3000 miles away and made the jet stream dusty for
>5 years was even more impressive. There was an even bigger
>eruption in southeast Asia around 540 AD. Then there was the
>big meteorite that blew up at Tunguska? Siberia in 1908? and
>knocked down all the trees for 40 miles around.
>
>Liberal guys, unscientific and absurd assertions like the one in
>the quote above "Everyone agrees... by economic reasons" don't
>do any good for promoting your concerns.
>
explosions etc. listed above killed how many people? Maybe
less than the number who starved in Somalia, not to mention
Sudan or Ethopia or So what's the point? Flood deaths in
Bangladesh -- natural or economic?
Everyone should know that all major ecological
catastrophies were caused by economic reasons.
Harold
wrote:
You have trouble reading?
Regards, Harold
----------
In fairness to modern liberals, there’s no evidence any of them seriously
wish to restore the American society that existed before the adoption
of the 13th Amendment in 1865. That is, a society where it was legal
for one human being to own another.
Mark Patrick Witte
mason clark <mas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 10:54:28 -0800, JohnT <j...@informatics.net> wrote:
>>
>>Harold wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 01:24:50 GMT, see.m...@theBeach.edu ( Doug
>>> Bashford ) wrote:
>>> >
>>> >Everyone agrees that all major ecological
>>> >catastrophies were causes by economic reasons.
> I don't really know what's going on in this thread, but the natural
> explosions etc. listed above killed how many people? Maybe
> less than the number who starved in Somalia, not to mention
> Sudan or Ethopia or So what's the point? Flood deaths in
> Bangladesh -- natural or economic?
>
> Everyone should know that all major ecological
> catastrophies were caused by economic reasons.
Given the examples cited, perhaps you mean that all major ecological
jddescr...@my-deja.com
see.m...@theBeach.edu ( Doug Bashford ) wrote: the comments
following this response.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You left out the key indicator of good versus bad; free
markets or forced markets. As explained in the book
"Capitalism; The Unknown Ideal" by the only economist to
see the Russian socialist bubble collapse coming, Ayn Rand
shows how when a free = capitalist market exists everyone
has an opportunity to optimize their productive capabilitiese
in terms of specialization and mix of automatic/machine and
personal preference parameters. Since only mutually profitable
exchanges occur in such free markets it is a naturally stable
and improving situation. It is only when there are forced or
controled or taxed or other taken king's markets set up by the
king's men to live by looting auf the backs of the productive
real wealth producers that all the evils, including wars, of
socialism follow.
Good seeing. JD
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Doug Bashford
On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 10:54:28JohnT wrote about:
Re: When the Market God fails?
>Harold wrote:
>> ( Doug Bashford ) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Everyone agrees that all major ecological
>> >catastrophies were causes by economic reasons.
>>
>> That's a good joke, dude.
>>
>> Like the eruption of Mount St Helens?
>
>Yep. If a certain paving contractor had done his job better and
>hadn't used an inferior grade of concrete, Mt. St Helens probably
>would have taken the pressure and not blown. Sue the bastard!
>
>BTW, who's the contractor hired to fix the San Andreas fault?
>Did anyone even bid on the project?
>
>The Krakatoa eruption that blew a mountain into the stratosphere,
>was heard 3000 miles away and made the jet stream dusty for
>5 years was even more impressive. There was an even bigger
>eruption in southeast Asia around 540 AD. Then there was the
>big meteorite that blew up at Tunguska? Siberia in 1908? and
>knocked down all the trees for 40 miles around.
>
>Liberal guys, unscientific and absurd assertions like the one in
>the quote above "Everyone agrees... by economic reasons" don't
>do any good for promoting your concerns.
>John
Humans are snuffing over 200 species a year, this is greater
than the "dinosaur mass extinction" 65 million years ago.
Almost all biologists agree this has all the symptoms of another
mass extinction...except duration, it's only 100 years old.
The last mass extinction 65 million years ago lasted
10,000 years, and by nature, mass extinctions are
species indiscriminant.
>> >Everyone agrees that all major ecological
>> >catastrophies were causes by economic reasons.
Errr...how many species did your big bad catastrophes
cause? Zero? Hmmmm... What does "major" mean?
Hmmmm... What does "major ecological catastrophe"
mean? A loud pop, perhaps? You will need to go back
65 million years to prove me wrong.
>Liberal guys, unscientific and absurd assertions like the one in
>the quote above "Everyone agrees... by economic reasons" don't
>do any good for promoting your concerns. >John
I'll agree that it was a bit sloppily worded this time. However
I made a similar challenger twice here in sci.env, and
non of the anti-environmental trolls took me up on it.
On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 12:56:53 -0800, mason clark wrote:
> I don't really know what's going on in this thread, but the natural
> explosions etc. listed above killed how many people? Maybe
> less than the number who starved in Somalia, not to mention
> Sudan or Ethopia or So what's the point? Flood deaths in
> Bangladesh -- natural or economic?
>
> Everyone should know that all major ecological
> catastrophies were caused by economic reasons.
Pretty much. The key word is "major."
--Doug
Doug Bashford
>You left out the key indicator of good versus bad; free
>markets or forced markets.
If your point is that US styled capitalism is far, far
from a free market, I'll agree. After all, the Fed
historically manipulates wages via "WANTED:
unemployment" interest rates, and the job market is
the largest market of all. Therefore, if the largest
market is manipulated, it is all manipulated. That's not
capitalism, that's hyper-capitalism. As are all the
other pro-business *regulations* and treaties.
> As explained in the book
>"Capitalism; The Unknown Ideal" by the only economist to
>see the Russian socialist bubble collapse coming, Ayn Rand
>shows how when a free = capitalist market exists everyone
>has an opportunity to optimize their productive capabilitiese
>in terms of specialization and mix of automatic/machine and
>personal preference parameters.
Rand is known as the Rush Limbaugh of philososophers.
She appeals to the common poorly or narrowly educated man.
And like Rush Limbaugh, I agree with with over 90%
of what she says. But it only takes 1% poison to spoil
the whole meal.
>Since only mutually profitable
>exchanges occur in such free markets it is a naturally stable
>and improving situation.
How would you account for, say...air pollution?
My burning eyes here in Fresno? Where
is the "mutually profitable exchange"?
And what of groundwater pollution? When 10,000
unregulated libertarian outhouses poison my family?
> It is only when there are forced or
>controled or taxed or other taken king's markets set up by the
>king's men to live by looting auf the backs of the productive
>real wealth producers that all the evils, including wars, of
>socialism follow.
Rather simplistic, isn't it?
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
Bashford:
jddescr...@my-deja.com
see.m...@theBeach.edu ( Doug Bashford ) wrote:
>
>
>
> >You left out the key indicator of good versus bad; free
> >markets or forced markets.
>
> If your point is that US styled capitalism is far, far
> from a free market, I'll agree. After all, the Fed
> historically manipulates wages via "WANTED:
> unemployment" interest rates, and the job market is
> the largest market of all. Therefore, if the largest
> market is manipulated, it is all manipulated. That's not
> capitalism, that's hyper-capitalism. As are all the
> other pro-business *regulations* and treaties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not just call it what it is? a take over of free markets by
socialism, by collectives and combines of crooked socialist
politicians manipulating the society instead of family business
capitalism ownership of free enterprise? Ayn Rand called it a
"mixed" economy part free and part forced or socialized or
regulated and the socialist waves of take over have gotten ever
larger and more destructive of American happiness and freedom.
One doesn't need to be recognized as a great freedom economist
like Ayn Rand or Adam Smith to understand that the happiness
produced by the US has been unique in world history. The reason
was freedom for average people and as the socialists destroy it
they destroy everything America has meant. You recognize that the
first socialist wave of the last century [1900 - 1920] was when
the FEDMAN [federal manipulator] took all the "emergency" powers
to regulate America and send our soldiers to die for the king's
men comrades in Europe. It was that socialist wave that later
resulted in the Hoover/Roosevelt depression. Similar mechanisms
are at work today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > As explained in the book
> >"Capitalism; The Unknown Ideal" by the only economist to
> >see the Russian socialist bubble collapse coming, Ayn Rand
> >shows how when a free = capitalist market exists everyone
> >has an opportunity to optimize their productive capabilitiese
> >in terms of specialization and mix of automatic/machine and
> >personal preference parameters.
>
> Rand is known as the Rush Limbaugh of philososophers.
> She appeals to the common poorly or narrowly educated man.
> And like Rush Limbaugh, I agree with with over 90%
> of what she says. But it only takes 1% poison to spoil
> the whole meal.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
If only there were some "good" king to straignten out US average
people about things like freedom. I know this will seem very
simpistic to you but many of US don't want some "brilliant"
socialist manipulator [socman] commanding US how to produce and
sacrifice to serve their taking/taxing wishes. It upsets US and
we try, with the help of thinkers like Ayn Rand and RUSH, to
understand how to stop their taking of our life happiness. They
both have clearly identified the socialist root of all evil in the
nation. You are right that many of US didn't graduate from some
socialist academic king's men ivory castle but don't be sure that
we can't resist the take over. American freedom has survived for
several hundred years and many won't give it up cheaply. See the
Mel Gibson movie PATRIOT it you want to be reminded of the American
freedom spirit and remember what the New Hampshire paatriots had to
tell the king and the king's men.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> >Since only mutually profitable
> >exchanges occur in such free markets it is a naturally stable
> >and improving situation.
>
> How would you account for, say...air pollution?
> My burning eyes here in Fresno? Where
> is the "mutually profitable exchange"?
>
> And what of groundwater pollution? When 10,000
> unregulated libertarian outhouses poison my family?
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
You are going to manipulate how other's live by enslaving them
to your wishes? That of course isn't freedom and has never
worked stably because most people don't want to associate with
either slaves or slave masters. If you want a special atmosphere
for your eyes that isn't agreed upon by most people in your
neighborhood then go about earning those special benefits in
exchange for your own good products don't try to steal them
from someone else for king's free.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > It is only when there are forced or
> >controled or taxed or other taken king's markets set up by the
> >king's men to live by looting auf the backs of the productive
> >real wealth producers that all the evils, including wars, of
> >socialism follow.
>
> Rather simplistic, isn't it?
>
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> Bashford:
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes! it's fairly simple. Those who believe in the American way of
freedom; all people of inherently equal value reference the free
people laws - realize that special king's privilege can only occur
by the imposition of Fing [forcing,frauding,fearing] and that must
always result in ultimately war. Thus the SASS [Socialist Assumption]
that you seem to be advocating that; a "good" king can do "good" by
the aggressive coercive utilization of Fing is just an alibi for
violence and king's men /socialist rule. JD
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
David Lloyd-Jones
<jddescr...@my-deja.com> wrote
> see.m...@theBeach.edu ( Doug Bashford ) wrote:
<Both snipped, but you've already read them. Haven't you?>
I sometimes wonder why I bother reading this newsgroup, but seeing this pair
makes it all worth while.
-dlj.
left...@my-deja.com
>
> Since only mutually profitable
> exchanges occur in such free markets it is a naturally stable
> and improving situation.
How do you explain the great depression?
> It is only when there are forced or
> controled or taxed or other taken king's markets set up by the
> king's men to live by looting auf the backs of the productive
> real wealth producers that all the evils, including wars, of
> socialism follow.
Does capitalism produce wars too? Or is it
only socialism?
How about the industrial revolution?
What are your feelings on child labor back then?
How about modern day sweatshops?
left...@my-deja.com
>
> Why not just call it what it is? a take over of free markets by
> socialism, by collectives and combines of crooked socialist
> politicians manipulating the society instead of family business
> capitalism ownership of free enterprise?
I think it was Rawls that proposed this test?
Imagine that you could choose which society you
live in. You will be born again. You
may not be smart, you may not be strong. You
may be incapable of doing much at all. Which
society would you rather go to: socialist sweden
or free market mexico?
The very nature of a free market tends towards monopoly.
Your 'family business' in a libertarian is a figment
of the novelists imagination.
> understand how to stop their taking of our life happiness. They
> both have clearly identified the socialist root of all evil in the
> nation.
Do you really believe that socialism
is the root of all evil in the nation?
That seems rather simplistic.
> >
> > And what of groundwater pollution? When 10,000
> > unregulated libertarian outhouses poison my family?
> >
>
> You are going to manipulate how other's live by enslaving them
> to your wishes? That of course isn't freedom and has never
> worked stably because most people don't want to associate with
> either slaves or slave masters.
I thought libertarians valued property rights?
Wouldn't those 10,000 outhouses be destroying
this man's property? What about collective property?
Who owns the airwaves? The air?
> If you want a special atmosphere
> for your eyes that isn't agreed upon by most people in your
> neighborhood then go about earning those special benefits in
> exchange for your own good products don't try to steal them
> from someone else for king's free.
But what about his property rights?
If exxon leaks a million gallons of oil
into the ground beneath my house, are
you saying I should just deal with it
or move? What if my other 'neighbors' are
various polluters? What happens when they
pollute my air, land, and water? Is that
just too bad?
>
> Yes! it's fairly simple. Those who believe in the American way of
> freedom; all people of inherently equal value reference the free
> people laws - realize that special king's privilege can only occur
> by the imposition of Fing [forcing,frauding,fearing] and that must
> always result in ultimately war. Thus the SASS [Socialist Assumption]
> that you seem to be advocating that; a "good" king can do "good" by
> the aggressive coercive utilization of Fing is just an alibi for
> violence and king's men /socialist rule. JD
>
Why do you equate socialism with 'king'?
Paul Gate
<jddescr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9315q7$kj2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
In many ways I agree with you, but I feel you have ignored
something important
Many of the manipulations you describe are mandated by popular
concerns that are fed by the unpleasant economic results of the fact
that the bare bones of the so called 'free market' system we have is
slanted and unfair. If all the regulation you describe were removed
we would have a heavily slanted and unfair market, in which people
could purchase from one another the aristocratically derived ability to
charge tribute for the presence of others in an area, (and by extension
their mere participation in economic life). The unmitigated results of these
irrational privileges can be pretty unpleasant, and so popular calls for the
'free market' to be modified in some way, increase. It is a sad injustice
however that the thing popularly identified as the 'free market' is no
such thing at all, but rather a horrific mismatch of a genuine free market
in goods and services and a series of economically destructive,
aristocratic-like privileges in territory and other natural resources.
Imo people who speak against the unmitigated free market should
consider whether indeed if it is a free market in goods and services
that they truly object to, rather than the irrational, state sponsored
licence scheme, that allows people to inflict charges on each other
for the ground beneath all our feet.
JohnT
Doug Bashford wrote:
The dinosaur extinction is believed to be caused by an asteroid
hitting the earth in the Carribean area at a low angle, causing a
blast of redhot gas to sweep across North America at about 5
miles a second, scorching everything in its path. The survivors
of the immediate disaster were mostly water dwellers. The dust
cloud resulting from it seems to have cooled the earth so many
species froze to death. The whole disaster would have taken
only a few years to run its course.
Species come and go. They always have. It's the job of species
to adapt and survive. Many of the vulnerable species these days
are noticeably less than adaptable, for example koala bears that
can live only on bamboo shoots. Some, of course, are victims of
human superstition and idiocy, like rhinocerus horns being valued
as aphrodisiacs.
It's tragic and I hate to sound like I don't care about such things,
and I'm in favor of giving wildlife a break, but I thought it was a
bit much to halt some kind of development project (a hydroelectric
dam?) because of snail darters.
John
Harold
[deleted]
>Species come and go. They always have. It's the job of species
>to adapt and survive. Many of the vulnerable species these days
>are noticeably less than adaptable, for example koala bears that
>can live only on bamboo shoots.
Just an off topic note here. Koala bears (who aren't bears, BTW) eat
only eucalyptus leaves.
It's Pandas who eat bamboo.
Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig)
-----
"Taking charge of one's life is an "unceasing task,"...explains
why "many people are afraid of liberty."
---F. A. Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty
Scott Nudds
: It's tragic and I hate to sound like I don't care about such things,
: and I'm in favor of giving wildlife a break, but I thought it was a
: bit much to halt some kind of development project (a hydroelectric
: dam?) because of snail darters.
The solution has always appeared rather trivial to me. Establish
several new colonies of "snail darters" in other areas where they can
survive and then build the hydroelectric dam.
Scott Nudds
: What are your feelings on child labor back then?
: How about modern day sweatshops?
The Libertarian position on child labour is quite clear. They are
completely in favour of it up to and including child prostitution. It is
clearly stated in their political platform, and is clearly supported by
the ideology argued by virtually all libertarians.
Should you care to look, you will find a strong contingent of pedophiles
in the Libertarian ranks, and many members who admit and defend their
travels to foreign nations for the purpose of havign sexual relations with
children.
The explanation is always the same. Children have the same rights as
adults. Adults have the right to sell their bodies, and therfore so do
children. In addition, the children can use the money to purchase things
they like or need.
To them, enticing a child into a car with money is quite different that
just attracting them with candy.
Greg Hunter
"Scott Nudds" <af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
news:933aug$9f0$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org...
Do you work for the US Army Corps of Engineers???
This approach has not worked with Salmon and would not work here. The
question is "How many links in the biodiversity chain have to be removed
before there is a crash"??
The future = Corn, Soybeans and People.
implying Carnivores = Cannibals
Watch Charlton Heston as Moses in Soylent Green.
Harold
wrote:
>"Scott Nudds" <af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
>news:933aug$9f0$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org...
>> JohnT (j...@informatics.net) wrote:
>> : It's tragic and I hate to sound like I don't care about such things,
>> : and I'm in favor of giving wildlife a break, but I thought it was a
>> : bit much to halt some kind of development project (a hydroelectric
>> : dam?) because of snail darters.
>>
>> The solution has always appeared rather trivial to me. Establish
>> several new colonies of "snail darters" in other areas where they can
>> survive and then build the hydroelectric dam.
>>
>Do you work for the US Army Corps of Engineers???
That's supposed to be a put down? Those are some of the best civil
engineers in the world.
>
>This approach has not worked with Salmon and would not work here.
It does not even have to "work" with snail darters. SInce the
original fuss, snail darters have been found in almost every stream
where they were searched for.
Doug Bashford
On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:12:52 JohnT wrote about:
Re: When the Market God fails?
>Doug Bashford wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Jan 2001 10:54:28JohnT wrote
>> >do any good for promoting your concerns.
>> >John
>>
>> Humans are snuffing over 200 species a year, this is greater
>> than the "dinosaur mass extinction" 65 million years ago.
>> Almost all biologists agree this has all the symptoms of another
>> mass extinction...except duration, it's only 100 years old.
>> The last mass extinction 65 million years ago lasted
>> 10,000 years, and by nature, mass extinctions are
>> species indiscriminant.
>
>The dinosaur extinction is believed to be caused by an asteroid
>hitting the earth in the Carribean area at a low angle, causing a
>blast of redhot gas to sweep across North America at about 5
>miles a second, scorching everything in its path. The survivors
>of the immediate disaster were mostly water dwellers. The dust
>cloud resulting from it seems to have cooled the earth so many
>species froze to death.
That sounds like a pretty good description.
> The whole disaster would have taken
>only a few years to run its course.
Wrong. Check the geologic record. What took a few years
(or minutes) was the triggering of the mass extinction.
Many biologist believe we may have already triggered one,
and there is no going back. I'm hopeing they are wrong.
>Species come and go. They always have. It's the job of species
>to adapt and survive.
True. However, the nature of this mass extinction has no
precidence. Never before has one been triggered by
global domination of one species. Certainly when humans
go extinct, their death throes will indeed make the KT extiction
look like a fart in the wind.
>Many of the vulnerable species these days
>are noticeably less than adaptable, for example koala bears that
>can live only on bamboo shoots.
Those are your anthropocentric values, not Nature's.
> Some, of course, are victims of
>human superstition and idiocy, like rhinocerus horns being valued
>as aphrodisiacs.
>
>It's tragic and I hate to sound like I don't care about such things,
>and I'm in favor of giving wildlife a break, but I thought it was a
>bit much to halt some kind of development project (a hydroelectric
>dam?) because of snail darters. >John
I agree. But your cavilier attitude should not (and I doubt
it is,) should be based on that. I urge you to check my
above facts.
--Doug
David Lloyd-Jones
" Doug Bashford " <see.m...@theBeach.edu> wrote
> I urge you to check my
> above facts.
> --Doug
I went back and re-read Doug's message three times. It contains no "above
facts."
-dlj.
mason clark
David, for your convenience:
"True. However, the nature of this mass extinction has no
precidence. Never before has one been triggered by
global domination of one species. Certainly when humans
go extinct, their death throes will indeed make the KT extiction
look like a fart in the wind."
Mason
Scott Nudds
: Certainly when humans
: go extinct, their death throes will indeed make the KT extiction
: look like a fart in the wind."
We are destined to be replaced by machines. We will simply be squeezed
out of existance like the other species that we have extinguished.
Turn about is fair play.
Scott Nudds
: "Scott Nudds" <af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
: news:933aug$9f0$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org...
: > JohnT (j...@informatics.net) wrote:
: > : It's tragic and I hate to sound like I don't care about such things,
: > : and I'm in favor of giving wildlife a break, but I thought it was a
: > : bit much to halt some kind of development project (a hydroelectric
: > : dam?) because of snail darters.
: >
: > The solution has always appeared rather trivial to me. Establish
: > several new colonies of "snail darters" in other areas where they can
: > survive and then build the hydroelectric dam.
Greg Hunter (ghu...@erinet.com) wrote:
: Do you work for the US Army Corps of Engineers???
No. Must I in order to move a fish?
Greg Hunter wrote:
: This approach has not worked with Salmon and would not work here. The
: question is "How many links in the biodiversity chain have to be removed
: before there is a crash"??
A question that is being researched in a variety of ecosystems.
As to the salmon, I fail to see your point. If the goal is to preserve
the fish, then you don't destroy the existing habitat until you have
ensured that the fish is surviving in the new habitats. You will also
note that it is clearly stated that you establish multiple habitats so
that an accident in one area does not wipe out the species.
Once the species is preserved, the hydroelectric dam can be constructed.
I fail to see the problem.
David Lloyd-Jones
"mason clark" <mas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> "David Lloyd-Jones" <ico...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> >I went back and re-read Doug's message three times. It contains no "above
> >facts."
> >
> "True. However, the nature of this mass extinction has no
> precidence. Never before has one been triggered by
> global domination of one species. Certainly when humans
> go extinct, their death throes will indeed make the KT extiction
> look like a fart in the wind."
Yes, Mason. I agree with you that this seems to be Doug's view of facticity.
To put things in perspective, the major event in the history of life on
Earth was the creation of an oxygen atmosphere -- an event of which the
human race is a sideshow. The methane and ammonia eating little critters
which carried this out are no longer with us, having oxidized themselves
into extinction. How sad. And without even filing an environmental impact
statement.
But credit where credit is due: Doug is in the ball park. The previous
Terran atmosphere was very largely methane -- a fart in the wind.
-dlj.
Doug Bashford
On 5 Jan 2001 02:27:17 GMT, (Scott Nudds) wrote
>left...@my-deja.com wrote:
>: What are your feelings on child labor back then?
>: How about modern day sweatshops?
Don't forget, they want legalized pollution too.
> The Libertarian position on child labour is quite clear.
Same as on everything else:
All the freedom you can buy,
and not one drop more.
> They are
>completely in favour of it up to and including child prostitution. It is
>clearly stated in their political platform, and is clearly supported by
>the ideology argued by virtually all libertarians.
>
> Should you care to look, you will find a strong contingent of pedophiles
>in the Libertarian ranks, and many members who admit and defend their
>travels to foreign nations for the purpose of havign sexual relations with
>children.
All the freedom you can buy,
and not one drop more.
> The explanation is always the same. Children have the same rights as
>adults. Adults have the right to sell their bodies, and therfore so do
>children. In addition, the children can use the money to purchase things
>they like or need.
>
> To them, enticing a child into a car with money is quite different that
>just attracting them with candy.
Yep. Look for yourself:
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_print.html
...their own words.
Or follow the below thread. It eventually splits into
another thread about Libertarian child prostitution.
And several others....
Subject:
LIBERTARIAN platform on child prostitution..
==========instert text
In <8sdauf$4i9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
on Sun, 15 Oct 2000 Langrrr wrote:
about: Re: The Libertarian Party's Platform
>In article <39ea2a60....@news.psnw.com>,
> (Doug Bashford) wrote:
>> Langrrr <Lan...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> >> URL: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_print.html
>> >>
>> >> Read it and laugh.
>> >OK, I'll bite. Which specific passage do you find funny?
Bashford quotes Libbie Party platform:
>> "We call for a modification of the laws governing such
>> torts as trespass and nuisance to cover damages done
>> by air, water, radiation, and noise pollution. We
>> oppose legislative proposals to exempt persons who
>> claim damage from radiation from having to prove such
>> damage was in fact caused
>> by radiation. Strict liability, not
>> government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should
>> regulate pollution. We therefore demand the
>> abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. We also oppose
>> government-mandated smoking and
>> non-smoking areas in privately owned businesses.
>>
>> Toxic waste disposal problems have been created by government
>> policies that separate liability from property.
>
>And do you understand what this means, Mr. Bashford? What specifically
>do you have a problem with?
The whole enchilada. Not the bricks in the wall, but the wall.
Legalized pollution is funny. Putting the burden of proof
on the injured party is funny. No? You don't think that's funny?
>> >OK, I'll bite. Which specific passage do you find funny?
I did just that. How can I be more specific? We have discussed
this (pres. candidate Browne's enviro position) in detail in
sci.environment.
======================= for example these threads:
9-13-00 Re: Do most Libertarians hate the Environment???
talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.save.the.earth,talk.politics.misc,
alt.society.liberalism,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
or
RE: Libertarians do NOT hate the Environment! Harry Browne .
>From the "Libertarian Party's 2000 Candidate for President's
>official stance on the environment" posted by Langrrr:
>
> "Harry Browne's stand on the Environment"
> "Overview:
> "Pollution seldom occurs on private property..."
===============================
LAUGHINGGGGGG!!!!!!!
Is that funny or what!
However, finding all the examples on this page took me a grand
total of 5 minutes. Certainly if I were to read the whole thing,
I would have rolling on the floor in laughter. But these
examples will do. Everybody likes good jokes.
>> ========================
>>
>> We recognize that government is the source of
>> monopoly, through its grants
>> of legal privilege to special interests in the economy.
>>
>> "Anti-trust" laws do not prevent monopoly, but foster it by
>> limiting competition. We therefore call for the repeal of all
>> "anti-trust" laws, including the Robinson-Patman Act which
>> restricts price discounts, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act,
>> and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act. We further call for the abolition
>> of the Federal Trade Commission and the anti-trust
>> division of the Department of Justice.
>>
>
>And do you understand what this means, Mr. Bashford? What specifically
>do you have a problem with?
Problem?? What problem!? You asked about "funny".
Anti-trust laws foster monopoly!!!!!
I'll get back to you when I stop laughing!
>> ======================
>>
>> We believe that government involvement is the principal cause of
>> many of the problems we face in the health care system today.
>> Therefore we favor restoring and reviving a free
>> market health care system.
All the health you can buy,
and not one drop more.
>> We advocate a complete separation of medicine from the state
>>
>
>And do you understand what this means, Mr. Bashford? What specifically
>do you have a problem with?
No problem. I enjoy a good joke too.
Restore and revive a free market health care system!!!!!
All the health you can afford!!!!
And not one drop more!!!!
Heeee haw!!!!!!
Hell, who needs whips to make people work harder and longer?
Yaba daba dooooo!!!! In Libertopia, sickness
is no doubt defined as a fundimental freedom!
(see below) This is FUN!
[chop]
Doug Bashford
On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 06:39:03 , jddescr...@my-deja.com
wrote about:
Re: When the Market God fails?
> ( Doug Bashford ) wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Jan jddescript_deja wrote:
>> >You left out the key indicator of good versus bad; free
>> >markets or forced markets.
>>
>> If your point is that US styled capitalism is far, far
>> from a free market, I'll agree. After all, the Fed
>> historically manipulates wages via "WANTED:
>> unemployment" interest rates, and the job market is
>> the largest market of all. Therefore, if the largest
>> market is manipulated, it is all manipulated. That's not
>> capitalism, that's hyper-capitalism. As are all the
>> other pro-business *regulations* and treaties.
>
>Why not just call it what it is? a take over of free markets by
>socialism, by collectives and combines of crooked socialist
>politicians manipulating the society instead of family business
>capitalism ownership of free enterprise?
I think you have it backwards. The Fed
historically manipulates wages via "WANTED:
unemployment" interest rates, that's hyper-capitalism,
business supported off the backs of the common man.
Socialism would be: manipulates wages via "WANTED:
full employment" interest rates or some other artificial
mechanism that put people first, and let business adapt.
Only Libertarians think businessmen are better than
other men.
> Ayn Rand called it a
>"mixed" economy part free and part forced or socialized or
>regulated and the socialist waves of take over have gotten ever
>larger and more destructive of American happiness and freedom.
I think we are getting off topic.
I made a more complete reply to your long letter in new subject:
Libertarians...More Libertopia!
>*therefore your "individual as prime" must be rejected. In fact,
>*what I have done is very close to defeat Randism in its entirety,
>*and I think he is afraid to continue to that inevitable end.
>*Because doing so would be objective and rational rather than
>*dogmatic, as one might find in, say....a quasi-religion.
And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth,
this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who
will grant them joy and peace and pride.
This god, this one word:
"I."
Ayn Rand, Anthem
Joseph R. Darancette
Paul Zrimsek
wrote:
>The
>question is "How many links in the biodiversity chain have to be removed
>before there is a crash"??
If there were any merit at all to the "chain" metaphor, the answer
would be "one"-- as with any chain. Quite a few "links" have been
removed, yet there's been no crash. Time to pick a different metaphor.
Paul Zrimsek pzri...@earthlink.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alarmism is dooming our society!
old...@my-deja.com
> > Bashford ) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >Everyone agrees that all major ecological
> > >catastrophies were causes by economic reasons.
> >
> > That's a good joke, dude.
> >
> > Like the eruption of Mount St Helens?
>
> Yep. If a certain paving contractor had done his job better and
> hadn't used an inferior grade of concrete, Mt. St Helens probably
> would have taken the pressure and not blown. Sue the bastard!
>
> BTW, who's the contractor hired to fix the San Andreas fault?
> Did anyone even bid on the project?
>
> The Krakatoa eruption that blew a mountain into the stratosphere,
> was heard 3000 miles away and made the jet stream dusty for
> 5 years was even more impressive. There was an even bigger
> eruption in southeast Asia around 540 AD. Then there was the
> big meteorite that blew up at Tunguska? Siberia in 1908? and
> knocked down all the trees for 40 miles around.
>
> Liberal guys, unscientific and absurd assertions like the one in
> the quote above "Everyone agrees... by economic reasons" don't
>
> John
Facts and the truth don't matter to them if it gets in the way of their
agenda.
> >
> >
> > [deleted]
> >
> > Regards, Harold
> > ----
> > "Hundreds of millions of people will soon perish in smog disasters
> > in New York and Los Angeles...the oceans will die of DDT poisoning
> > by 1979...the U.S. life expectancy will drop to 42 years by 1980
> > due to cancer epidemics."
> > ---- Paul Ehrlich, 1969, Ramparts.
JohnT
Greg Hunter wrote:
> "Scott Nudds" <af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:933aug$9f0$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org...
> > JohnT (j...@informatics.net) wrote:
> > : It's tragic and I hate to sound like I don't care about such things,
> > : and I'm in favor of giving wildlife a break, but I thought it was a
> > : bit much to halt some kind of development project (a hydroelectric
> > : dam?) because of snail darters.
> >
> > The solution has always appeared rather trivial to me. Establish
> > several new colonies of "snail darters" in other areas where they can
> > survive and then build the hydroelectric dam.
> >
>
> Do you work for the US Army Corps of Engineers???
No.
> This approach has not worked with Salmon and would not work here. The
> question is "How many links in the biodiversity chain have to be removed
> before there is a crash"??
Salmon have a very different life cycle than snail darters probably do.
Also, salmon are more impressive individuals and also valuable to
Native American tribal economies, commercial fishing, bears and other
carnivores. Maybe snail darters would be valued if they could be
turned into sardines, or weighed at least 2 pounds, or were found
to eat most of the mosquito larvae in bodies of water.
When you talk about links in biodiversity, you might note that in a
biome there generally are several species competing for the same
niches. Snail darters probably aren't the only minnows on the river.
Also, the suggestion to establish a population of snail darters in some
other place and then proceed with the development sounds like a
good, simple and economical one.
If you've seen small creeks in rural areas containing minnows up
to the very headwaters of a creek, where a spring or runoff from
fields makes a steady enough flow to call it a creek, and seen
those creeks flooded so severely that it seems like any fish in the
water would get washed 50 miles downstream in the torrent, and
then see those minnows right back in your little 3-inch-deep creek,
you might note that with intrepid minnows like that, who needs
snail darters to eat the water bugs or be food for bigger fish?
John
JohnT
Greg Hunter wrote:
> "Scott Nudds" <af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:933aug$9f0$1...@mohawk.hwcn.org...
> > JohnT (j...@informatics.net) wrote:
> > : It's tragic and I hate to sound like I don't care about such things,
> > : and I'm in favor of giving wildlife a break, but I thought it was a
> > : bit much to halt some kind of development project (a hydroelectric
> > : dam?) because of snail darters.
> >
> > The solution has always appeared rather trivial to me. Establish
> > several new colonies of "snail darters" in other areas where they can
> > survive and then build the hydroelectric dam.
> >
>
> Do you work for the US Army Corps of Engineers???
>
> This approach has not worked with Salmon and would not work here. The
> question is "How many links in the biodiversity chain have to be removed
> before there is a crash"??
Salmon have a very different life cycle than snail darters probably do.
Greg Hunter
analogy???
"Paul Zrimsek" <pzri...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3a574bd3...@news.earthlink.net...
Greg Hunter
"JohnT" <j...@informatics.net> wrote in message
news:3A57AC52...@informatics.net...
I think we both know the snail darter was used as an excuse to stop the
building of the HYDRO plant. The point is the snail darter would have been
the first species to be impacted by the placement of a dam that provides the
cheap power to develop the surrounding land. The development in turn puts
pressure on every other species, except the most hallowed, humans.
>
> If you've seen small creeks in rural areas containing minnows up
> to the very headwaters of a creek, where a spring or runoff from
> fields makes a steady enough flow to call it a creek, and seen
> those creeks flooded so severely that it seems like any fish in the
> water would get washed 50 miles downstream in the torrent, and
> then see those minnows right back in your little 3-inch-deep creek,
> you might note that with intrepid minnows like that, who needs
> snail darters to eat the water bugs or be food for bigger fish?
Okay Noah, since you are the great economic zoologist, please pick one set
of species that will provide the valued benefits for mankind.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
jddescr...@my-deja.com
left...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Why not just call it what it is? a take over of free markets by
> > socialism, by collectives and combines of crooked socialist
> > politicians manipulating the society instead of family business
> > capitalism ownership of free enterprise?
>
> I think it was Rawls that proposed this test?
> Imagine that you could choose which society you
> live in. You will be born again. You
> may not be smart, you may not be strong. You
> may be incapable of doing much at all. Which
> society would you rather go to: socialist sweden
> or free market mexico?
----------------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate that you don't make any bones about believing
in freedom and free people. To characterize the socialist
manipulated societies of Sweden and Mexico as your spectra of
socialism to freedom shows the appropriate name you have choosen
for your socialist views.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The very nature of a free market tends towards monopoly.
> Your 'family business' in a libertarian is a figment
> of the novelists imagination.
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You of course invert the meanings of the words using the
king's men designations for those things not socialist
controlled. Anyone knows that free market competitive
pricing characterizes a free market and not the king's men
manipullations that create monopolies and the socialist
bosses living high on the socialist hog by their decrees
while the average people sacrifice for these superior king's
men of manipulation. Unfortunately for your credibility
the "impossible" TOTAL collpase of Russian socialism has now
occurred and you can't cover up the reality from everyone.
All your wonderful computer manipulations and privacy violating
surveylances were exposed in r4eality and the Ayn Rand Theories
[ART] were shown to be much more about the evil of socialist
takings/taxings than any simple novel could possibly forcast.
----------------------------------------------------------------
> > understand how to stop their taking of our life happiness. They
> > both have clearly identified the socialist root of all evil in the
> > nation.
>
> Do you really believe that socialism
> is the root of all evil in the nation?
>
> That seems rather simplistic.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The socialist idea that some socialist bosses can command the
behavior of average family living is an inherent evil unAmerican
idea and has always had the repeating result. What ever people may
say we don't like to have our life happiness stolen by socialists
and we will, over time, with the help of thinkers such as Ayn Rand
and RUSH figure out how to stop the socialist from living in great
splendor on our working backs. President Reagan ran to get the
socman auf our backs. He failed but we can find other great free
people leaders to restore happiness and freedom in America. JD
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > And what of groundwater pollution? When 10,000
> > > unregulated libertarian outhouses poison my family?
> > >
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Who owns your land and house? There should be almost no unowned
property that the socialist manipulators claim to control and
use for their luxury living on the backs of everyone else. Have
you noticed how the socman has the fancy buildings, the fancy
vehicles, the fancy trips and all the other socialist luxuries
that was so obvious in the Russian socialist bubble society?
They demonstrate the one outstanding miracle of socialism; they
are the worlds biggest liers. It goes far beyond the saying that
whenever a socialist's lips are moving they are lying. In Russian
Keynesian socialism they inflated the rubble's APPARENT value to
1000 times the reality value that was finally exposed by ART and
President Reagan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You would need to study the development of human rights and freedoms
in the world as explained by the Ayn Rand Theory [ART]. Because of the
industrial revolution and the founding of America the European king's
men had to morph into socialists rather than continue the devine
rights of kings. The evil of socialism is an attempt to destroy human
freedom again and return to the dark ages of the authoritarian king's
men rule only now these special elite manipulators call themselves
socialists and say that they will steal wealth from bad people and give
it to good people. [all king's free, of course! if you buy the scam!]
We can spot the socialists either by their ideas or their actions as
they always operate from theft whether it's your bicycle or your
country in the extremes of the sneak thief too the hitler or stalin
socialist that is the target of their taking/taxing by socialist Fing
[forcing,fearing,frauding]. JD
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pat
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You of course invert the meanings of the words using the
> king's men designations for those things not socialist
> controlled. Anyone knows that free market competitive
> pricing characterizes a free market and not the king's men
> manipullations that create monopolies and the socialist
> bosses living high on the socialist hog by their decrees
> while the average people sacrifice for these superior king's
> men of manipulation. Unfortunately for your credibility
> the "impossible" TOTAL collpase of Russian socialism has now
> occurred and you can't cover up the reality from everyone.
> All your wonderful computer manipulations and privacy violating
> surveylances were exposed in r4eality and the Ayn Rand Theories
> [ART] were shown to be much more about the evil of socialist
> takings/taxings than any simple novel could possibly forcast.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
So, with the collapse of Russia's economy and the years since of the
government withdrawing it's controls they should be in some sort of
capitalist utopia now. It actually worked out more like the critics of the
free market have said, the people who grabbed the most capital during
denationalization managed to form functional monopolies and pile up large
amounts of money while not "trickling down" much at all. Only now that the
government's interfering with that system is anything beneficial to more
than the few with the assets happening.
Of course, their starting position was like California energy, everything
was under the control of a few and then the regulations were dropped
without dispersing the capital or somehow making it possible for
competitors to even enter the market.
How has "free market competitive pricing" not allowed Microsoft to form a
functional monopoly? There weren't any controls on what they charged for
their OS products.
The free market has it's own kings men, they were once called robber barons
and they control enough resources to make it difficult if not impossible
for new competition. Socialism of course has it's own, just look at the
list of companies recieving federal subsidies without any need.
jddescr...@my-deja.com
Pat <ka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
You actually think that all the manipulations of the Russian economy
and the rubble inflated by a FACTOR of 1000 greater than reality
had/has something to do with free people markets. No wonder you can't
comprehend the meaning of family business free enterpise voluntary
exchange markets such as America before the waves of socialist take
over.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> How has "free market competitive pricing" not allowed Microsoft to
form a
> functional monopoly? There weren't any controls on what they charged
for
> their OS products.
>
> The free market has it's own kings men, they were once called robber
barons
> and they control enough resources to make it difficult if not
impossible
> for new competition. Socialism of course has it's own, just look at
the
> list of companies recieving federal subsidies without any need.
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Your socialist assumption is clear! Your select few of socialist
manipulators have the taking/taxing powers of theft to decide who
has "need" so you will rob the others with the arrogance of
socialism and king's men greed. Eventually most of US realize that
your socialist "help" always means theft from the producers of real
wealth while you, like the Russian socialists of stalin and such,
bask in the luxury of our sacrifice of our happiness from the free
people spirit which we invest in so dilignetly. Whether you call it
corp socialism or just plain socialist bureacracy with the emphasis
on the socialist corruption of the monica presidency which we have all
seen with socialist "justice" it's clearly about socialist theft and
destructive of the American way of freedom and happiness. JD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
jddescr...@my-deja.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You seem to be saying that average people expect to live like king's
men or socialists with servants taking care of each kingly wish and
whim. You are suggesting that these socialist manipulators create
a "level playing field" and are just rewarded for their efforts. I
don't find this to be most people's standards except the socialists
who can be spotted by asking them if they want to be a king's man?
Socialists never produce anything except takings and taxings. Most
people who follow the American way expect and want to produce real
wealth and exchange it freely and fairly with others. You may be
seeing people who have been so taken/taxed by the socialists that
they are completley on the defensive in all actions and never have
time for the normal historicalAmerican growth of improving enterprise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> however that the thing popularly identified as the 'free market' is no
> such thing at all, but rather a horrific mismatch of a genuine free
market
> in goods and services and a series of economically destructive,
> aristocratic-like privileges in territory and other natural resources.
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes! you are identifying that a tiny elite of socialist power
manipulators control the martkets which are in reality their king's
markets but they still call it "free markets". You are right and the
question is what Ayn Rand asks; how can wanta-be-free people regain
private ownership of their freedom and happiness without the socman
on our backs? President Reagan tried to get them auf our backs and
failed but are we going to allow them [snction of the victims] to
drive our society back into a king's men ruled dark ages of poverty?
The technology is finally becoming available so that WE [Wealth Engine]
can estimate our product values and the proper rewards for our
accomplishments by the free people spirit. Nothing is more destructive
to human rights and happiness than to realize that the socialist scum
exploiters are living in luxury in their fancy buildings, with their
fancy vehicles and taking all the fancy trips on the backs of the
average people's accomplishment efforts. WE need to spot the
socialists and track their takings/taxings to see that they don't
complete the destuction the Amertican message of freedom/happiness.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Imo people who speak against the unmitigated free market should
> consider whether indeed if it is a free market in goods and services
> that they truly object to, rather than the irrational, state
sponsored
> licence scheme, that allows people to inflict charges on each other
> for the ground beneath all our feet.
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As always do the average people own their own lives or do the speciasl
slave massters or socialist bosses control the society? We have seen
the hitler socialists and the stalin socialists and the moa socialists
and the pol pot socialists and .... need I go on? Do you think that
those king's licensed societies were just accidents and not part of the
world socialist international to take/tax away all our lives?
Good seeing JD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Nudds
: If there were any merit at all to the "chain" metaphor, the answer
: would be "one"-- as with any chain. Quite a few "links" have been
: removed, yet there's been no crash. Time to pick a different metaphor.
Now why is that? A chain only moves as fast as it's slowest link.
Langrrr
see.m...@theBeach.edu ( Doug Bashford ) wrote:
>
>
Tsk-tsk, Dougie. Posting old sections of posts in order to create
paper tigers for yourself.
Here is my response to _THAT_ drivel, it its entirety:
From: Langrrr <Lan...@aol.com>
Subject: Re: The Libertarian Party's Platform
Date: 17 Oct 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <8sidvv$a5b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <081020001604006660%pet...@netcom.com>
<8s2i4e$slu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> <39ea2a60....@news.psnw.com>
<8sdauf$4i9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> <39ec9055....@news.psnw.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x66.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client
63.113.121.146
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Oct 17 20:49:06 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDlangrrr
Newsgroups:
talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.mi
sc
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0)
In article <39ec9055....@news.psnw.com>,
see.m...@theBeach.edu (Doug Bashford) wrote:
>
> In <8sdauf$4i9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
> on Sun, 15 Oct 2000 Langrrr wrote:
> about: Re: The Libertarian Party's Platform
> >In article <39ea2a60....@news.psnw.com>,
> > (Doug Bashford) wrote:
> >> Langrrr <Lan...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> > Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> URL: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_print.html
> >> >>
> >> >> Read it and laugh.
>
> >> >OK, I'll bite. Which specific passage do you find funny?
>
> Bashford quotes Lib Party platform:
> >> "We call for a modification of the laws governing such
> >> torts as trespass and nuisance to cover damages done
> >> by air, water, radiation, and noise pollution. We
> >> oppose legislative proposals to exempt persons who
> >> claim damage from radiation from having to prove such
> >> damage was in fact caused
> >> by radiation. Strict liability, not
> >> government agencies and arbitrary government standards, should
> >> regulate pollution. We therefore demand the
> >> abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency. We also
oppose
> >> government-mandated smoking and
> >> non-smoking areas in privately owned businesses.
> >>
> >> Toxic waste disposal problems have been created by government
> >> policies that separate liability from property.
> >
> >And do you understand what this means, Mr. Bashford? What
specifically
> >do you have a problem with?
>
> The whole enchilada. Not the bricks in the wall, but the wall.
> Legalized pollution is funny.
Then you obviously didn't understand what was written, Mr. Bashford.
Nowhere in the paragraph above is pollution legalized. The paragraph
states that pollution will be covered under the precepts of nuisance
and trespass - precepts which served and continue to serve as an
excellent protection for individuals today.
> Putting the burden of proof
> on the injured party is funny. No? You don't think that's funny?
As opposed to putting the burden of proof upon whom, Mr. Bashford? In
the American system, the burden of proof has _ALWAYS_ been upon those
prosecuting a claim for damages.
Or do you believe in some sort of looking-glass system whereby the
defendant is charged with proving their own innocence (which is, in
practice, what happens many times today under our regulatory state).
> >> >OK, I'll bite. Which specific passage do you find funny?
> I did just that.
Repeating ourselves?
> How can I be more specific? We have discussed
> this (pres. candidate Browne's enviro position) in detail in
> sci.environment.
>
> ======================= for example these threads:
> 9-13-00 Re: Do most Libertarians hate the Environment???
>
talk.environment,sci.environment,alt.save.the.earth,talk.politics.misc,
>
alt.society.liberalism,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertaria
n
> or
> RE: Libertarians do NOT hate the Environment! Harry Browne .
>
> >From the "Libertarian Party's 2000 Candidate for President's
> >official stance on the environment" posted by Langrrr:
> >
> > "Harry Browne's stand on the Environment"
> > "Overview:
> > "Pollution seldom occurs on private property..."
> ===============================
>
> LAUGHINGGGGGG!!!!!!!
> Is that funny or what!
>
Then perhaps you could prove this claim by providing statistics which
demonstrate the environmental damage caused on private property as
compared to environmental damage caused on government property or to
common resources.
> However, finding all the examples on this page took me a grand
> total of 5 minutes. Certainly if I were to read the whole thing,
> I would have rolling on the floor in laughter. But these
> examples will do. Everybody likes good jokes.
>
Yes, you said this before. On the other hand, you have yet to provide
anything in the way of support for your assertion. This is typical on
your part - you dismiss an assertion and offer your own opinion as
proof enough for the correctness of your position.
> >> ========================
> >>
> >> We recognize that government is the source of
> >> monopoly, through its grants
> >> of legal privilege to special interests in the economy.
> >>
> >> "Anti-trust" laws do not prevent monopoly, but foster it by
> >> limiting competition. We therefore call for the repeal of all
> >> "anti-trust" laws, including the Robinson-Patman Act which
> >> restricts price discounts, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act,
> >> and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act. We further call for the
abolition
> >> of the Federal Trade Commission and the anti-trust
> >> division of the Department of Justice.
> >>
> >
> >And do you understand what this means, Mr. Bashford? What
specifically
> >do you have a problem with?
>
> Problem?? What problem!? You asked about "funny".
Obviously, if you find that statement "funny", you find it ridiculous,
and therefore you disagree with it. Therefore, you have a problem with
the position being stated.
> Anti-trust laws foster monopoly!!!!!
> I'll get back to you when I stop laughing!
>
Ever read Rothbard's "Man, Economy, and the State"?
> >> ======================
> >>
> >> We believe that government involvement is the principal cause
of
> >> many of the problems we face in the health care system today.
> >> Therefore we favor restoring and reviving a free
> >> market health care system.
> >>
> >> We advocate a complete separation of medicine from the state
> >>
> >
> >And do you understand what this means, Mr. Bashford? What
specifically
> >do you have a problem with?
>
> No problem. I enjoy a good joke too.
> Restore and revive a free market health care system!!!!!
> All the health you can afford!!!!
I see. So the concept of the small town or rural doctor, long the
mainstay of the pre-government healthcare industry, is unfamiliar to
you? The concept of the public hospital? Charitable hospitals?
> And not one drop more!!!!
> Heeee haw!!!!!!
>
> Hell, who needs whips to make people work harder and longer?
> Yaba daba dooooo!!!! In Libertopia, sickness
> is no doubt defined as a fundimental freedom!
> (see below) This is FUN!
>
"Libertopia" - a term which is the product of the Statist reinvention
of the English language. It's not in my dictionary, but after a
cursory web search only appears in the websites and postings of
statists.
But don't get me wrong, I love the statist health care system - all the
health care the state wants you to have, when they want you to have it,
and not a second sooner than when you (and the doctor they have
selected for you) have filled out all the paperwork which is obviously
required to have a successful medical procedure.
Oh, and I especially love how the statist health care protects someone
from malpractice. Get the wrong limb amputated in a government-run
hospital? (probably because you had to wait so long for your by-
permission-only check up) Well, go ahead and sue your doctor... oh,
I'm sorry Mr. Gimp, you doctor is a government employee, and is
therefore subject to sovereign immunity and _CAN'T_ be sued for damages!
> >> ==============
> >> Child prostitution?
> >
> >There is no discussion of child prostitution here, Mr. Bashford. It
is
> >a lie to claim that there is one.
>
> Uh let's see. Look at the wall, not the bricks.
Oh, I see. It doesn't _SAY_ it, but it _SAYS_ it. Let's take a look
at that wall. All individual rights remain intact for children,
including the right to be secure in one's person. Children cannot be
compelled to act in ways which are against their will.
I know of know way that a child can willingly consent to become a
prostitute. Sexual acts against non-consenting individuals constitute
a violation of that person's right to be secure in their person.
Therefore, even looking at the wall it is clear that there is no
possible way for child prostitution to be legalized.
> That is the typical Libertarian joke.
> "All the liberty you can afford."
> ...And not one drop more.
> Like the "liberty" to fuck a poor child.
>
Oh, I see - you must have given a lot of thought to this issue, Mr.
Bashford, and have therefore contemplated a scenario whereby a child
can consent to having sex.
> Children have full and complete rights as citizens.
> "Individual rights should not be denied,
> abridged,...based on age...."
That's right - including the right to be secure in one's person. When
you have figured out how child prostitution is no longer child rape,
you might let your friends at NAMBLA know.
> Words mean something Langrrr. Wishful assumptions
> by moral people people do not.
> This means their parents cannot act as many parents
> often do; ie: punishment.
It does? Ever hear of the concept of "caretaking"?
> This means children can enter
> into contracts.
Ah, I see. So you believe that a child can enter into a situation
wherein they can consent to being exploited?
> And, prostitution would be legal.
Prostitution by adults? Certainly. An adult has the ability
to "choose" to sell his or her body absent being compelled to do so.
But until you can find a situation wherein a child can make the same
consensual agreement absent being compelled to do so, childhood
prostitution would still be covered as a violation of that child's
individual rights.
> "not accused of any crime"
> Can you add, Langrrr?
> No you cannot, or you would not be a Lib 2 per center.
>
See above. I did add. Can you add? No, you cannot, otherwise you
would not be a green neo-conservative statist (or whatever the hell you
are).
> >> Individual rights should not be denied, abridged, or enhanced at
> >> the expense of other people's rights by laws at any
> >> level of government based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed,
> >> age, national origin, personal habits, political
> >> preference, or sexual orientation.
> >>
> >> A child is a human being and, as such, deserves to be treated
> >> justly. We oppose laws infringing on children's rights
> >> to work or learn, such as child labor laws and compulsory
> >> education laws. We also oppose the use of curfews
> >> based on age.
> >>
> >> We call for an end to the practice in many states of jailing
> >> children not accused of any crime. We call for repeal of
> >> all "children's codes" or statutes which abridge due process
> >> protections for young people.
> >>
>
> >I see - so the protection of the individual rights of children (which
> >include, obviously, the right to be secure in one's person) is
somehow,
> >in your mind, an invitation to child prostitution?
>
> You mean like an invitation to a party? <chuckle>
> You Libertarians are such cards!
> But not hardy the word I would use. But this Libertarian
> issue is hardly a new one, it's a major objection.
> Why do you think you only get 2% of the vote?
> Oh yeah, ...we are all evil "statists". I forgot.
> hee heee heee! I just love all these jokes!
IBWACNOS. You had nothing in the form of a response to offer, and so
you made an offhand (and ill-informed) remark.
> But who can beat;
> "Pollution seldom occurs on private property..."
>
> LAUGHINGGGGGG!!!!!!! What cards you guys are!!!!
>
> >Do you believe that a child can somehow enter into
> >prostitution of one's own free will?
>
> Do you deny there are no child labor laws in a
> Libertarian World?
Do you have an answer to my question?
> They consider it a "fundamental
> freedom to labor?" Huh!? Fundamental?
>
Once again, absent being coerced or compelled. There is a freedom to
freely choose to do something. There is no freedom to be forced to
work, to prostitute one's self, etc.
> "Individual rights should not be denied,
> abridged,...based on age...."
>
> >Do you believe that a child can somehow enter into
> >prostitution of one's own free will?
>
> If there are no child labor laws in a Libertarian World,
> if that is the general attitude, why the hell not!?
Oh, so you do have an answer. You believe that a child can somehow
enter into prostitution of one's own free will.
You believe that a child can make a choice to sell his or her own body
for money, without being compelled to do so by someone else.
Then you are patently wrong. A child cannot make that choice. A child
does not have the mental capacity to make such a choice.
What a sad world you live in, that you believe such a thing.
> But you Libs don't recognize any form of economic
> coercion, right? Why wouldn't a starving Libertarian
> child have the "right" and "freedom" to enter
> into prostitution or pornography?
As opposed to the starving statist children? Here's the difference,
Mr. Bashford. The libertarian system would punish the person having
sex with the child prostitute as violating that child's individual
rights, and do whatever it could to protect that child's individual
rights. Under your statist system, they would punish the man, and
punish the child, and leave it at that.
> After all, in
> a Libertarian World without safety nets, there might
> be plenty of starving Libertarian children. Do you
> deny this? I don't want your assumptions, your
> excuses, your dreams nor rationalizations...You have
> the platform; quote it.
Fine - there is no statement in the Libertarian Party Platform
regarding starving Libertarian children. Just as there is no statement
in the US Constitution about starving children, or in F. Scott
Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby". Do you believe that either the
founding fathers or Scott Fitzgerald endorsed or approved of childhood
starvation? What makes you think that because there is no statement in
the Libertarian Party platform specifically addressing starvation that
somehow Libertarians condone or have no ideas on the subject?
> This is no new issue, if
> I am wrong, we would expect explicit text, right?
> Perhaps I missed something? Could be. So
> quote it. I would not wish a misrepresentation
> that I created in error to stand unfalsified. As you
> know full well by now, I seek to find only Truth and
> a little humor.
>
Look at the Walls, not the bricks.
Further, given the sweeping changes the Libertarian party wants to see
within the regulatory state, plenty of cheap, nutritious, and safe food
would be available for all.
> >> =======================
> >> Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the
> >> fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested.
> >> Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of
> >> race, religion, political creed, age, or sexual
> >> preference.
> >>
> >> We therefore call for the elimination of all restrictions on
> >> immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and
> >> Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a
> >> declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the
>
> >Ah - I see, so you are anti-immigrant, too? So you are a
conservative,
> >pro-Nader, fascist, pro-child prostitution, statist?
>
> You gathered that from me quoting the jokes
> in your U.S. Libertarian Party platform?
You find their call for an elimination of all restrictions on
immigration and the abolition of the INS and the Border Patrol, as well
as amnesty for so-called illegal aliens to be funny.
No doubt it is because you against unrestricted immigration.
> ...Interesting.
> Some people might conclude something else.
I'm not the one laughing at a party's declaration that it is ardently
pro-immigrant, you are. You were given an opportunity to explain
yourself and you failed to do so.
> Oh well. It's a free country. I think your Party
> Platform needs no interpritation from me,
I see. So much for your "look at the walls, not the bricks" statement,
and thus your entire argument regarding the welfare of children.
> it only
> needs to read with a critical eye, and perhapse
> a sense of humor as a cloak of protection for the
> sensitive.
Then don't be so sensitive when someone points out the inadequacies of
your arguments.
>
> > Jefferson quote: "I hope we shall take warning from the example of
> > England and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed
> > corporations which dare already to challenge our government to trial
> > and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
>
"To preserve rights, governments are instituted among men." - Thomas
Jefferson
> To which, let me add the following:
>
> I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves
> me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. ...
> corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption
> in high places will follow, and the money power of the country
> will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the
prejudices
> of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands
> and the Republic is destroyed."
>
> -- Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
> (letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
> Ref: "The Lincoln Encyclopedia", Archer H. Shaw
> (Macmillan, 1950, NY)
>
"The Constitution protects us from our own best intentions: It divides
power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so
that we might resist the temptation to concentrate power in one
location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day." New York
v. United States, 112 S.Ct 2408, 2433 (1992) (Justice O'Connor writing)
- Andrew Langer
--
Any posts by Andrew Langer are his own, written by him, for his own
enjoyment (and the education of others). Unless expressly stated,
they represent his own views, and not those of any other individuals
or entities. He is not, nor has he ever been, paid to post here.
left...@my-deja.com
>
> I appreciate that you don't make any bones about believing
> in freedom and free people. To characterize the socialist
> manipulated societies of Sweden and Mexico as your spectra of
> socialism to freedom shows the appropriate name you have choosen
> for your socialist views.
>
I am having a hard time discerning your answer.
Would you prefer to take your chances and be
one of the lucky few in Mexico? Or would
you rather be dropped into Sweden?
Remember that you don't know your lot in life.
> controlled. Anyone knows that free market competitive
> pricing characterizes a free market and not the king's men
How do you explain monopolies that arise in a free market?
What is your take on the robber barrons?
> Keynesian socialism they inflated the rubble's APPARENT value to
> 1000 times the reality value that was finally exposed by ART and
Keynes was a socialist?
Are you crazy [CRAZYMAN]?
He was a wealty financial investor.
I guess he forgot to give his money
over to the state.
> in the world as explained by the Ayn Rand Theory [ART]. Because of the
> industrial revolution and the founding of America the European king's
> men had to morph into socialists rather than continue the devine
> rights of kings. The evil of socialism is an attempt to destroy human
hmmm, I thought they became CEOs.
Doug Bashford
On Fri, 05 Jan 2001, mason clark wrote about:
Re: When the Market God fails?
>>" Doug Bashford " wrote
>>> I urge you to check my above facts.
>>> --Doug
>>
>>I went back and re-read Doug's message three times. It contains
>>no "above facts." -dlj.
Can you say "delusion"? Or "mind filters"?
Contrary to what Rush Limbaugh teaches, everything
is not merely a matter of (political) opinion.
>>three times. It contains no "above facts." -dlj.
mason clark:
>David, for your convenience:
>"True. However, the nature of this mass extinction has no
>precedence. Never before has one been triggered by
>global domination of one species. Certainly when humans
>go extinct, their death throes will indeed make the KT extinction
>look like a fart in the wind."
> Mason
Thanks. And for his convenience, some more:
Bashford's "above" facts:
>> Humans are snuffing over 200 species a year, this is greater
>> than the "dinosaur mass extinction" 65 million years ago.
>> Almost all biologists agree this has all the symptoms of another
>> mass extinction...except duration, it's only 100 years old.
>> The last mass extinction 65 million years ago lasted
>> 10,000 years, and by nature, mass extinctions are
>> species indiscriminant.
>
>The dinosaur extinction is believed to be caused by an asteroid
>hitting the earth in the Carribean area at a low angle, causing a
>blast of redhot gas to sweep across North America at about 5
>miles a second, scorching everything in its path. The survivors
>of the immediate disaster were mostly water dwellers. The dust
>cloud resulting from it seems to have cooled the earth so many
>species froze to death.
Bashford's:
That sounds like a pretty good description.
> The whole disaster would have taken
>only a few years to run its course.
"Would have"???? If I can be allowed a wild-assed guess,
I'd guess you base that on the combination of your personal
life experiences (egoism), the uneducated anthropocentric
and unscientific presumption that "30 years is a long time",
and perhaps both simple ignorance and perhaps the
mind-filtered ignorance of self-censorship that you demonstrate
on this page. Simple ignorance is surely nothing to be
the slightest bit ashamed of, it's recognition is a sign of
a wise man, but the others? They suggest a possible lack
of wisdom, but it could be just the brashness of youth speaking.
Above all, beware of proud ignorance.
> The whole disaster would have taken
>only a few years to run its course.
Bashford's "above" facts:
Wrong. Check the geologic record. What took a few years
(or minutes) was the triggering of the mass extinction.
Many biologist believe we may have already triggered one,
and there is no going back. I'm hoping they are wrong.
>Species come and go. They always have. It's the job of species
>to adapt and survive.
Bashford's "above" facts:
True. However, the nature of this mass extinction has no
precedence. Never before has one been triggered by
global domination of one species. Certainly when humans
go extinct, their death throes will indeed make the KT extinction
look like a fart in the wind.
>Many of the vulnerable species these days
>are noticeably less than adaptable, for example koala bears that
>can live only on bamboo shoots.
Bashford's "above" facts:
Those are your anthropocentric values, not Nature's.
[To grossly oversimply, an animal dependent on a narrow
niche is not "less than adaptable" unless the niche is
threatened. Indeed, an animal dependent on a narrow
niche is highly adapted. A wild guess is that you are projecting
the HUMAN survival values of "wide niche is good" onto all nature.]
> Some, of course, are victims of
>human superstition and idiocy, like rhinocerus horns being valued
>as aphrodisiacs.
>
>It's tragic and I hate to sound like I don't care about such things,
>and I'm in favor of giving wildlife a break, but I thought it was a
>bit much to halt some kind of development project (a hydroelectric
>dam?) because of snail darters. >John
I agree. But your cavalier attitude should not (and I doubt
it is,) should be based on that. I again urge you to test my
above facts. You might try a Biology 101 textbook.
--Doug
Paul Zrimsek
wrote:
>Point taken on the chain analogy. So could I use the strands of a rope
>analogy???
It's a start. We still have to decide what corresponds to the weight
the rope is pulling on.
Paul Zrimsek pzri...@earthlink.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I'm suspicious of anyone who claims to follow a
personal moral code-- I can't help wondering why it doesn't
catch on with others. -- Randy Goldenberg
Pat
Family business? Do you actually live somewhere that such a thing can
survive?
Competition between businesses is the driving force, but when entering a
market while your competitors can afford to sell at a loss for years without
expending their reserves, you don't have much of a chance. Add taxation and
regulation to that and it becomes even more impossible.
You're quick with a brush when you don't have an answer. The last line was
only an acknowledgement of your position.
Child-labor advocating, prostitution espousing, money-hoarding, self-serving
types can also be painted in derogatory ways.
Is it your position that anyone could enter any industry and be
competitive? Obviously not without vast resources to "level the playing
field". Government regulation and assorted BS only hinders it. Robber
barony lives, and it's now also protected by the socio/economic system of
government.
Explain how the labor market works when H1B visas become as common as toilet
paper.
Companies want to pay $7/hr for programmers. Nobody qualified will work for
that. Answer, raise the wage level? No, bring in people who will work for
that or less from outside the system with the help of the government. This,
in itself's a minor point, but it illustrates the lack of market function
allowed.
Taken to it's logical conclusion, what does this process mean? Equalizing
the wages and standard of living globally by dragging down that of the US to
the point that everyone works for a few dollars a day so the immigration
incentive goes away and only then will true market forces affect the labor
market.
Pat
> In article <Xb156.9849$8Y3....@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>,
> "Paul Gate" <ga...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> >
> > <jddescr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:9315q7$kj2
> $1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > however that the thing popularly identified as the 'free market' is no
> > such thing at all, but rather a horrific mismatch of a genuine free
> market
> > in goods and services and a series of economically destructive,
> > aristocratic-like privileges in territory and other natural resources.
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yes! you are identifying that a tiny elite of socialist power
> manipulators control the martkets which are in reality their king's
> markets but they still call it "free markets". You are right and the
> question is what Ayn Rand asks; how can wanta-be-free people regain
> private ownership of their freedom and happiness without the socman
> on our backs? President Reagan tried to get them auf our backs and
> failed but are we going to allow them [snction of the victims] to
> drive our society back into a king's men ruled dark ages of poverty?
>
> The technology is finally becoming available so that WE [Wealth Engine]
> can estimate our product values and the proper rewards for our
> accomplishments by the free people spirit. Nothing is more destructive
> to human rights and happiness than to realize that the socialist scum
> exploiters are living in luxury in their fancy buildings, with their
> fancy vehicles and taking all the fancy trips on the backs of the
> average people's accomplishment efforts. WE need to spot the
> socialists and track their takings/taxings to see that they don't
> complete the destuction the Amertican message of freedom/happiness.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
This means to say there aren't capitalist exploiters living well off the
sweat of the workers? There's a group of people we rarely hear of that
produce nothing and simply live off the labor of others, both in government
and in the corporate world.
Scott Nudds
: Taken to it's logical conclusion, what does this process mean? Equalizing
: the wages and standard of living globally by dragging down that of the US to
: the point that everyone works for a few dollars a day so the immigration
: incentive goes away and only then will true market forces affect the labor
: market.
Of course. This is made very clear in any discussion of the subject with
free market conservatives and Libertarians.
It's such a basic component of their ideology, it should be common
knowledge. Are Americans so naive?
Paul Gate
<jddescr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:93c8er$ah4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
I hate to sound facetious but can you point to where I said that?
(or perhaps even where I 'seemed' to be saying that)
>You are suggesting that these socialist manipulators create
> a "level playing field" and are just rewarded for their efforts.
I think people should be rewarded with what others wish to
freely give them
Have you got me confused with someone else?
> I don't find this to be most people's standards except the socialists
> who can be spotted by asking them if they want to be a king's man?
> Socialists never produce anything except takings and taxings. Most
> people who follow the American way expect and want to produce real
> wealth and exchange it freely and fairly with others. You may be
> seeing people who have been so taken/taxed by the socialists that
> they are completley on the defensive in all actions and never have
> time for the normal historicalAmerican growth of improving enterprise.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > however that the thing popularly identified as the 'free market' is no
> > such thing at all, but rather a horrific mismatch of a genuine free
> market
> > in goods and services and a series of economically destructive,
> > aristocratic-like privileges in territory and other natural resources.
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yes! you are identifying that a tiny elite of socialist power
> manipulators control the martkets which are in reality their king's
> markets but they still call it "free markets".
No, i was talking about land owners.
Land owners can charge money to participate in existence,
to me that seems like an irrational and coersive privelige
jddescr...@my-deja.com
Pat <ka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You again emphasize the point. You don't want free markets
of competence and true family values determining prices and
incomes - you want some socialist manipulator [socman]
decreeing these proces and pay for products. Naturally you
think your socialist boss man is going to GIVE you high pay
{as a programmer} while stealing the excess from someone else
that isn't so socialist well connected. Sounds just like the
Keynesian socialism of Russia or hitler germany socialism
earlier. You have to manipulate, a special crooked deal for
your side and can't comprehend an honest free market system
of good people exchanging in good markets with good products.
No matter the number of socialist collapsed societies where
only your special power elite manipulators live auf the backs
of the productivw people, such as Mexico for all these years
of socialism, you never realize that the honesty and fairness
of family business capitalism is the only long term stable and
growing human happy system. JD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
jddescr...@my-deja.com
Pat <ka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you are talking about the socialist bureacrats who take/tax away
our life happiness. They are the socman [socialist manipulator}. Just
because they call themselves a corp socialist boss or a CEO they are
the same types of socialist exploiters. They don't produce anything
and they control others by command rather than fair, free market
family business capitalist exchange of values. The most pertinent
measure of their presence screwing up our life happiness is how much
time are we forced to associate with them? Can you detect their
takings/taxing socialist burden on your life accomplishments? JD
David Lloyd-Jones
<jddescr...@my-deja.com> wrote
>
> You again emphasize the point. You don't want free markets
> of competence and true family values determining prices and
> incomes - you want some socialist manipulator [socman]
> decreeing these proces and pay for products. Naturally you
> think your socialist boss man is going to GIVE you high pay
> {as a programmer} while stealing the excess from someone else
> that isn't so socialist well connected.
How wonderful to see who the latest exponent of the Marxist theories of
surplus value (surpval), and of exploitation through the appropriation of
surplus value (slurpval), is!
-dlj.
Pat
Multinational corporations don't need to rely on socialism, protectionist
policies of governments usually hinder them though payouts from the
government such as in the US, Mexico, and Japan can keep an unprofitable and
inefficient company afloat as long as the taxpayers are willing to put up
with it and have their money taken or the politicians can hide their deals.
"Family business capitalism" is a fantasy, the truth is that multinational
corporations will swallow up any small competition in a free market, as is
proven every time a Wal-Mart enters a small community.
My point regarding robber barons was illustrated by British Petroleum. They
took their Alaskan crude from the Pacific Northwest and sold it at a loss in
Asia to create an artificial shortage in the northwest rather than take the
higher price offered by the northwest refineries. This is both capitalist
and legal, though of questionable ethics and in the short term counter to
standard market theory. In the end, due to the lack of competition in the
area, they more than made up for their initial losses. Had there been any
small competitors, they could've just as easily sold it locally for a loss
to drive them out first while subsidizing the loss with the profits from
their other global operations and kept it that way until the competitor(s)
folded. As it is, most of the independents have already been driven out of
the northwest due to this and other tactics.
Pat
Just the straw man he keeps putting up and knocking down.
bgue...@my-deja.com
>
> Those are your anthropocentric values, not Nature's.
>
"Nature" has no values. Values are, by definition, anthropomorphic.
As to their being anthropo_centric_, well, yours aren't and mine are.
Since we're both individual primates, there's no telling who's have
priority.
Bernard Guerrero
David Lloyd-Jones
"Pat" <ka...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> My point regarding robber barons was illustrated by British Petroleum.
They
> took their Alaskan crude from the Pacific Northwest and sold it at a loss
in
> Asia to create an artificial shortage in the northwest rather than take
the
> higher price offered by the northwest refineries.
Alaskan crude costs something like a nickel a barrel at the well-head. How
is it possible to sell it at a loss in Asia?
-dlj.
bgue...@my-deja.com
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>
> This means to say there aren't capitalist exploiters living well off
the
> sweat of the workers? There's a group of people we rarely hear of
that
> produce nothing and simply live off the labor of others, both in
government
> and in the corporate world.
>
>
All the other nonsense you guys are arguing about aside (and, BOY, both
sides have come up with some whoppers), this is a patently false
statement.
While there are, in fact, a handful that live off of inherited wealth,
the great majority that live with an income above the mean have reached
that point via their own labors, where labor is defined as any activity
that other people find valuable via the information-gathering machine
that is the market. Assuming that traders, merchants, bankers, upper
management add nothing is an error. They obviously do else they would
be booted out by shareholders interested in increasing their returns or
consumers interested in cutting out the middle-man. And in fact this
_does_ happen all the time when a given intermediary or manager becomes
superfluous. Matter of fact, the current slow-down is helping the
process along quite nicely. "Creative destruction" and all that... :^)
Bernard "Been on both sides of the coin" Guerrero
Joe Green
" Doug Bashford " <see.m...@theBeach.edu> wrote in message
news:3a56c2e7...@news.psnw.com...
>
>
>
> On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 06:39:03 , jddescr...@my-deja.com
> wrote about:
> Re: When the Market God fails?
>
>
> >> >You left out the key indicator of good versus bad; free
> >> >markets or forced markets.
> >>
> >> from a free market, I'll agree. After all, the Fed
> >> historically manipulates wages via "WANTED:
> >> unemployment" interest rates, and the job market is
> >> the largest market of all. Therefore, if the largest
> >> market is manipulated, it is all manipulated. That's not
> >> capitalism, that's hyper-capitalism. As are all the
> >> other pro-business *regulations* and treaties.
> >
> >socialism, by collectives and combines of crooked socialist
> >politicians manipulating the society instead of family business
> >capitalism ownership of free enterprise?
>
> historically manipulates wages via "WANTED:
> business supported off the backs of the common man.
> Socialism would be: manipulates wages via "WANTED:
> full employment" interest rates or some other artificial
> mechanism that put people first, and let business adapt.
>
> Only Libertarians think businessmen are better than
> other men.
>
> > Ayn Rand called it a
> >"mixed" economy part free and part forced or socialized or
> >regulated and the socialist waves of take over have gotten ever
> >larger and more destructive of American happiness and freedom.
>
> I made a more complete reply to your long letter in new subject:
> Libertarians...More Libertopia!
>
> >*therefore your "individual as prime" must be rejected. In fact,
> >*what I have done is very close to defeat Randism in its entirety,
> >*and I think he is afraid to continue to that inevitable end.
> >*Because doing so would be objective and rational rather than
> >*dogmatic, as one might find in, say....a quasi-religion.
>
> And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth,
> this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who
> will grant them joy and peace and pride.
>
> This god, this one word:
>
> "I."
>
> Ayn Rand, Anthem
> Joseph R. Darancette
>
And of course, this god, this "I" is Mammon of Babylonian lore, this god at
the
center of worship for the Libertarian Church of Objectivism. This god who
loves money and who teaches all the cults that follow, that "I" and "money"
give
them "joy and peace and pride".
But the God of our Fathers writes about Babylon the Harlot. He says that
everywhere
men run to and fro crying our "peace, peace". And everywhere there is no
peace.
Who would have ever thought that "This god, this one word "I" " so worshiped
by
Libertarians and Objectivists and Communists alike, that this atheistic
center of the
universe would have precipitated the most widespread and wholesale killing
of
people since the Dawn of Civilization.
It seems that the Christians, Jews and Muslims are on much firmer ground in
their understanding
of God.
"I am the Lord thy God, I shall have no strange gods before me!"
Is adolatry really the worst sin? Well if the mass murder of hundreds of
millions of people
by atheists and their pseudo morality is any indicator, then the answer
obviously is Yes.
The hypocrisy of the "I" atheist religions of capitalism and communism, is
that they
somehow (and here no one really knows how) can introduce a moral code that
works.
But its as phony as a three dollar bill.
Pat
I presume it's not a net loss but a loss as compared to what they could've
received from local refineries. The local television stations and newspapers
keep calling it a loss.
BP's response is simply that it doesn't do that anymore, now that it has Arco
it will supply it's own refineries. Gasoline prices are still among the
highest in the nation due to limited competition. The letters, memos, and
emails explaining that what they did was an intentional move to spike prices is
only the latest evidence for what many people have believed for years
concerning oil companies and artificial shortages.
David Lloyd-Jones
"Pat" <ka...@hotmail.com> wrote
> David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> >
> > Alaskan crude costs something like a nickel a barrel at the well-head.
> > How is it possible to sell it at a loss in Asia?
> I presume it's not a net loss but a loss as compared to what they could've
> received from local refineries. The local television stations and
> newspapers keep calling it a loss.
> BP's response is simply that it doesn't do that anymore, now that it has
> Arco it will supply it's own refineries.
Pat,
All of that apart, BP owns (or certainly owned at the time the Alaska
Pipeline first went through) Socal, i.e. Standard Oil of California. The
idea that they would leave the American market which their large subsidiary
served thirsty while selling cheap to Japan or Korea strikes me as
implausible on its face.
Where did you pick up this strange story, and what makes you think it is
true?
Best,
-dlj.
Pat
It's been on television, radio, and the local papers. I think the Oregonian
newspaper broke it (since they claim it came from documents they sued to
unseal). Here're the links to the two main stories the paper ran, today's it's
just town hall meetings with the senators and the usual rehash.
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/news_week.ssf?/news/oregonian/01/01/lc_12bpgas07.frame
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/news/oregonian/01/01/lc_21oil08.frame
Both Oregon senators have already gotten their sound bytes in, Wyden's been
claiming all sorts of things publically about oil company pricing for a few
years and finally has something to point to.
David Lloyd-Jones
"Pat" <ka...@hotmail.com> wrote
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/news_week.ssf?/news/oregonian/01/01
/lc_12bpgas07.frame
Pat,
I've read the first, though not the second, of the URL's you sent me.
There's a small error in the story: it refers to BP as a "British" oil
company. In fact their major shareholder in BP is "Kuwait." (I put it in
quotes because I'm not clear on whether it means the State, or the ruling
family, or the offshore investment fun "for the people" or what the hell...)
The last time I looked, Her Majesty owned something like .02% of the stock,
and the British government was down to about 11%. I don't know, but I
strongly suspect the Dutch Royal family of having their very competent
little grubby hands on quite a bit of the rest.
Look, what happened was really simple: BP stuck it to California, because
California as a political entity was floundering like some kind of energetic
but dying landed perch. California retaliated by bringing up all sorts of
threats and imprecations; BP said "Yassah, yassah."
* * *
Now the fact is that both Hollywood and the North Slope sit on top of oil
reserves which are in the same league with Saudi Arabia. (I exaggerate
slightly in the case of the Hollywood field.)
Why don't they come to market to cut BP down? Why bother when some asshole
is going to crawl out and regulate you too?
* * *
The major background fact is this: nuclear power is clean power. (Fuck the
Russians. The only thing they could eve run was a ballet.) {If anybody wants
to get fixated on Chernobyl, the alleged 40,000 deaths [hunh?] don't com
close to the deaths from coal mining and coal stack emissions.}
* * *
California is suffering for two reasons, maybe three.
1.) Their "deregulation" is a fraud, since they deregulated wholesale while
price-fixing retail, and inane abracadabra of the first water;
2.) They have gone rather overboard in showing the rest of the world how far
NIMBY can be pushed. Like just call it populism.
2.A) This is the "maybe three": they reamed out their education system about
20 years ago under the pre-Reagan tax revolt, and the result is that we have
an entire state full of people who can barely tie their shoelaces. Only
Asian, Mexican, and Canadian immigration have kept the operation even
faintly functioning.
* * *
Back to the oil thing:
Where is it written that a "British" oil company has to be nice to Los
Angeles commuters?
I just don't get it.
Best wishes, Pat,
-dlj.
Pat
In any group of people there're various levels of contribution, I've only
been on one board and that did have dead wood (at least from my
perspective). The company's now history however, so that sort of makes the
point for getting rid of them.
I was playing with the absolutes. There're obviously more unelected leeches
in government than there are corporate ones without a purpose. Things have
improved but I doubt everyone on a congressional staff is really
indispensable, there just isn't the profit motive.
Scott Nudds
: You again emphasize the point. You don't want free markets
: of competence and true family values determining prices and
: incomes - you want some socialist manipulator [socman]
: decreeing these proces and pay for products.
No rational thinking person does.
"Regulative measures by the community are needed to bring about a
sound distribution of labour and consumption-goods among mankind;
without them even the people of the richest country suffocate. The
fact is that since the amount of work needed to supply everybody's
needs has been reduced through the improvement of technical methods,
the free play of economic forces no longer produces a state of affairs
in which all the available labour can find employment. Deliberate
regulation and organization are becoming necessary to make the results
of technical progress beneficial to all." - Albert Einstein - -
America and the Disarmament Conference - 1932
Scott Nudds
: Now you are talking about the socialist bureacrats who take/tax away
: our life happiness. They are the socman [socialist manipulator}.
And here I thought taxes took away money, not life or happienss. Only if
money = life or money = happiness could the jdd's blather be remotely
true. How sad that such equations are truly at the center of the
sick Libertarian ideology.
Who wants a tax cut? Taxes are a good deal - May 23, 97
-------------------------------------------
- David L. Parnas -
Two of the federal parties are campaigning on a platform of tax
reductions. One asks, rhetorically. "is there anyone who would like to
pay more taxes?" I that leader were to ask me, I would say "yes".
I would only leave Canada to go to a country with even higher taxes.
I've travelled a lot and what I have seen convinced me that countries
with higher taxes are better places to live.
Of course, I already pay a lot of tax because I am lucky enough to have an
above average income. However, I believe that those taxes are a good
deal. B paying taxes, I receive things that I could not purchase if
that money were mine to spend privately. My taxes buy police
protection, roads, environmental protection, a social safety net, medical
care, and education
If we spent more, we could have cleaner water and air, a better-educated
citizenry, more opportunity for our youth, more park land to enjoy,
safer streets, a more accessible medical system, and a better
information infrastructure. Such things are worth far more to me than
what I could buy with the same money if it were mine to spend.
For people with lower incomes than mine, higher tax rates are an
even better deal than they are for me. They get the same benefits, but
pay less.
Health Care
Recently, a friend told us that her father had an aggressive cancer but
was waiting for a hospital bed. We all worry that someone we love could
be in the same position. Private insurance to guarantee quick admission
to a hospital would be hugely expensive, but for a small increase in
taxes, we could increase our hospital capacity enough to make sure that
there was always a place for people who need urgent care.
In fact, our tax-funded medical care is a very good deal. The immense
market strength of a single, democratically controlled medical insurer
keeps our medical costs below those where one must buy those services
privately.
I often hear people complain that Canada's taxes are among the highest
of developed countries. Such remarks come from people who only compare
out taxes with those of the U.S. Many countries levy higher taxes than
we do. Even the comparison with the U.S. is misleading. Unlike the
U.S. our taxes include medical insurance and a relatively affordable
post-secondary education system. Tuition in the U.S. can be 10 times
what it is here. They pay less to the government, but we pay less for a
comparable package of services.
We are told that reduced taxes will make us more attractive for
investors. I don't believe it. The reductions being proposed are too
small to help us to compete on a cost basis with countries like Mexico
where wages and living standards are far below ours. Even if we had no
tax, payroll costs would be lower in many countries.
We are told that putting money back in private hands will create jobs.
Why is private spending more beneficial than public spending? Tax
reductions for the wealthy can buy a vacation in Europe, an imported
car, or Asian investments. Spending the money on hospitals, police
patrols, road improvements, etc, will create jobs right here while
improving everyone's quality of life.
Private spending can't reduce the crime rate or the child poverty rate,
it can't buy clean air. We can't buy those things by going to a tax
office and making donations either. Only if everyone pays their share
can we buy a better world in which to live.
Candidates who think that Canadians only want more money may be
surprised. We want the better lifestyle that comes from a better social
and physical environment. SOme of this can be bought privately but
many things are best obtained through shared, public spending. Before
you vote for lower taxes, think about what it would cost you to replace
the lost services.
---
David L. Parnas of Hamilton is NSERC/Bell Industrial Chair in software
engineering at McMaster University.
Pat
> "Pat" <ka...@hotmail.com> wrote
> http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/news_week.ssf?/news/oregonian/01/01
> /lc_12bpgas07.frame
>
> Pat,
>
> I've read the first, though not the second, of the URL's you sent me.
>
> There's a small error in the story: it refers to BP as a "British" oil
> company. In fact their major shareholder in BP is "Kuwait." (I put it in
> quotes because I'm not clear on whether it means the State, or the ruling
> family, or the offshore investment fun "for the people" or what the hell...)
> The last time I looked, Her Majesty owned something like .02% of the stock,
> and the British government was down to about 11%. I don't know, but I
> strongly suspect the Dutch Royal family of having their very competent
> little grubby hands on quite a bit of the rest.
>
> Look, what happened was really simple: BP stuck it to California, because
> California as a political entity was floundering like some kind of energetic
> but dying landed perch. California retaliated by bringing up all sorts of
> threats and imprecations; BP said "Yassah, yassah."
Actually, the papers they've come up with are from 1995 and 1996, when the ban
on exporting Alaskan pipeline crude expired. The second URL has a similar story
with a senator requesting that the ban be reinstated and BP saying it wasn't
necessary because they don't do it anymore. They really need a more imaginative
spokesperson, but PR's never really been an oil company concern.
> * * *
>
> Now the fact is that both Hollywood and the North Slope sit on top of oil
> reserves which are in the same league with Saudi Arabia. (I exaggerate
> slightly in the case of the Hollywood field.)
>
> Why don't they come to market to cut BP down? Why bother when some asshole
> is going to crawl out and regulate you too?
That's the ugly threat possible when politicians are holding meetings and
demanding investigations, a feel-good reponse that'd play well with some voters
would be to put in price controls or more restrictions.
> * * *
>
> The major background fact is this: nuclear power is clean power. (Fuck the
> Russians. The only thing they could eve run was a ballet.) {If anybody wants
> to get fixated on Chernobyl, the alleged 40,000 deaths [hunh?] don't com
> close to the deaths from coal mining and coal stack emissions.}
>
> * * *
The US Navy's run nuclear plants around the clock almost constantly since 1955 ,
mostly manned by 19-22 year olds, and the only major incidents would be the two
lying at the bottom of the ocean in the submarines they sank with. Stationary
plants can be made safer by design than marine propulsion plants so there really
shouldn't be too much hysteria. Chernobyl was a combination of a TMI type
screwup and an unstable design.
Solid waste disposal's the only legitimate drawback, but how many tons of waste
are generated a year by one nuclear plant versus the tons of particulates and
other things tossed into the environment by an equivalent wattage of coal-fired
plants? If the greenhouse effect's a concern, it should be a no-brainer.
Protestors generally have to focus on "what if" scenarios, which is an endless
game.
>
> California is suffering for two reasons, maybe three.
>
> 1.) Their "deregulation" is a fraud, since they deregulated wholesale while
> price-fixing retail, and inane abracadabra of the first water;
Don't forget forcing utilities to sell off their generation facilities. Pacific
Power withdrew entirely from the state (they weren't a major player there
anyway) rather than sell off generators in Utah and other states to be allowed
to continue operating as a utility in California. They just received approval
for a rate cut for customers in Oregon, maybe California's experiment will
result in lowered utility bills after all, just not for Californians.
Now California's power plants are just merchant plants controlled by venture
capital. Surprisingly enough, they want to keep rates as high as possible to
increase their ROI.
>
> 2.) They have gone rather overboard in showing the rest of the world how far
> NIMBY can be pushed. Like just call it populism.
>
> 2.A) This is the "maybe three": they reamed out their education system about
> 20 years ago under the pre-Reagan tax revolt, and the result is that we have
> an entire state full of people who can barely tie their shoelaces. Only
> Asian, Mexican, and Canadian immigration have kept the operation even
> faintly functioning.
I remember the state being essentially bankrupt for some time. Unfortunately I
don't remember it affecting the amount of legislation coming out of Sacramento.
>
>
> * * *
> Back to the oil thing:
>
> Where is it written that a "British" oil company has to be nice to Los
> Angeles commuters?
>
> I just don't get it.
It's not, and I don't think they've actually made any claims about it being
illegal, but the story's mostly focused on Oregon where there isn't the
competition there is even in California, 3 oil companies own almost the entire
market, including the stations. Surprisingly enough, their gas prices are among
the highest in the country, when prices rose nationally Oregon finally pulled
ahead of Hawaii, but I doubt the current $1.61 average they quote is too far up
there in rank, it's fallen since Christmas.
The FTC has been investigating "redlining" and "zone pricing" as well as other
things. The latest report I've seen found that their (collective oil
companies') pricing policies come short of breaking any laws, but there's still
Wyden, who was a little ahead of Gore in making a connection between shortages
and record oil profits, pushing for more investigation. BP's major sin was in
keeping records explaining their reasoning and validating many of the
accusations that've been tossed about.
>
>
> Best wishes, Pat,
>
> -dlj.
mason clark
>Look, what happened was really simple: BP stuck it to California, because
>California as a political entity was floundering like some kind of energetic
>but dying landed perch. California retaliated by bringing up all sorts of
>threats and imprecations; BP said "Yassah, yassah."
Leave California out of this one, we've got other problems; mine is
called PG&E. BP screwed north of here.
* * *
>
>Now the fact is that both Hollywood and the North Slope sit on top of oil
>reserves which are in the same league with Saudi Arabia. (I exaggerate
>slightly in the case of the Hollywood field.)
Yeah, slightly. By the way, Signal Hill -- now covered with condos-- is
a demonstration that an oil dome can be depleted. I knew it when it
was covered with tar, literally.
>2.A) This is the "maybe three": they reamed out their education system about
>20 years ago under the pre-Reagan tax revolt, and the result is that we have
>an entire state full of people who can barely tie their shoelaces.
An hilarious remark if you happen to be in Silicon Valley.
Mason
jddescr...@my-deja.com
You're busy playing word games instead of dealing with
economic ideas such as Adam Smith and Ayn Rand treat in
the Ayn Rand Theory [ART] works "Capitalism; The Unknown Ideal".
You will next be telling US that marx invented the profound
idea that time is somehow involved in economic actions. Please
try to understand the realities of economic actions, the values of
human freedom [family business capitalism] and the corresponding
effects on human happiness rather than empty word play and one
upsmanship efforts. JD
David Lloyd-Jones
>
> I was playing with the absolutes. There're obviously more unelected
leeches
> in government than there are corporate ones without a purpose. Things
have
> improved but I doubt everyone on a congressional staff is really
> indispensable, there just isn't the profit motive.
I hate to say it, but it seems to me there's some truth in this.
When I was on Congressional Staff, which meant people with actual executive
or drafting authority, subject to the approval of their elected bosses,
there were about 3,000 of us. Of those I could count maybe 150 who had the
first clue -- 90 Democrats and about 60 Republicans.
These days, I hear, there are 40,000 staffers, a 13-fold increase. This
appalls me: there are not 40,000 people in the United States with the brains
to do anything useful on Congressional staff! The very idea is stoo-pid.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
<jddescr...@my-deja.com> wrote
> You're busy playing word games instead of dealing with
> economic ideas such as Adam Smith and Ayn Rand treat in
> the Ayn Rand Theory [ART] works "Capitalism; The Unknown Ideal".
JD,
I'm sorry. I've read it. There are no non-trivial ideas in it.
That apart, much of what she writes is wrong, stupid, or both.
-dlj.
jddescr...@my-deja.com
Pat <ka...@hotmail.com> wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We are in agreement on the situation with the giant cartels and
corporate combines run by the crooked socialist politicians but
you want to say it isn't REALLY socialism [political control of
wealth]. You agree it isn't family business capitalism [private,
people ownership of wealth] then what do you call it? Each
operation you might mention is controlled by politician's decisions
not family business people. Of course the crooked socialist
politicians always try to take over all real wealth [called
socialist taking/taxing loot] and that's the reason that world
oil and socialism are so closely linked historically starting
with Rockyfeller and going to the Russian and Arab "concessions".
Your example of loss leaders is possible but easily dealt with.
The purchasers go ahead and buy up all the great product at a
loss while finding other sources of supply for after the socman
[social manipulator] goes bust. These socialist combines are
about power control and the short term profits are relatively
unimportasnt since they aren't real family business enterprise.
Why would Airbus care about crashes or costs when they are intent
on control by Fing [forcing,fearing,frauding] like all socialism
and not fair competitive quality products which please the people
who voluntarily purchase them?
Your thought that these socman actions can always WIN is
disproven by, for example, the Hoover/Roosevelt depression shock.
Socman doesn't always WIN but rather always collapses ultimately
like the Russian socialist bubble collapse that Ayn Rand uniquely
forecast.
Good seeing. JD
jddescr...@my-deja.com
af...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Scott Nudds) wrote:
> jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : Now you are talking about the socialist bureacrats who take/tax away
> : our life happiness. They are the socman [socialist manipulator}.
>
> And here I thought taxes took away money, not life or happienss.
Only if
> money = life or money = happiness could the jdd's blather be remotely
> true. How sad that such equations are truly at the center of the
> sick Libertarian ideology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously you are one of the socmen [socialist mentalities] living
high on the socialist taking/taxing hog with your comrade fidel. I
hope you choke on the cheap cigars and rum produced by slave labor
to satisfy your socialist king's greed. I pray that we in North
America will never have to wake up to what you have done to steal
the happiness of productive people on this continent by supporting
socialism in all it's taking/taxing forms. JD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Bashford
On 7 Jan 2001, (Scott Nudds) wrote
>Paul Zrimsek (pzri...@earthlink.net) wrote:
>: If there were any merit at all to the "chain" metaphor, the answer
>: would be "one"-- as with any chain. Quite a few "links" have been
>: removed, yet there's been no crash. Time to pick a different metaphor.
>
> Now why is that? A chain only moves as fast as it's slowest link.
Another thing to consider is the concept of functional
biodiversity. This differs somewhat from species diversity
by considering the functions or services provided. In
many cases, similar services are provided by several
species. When an essential service is lost; crash.
Of course we typically have no idea who's doing what for
whom, except for the most obvious.
Most don't know that if all the insects died, humans
would probably be extinct within 2 years. If we tried
our best with nukes, we couldn't come close to that.
Doug Bashford
On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 19:08:07 GMT, bguerrero wrote:
Re: When the Market God fails?
>> Those are your anthropocentric values, not Nature's.
>"Nature" has no values.
That seems to be the scientific consensus.
But beware of impling the unscientific attitude that
if it's not science-based, the knowledge or method
is invalid. Such knowledge is merely outside the
scope of science. Anything "stronger" implies to
me, an unscientific quasi-religion.
But you probably should have objected when
I agreed to this, as well:
>* Species come and go. They always have. It's the job
>* of species to adapt and survive.
> Values are, by definition, anthropomorphic.
I thought that was human-projected values onto
value-incapable objects, typically animals. It
seems that many so-called anthropomorphic values,
such as love and loyalty in dogs are now supported
via chemistry. Jeepers, I guess now, what everybody
already knew, is valid!
>As to their being anthropo_centric_, well, yours aren't and mine are.
>Since we're both individual primates, there's no telling who's have
>priority. >Bernard Guerrero
Why, me, of course. Ask my mother, she knows everything.
For rebuttals to libertarian arguments, check out:
Critiques of Libertarianism
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html
Liberalism Resurgent
http://home.att.net/~Resurgence/tenets.htm
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest
exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior
moral justification for selfishness.
James K. Galbraith
jddescr...@my-deja.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the simplest but most profound ideas of the Ayn Rand Theory
[ART] or of her formalization of the philosophy of the American Way
is the following idea about profit, happiness and capitalism;
When family business capitalism exchanges production values
voluntarily in free, fair markets of exchange then the natural
result [or the exchange wouldn't occur] is mutual profit. This
means that the result of these living exchanges is human growth
and happiness and profits and thus a peaceful society as long as
the king's greedy socialists, who operate by theft instead of
production and exchange, are kept at a safe distance from the
capitalists. Good free people legal structure operates by the
American Constitution to restrain the socialist takers.
What part of this do you consider trivial, wrong, stupid or some
combine? JD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MK
>jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> You of course invert the meanings of the words using the
>> king's men designations for those things not socialist
>> controlled. Anyone knows that free market competitive
>> pricing characterizes a free market and not the king's men
>> manipullations that create monopolies and the socialist
>> bosses living high on the socialist hog by their decrees
>> while the average people sacrifice for these superior king's
>> men of manipulation. Unfortunately for your credibility
>> the "impossible" TOTAL collpase of Russian socialism has now
>> occurred and you can't cover up the reality from everyone.
>> All your wonderful computer manipulations and privacy violating
>> surveylances were exposed in r4eality and the Ayn Rand Theories
>> [ART] were shown to be much more about the evil of socialist
>> takings/taxings than any simple novel could possibly forcast.
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>So, with the collapse of Russia's economy and the years since of the
>government withdrawing it's controls they should be in some sort of
>capitalist utopia now.
That's oversimplification so vulgar that imbecilic.
>It actually worked out more like the critics of the
>free market have said, the people who grabbed the most capital during
>denationalization managed to form functional monopolies and pile up large
>amounts of money while not "trickling down" much at all.
_Of course_. Capitalism requires certain basic values upheld, like:
- respect for property rights
- respect for negotiations
- respect for deals
- abstaining from using violence as means in negotiations
Traditional Russian mentality is feudal. It's anything but capitalist.
>Only now that the
>government's interfering with that system is anything beneficial to more
>than the few with the assets happening.
You're naive or ignorant or both.
>Of course, their starting position was like California energy, everything
>was under the control of a few and then the regulations were dropped
>without dispersing the capital or somehow making it possible for
>competitors to even enter the market.
>How has "free market competitive pricing" not allowed Microsoft to form a
>functional monopoly? There weren't any controls on what they charged for
>their OS products.
See article by Paul Krugman to get info on that issue. Until you comprehend
what he's writing about, you're merely yet another opinionated but misguided
guy with a sentiment. Hint: "returns increasing to scale".
MK
---
Struggling socialists is struggling the incompetent with
deep moral sentiment deprived of guidance of reason.
MK
Einstein was brilliant physicist but as many people claim he wasn't
all that great sociologist or economist. The above excerpt is merely
expression of unfalsifiable, popular beliefs at the time. Even
presidents of the companies at that time _believed_ in regulation.
See article "Big Mistake" by Brink Lindsay for quoted evidence.
We learned more since that time and know better than
that, but evidently you didn't learn. You still think with
complex sentiments and simplistic ideas.
David Lloyd-Jones
<jddescr...@my-deja.com> wrote
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> One of the simplest but most profound ideas of the Ayn Rand Theory
> [ART] or of her formalization of the philosophy of the American Way
> is the following idea about profit, happiness and capitalism;
>
> When family business capitalism exchanges production values
> voluntarily in free, fair markets of exchange then the natural
> result [or the exchange wouldn't occur] is mutual profit. This
> means that the result of these living exchanges is human growth
> and happiness and profits and thus a peaceful society as long as
> the king's greedy socialists, who operate by theft instead of
> production and exchange, are kept at a safe distance from the
> capitalists. Good free people legal structure operates by the
> American Constitution to restrain the socialist takers.
>
> What part of this do you consider trivial, wrong, stupid or some
> combine? JD
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
All of it. Exercise for you, JD: categorise it sentence by sentence, which
is which.
-dlj.
jddescr...@my-deja.com
Tell me! Do I look surprised that a confessed socialist such as
yourself, can't deal with these economic ideas? Not likely! You
believe in the initiation of Fing [forcing,fearing,frauding] to over
or enslave OTHER people who are the real wealth producers. JD
Mike Coburn
> In article <Lsl86.3240$Oe.1...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>,
> "David Lloyd-Jones" <ico...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> >
> > <jddescr...@my-deja.com> wrote
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> > >
> > > One of the simplest but most profound ideas of the Ayn Rand Theory
> > > [ART] or of her formalization of the philosophy of the American Way
> > > is the following idea about profit, happiness and capitalism;
> > >
> > > When family business capitalism exchanges production values
> > > voluntarily in free, fair markets of exchange then the natural
> > > result [or the exchange wouldn't occur] is mutual profit.
Ask yourself a question, sir. Where did these people get this freedom from
pirates, bandits and thieves so that they might actually "own" property.
And how do they maintain their property rights? Does the Good Fairy
enforce the property rights, or do we all join hands and sing praises to
Ayn Rand and simply never covet our neighbors property?
> This
> > > means that the result of these living exchanges is human growth
> > > and happiness and profits and thus a peaceful society as long as
> > > the king's greedy socialists, who operate by theft instead of
> > > production and exchange, are kept at a safe distance from the
> > > capitalists.
And these "capitalist", they are supposed to protect their property with a
ball point pen, I suppose?
> Good free people legal structure operates by the
> > > American Constitution to restrain the socialist takers.
> > >
The Constitution says that the American government has the authority to lay
and collect taxes so as to finance defense, and law enforcement, and to
promote the common welfare. THAT, sir, is what it says.
> > > What part of this do you consider trivial, wrong, stupid or some
> > > combine? JD
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> >
> > All of it. Exercise for you, JD: categorise it sentence by sentence,
> which
> > is which.
> >
> > -dlj.
> >
> >
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Tell me! Do I look surprised that a confessed socialist such as
> yourself, can't deal with these economic ideas? Not likely! You
> believe in the initiation of Fing [forcing,fearing,frauding] to over
> or enslave OTHER people who are the real wealth producers. JD
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
That is a horseshit conclusion if ever there was one. Asset values should
be taxed so as to finance a system of governance that provides for
individual ownership of property that is seminal to free trade among these
free people.
--
Mike Coburn
"It's the tax system, stupid. No, it's the ludicrous
banking system. Well, actually, its both." -- Mike Coburn
"Rentier: A person who has a fixed income from land,
bonds, etc." -- Webster's dictionary.
Marky Moonbeam
new "first" impression:
Bashford, you're a tired old idiot. But at least not as much of
a tired old idiot as The Idiot Nudds.
jddescr...@my-deja.com
Mike Coburn <michael....@gte.net> wrote:
> jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <Lsl86.3240$Oe.1...@tor-nn1.netcom.ca>,
> > "David Lloyd-Jones" <ico...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > <jddescr...@my-deja.com> wrote
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > -
> > > >
> > > > One of the simplest but most profound ideas of the Ayn Rand
Theory
> > > > [ART] or of her formalization of the philosophy of the American
Way
> > > > is the following idea about profit, happiness and capitalism;
> > > >
> > > > When family business capitalism exchanges production values
> > > > voluntarily in free, fair markets of exchange then the natural
> > > > result [or the exchange wouldn't occur] is mutual profit.
>
> Ask yourself a question, sir. Where did these people get this
freedom from
> pirates, bandits and thieves so that they might actually "own"
property.
> And how do they maintain their property rights? Does the Good Fairy
> enforce the property rights, or do we all join hands and sing praises
to
> Ayn Rand and simply never covet our neighbors property?
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are repeating the SASS [Socialist Assunption] that people are
inherently bad like socialists and thus a "good" authoritarian
manipulator [authman] must inititate force against people to keep them
in his socialist ORDERLY LINE. The American, free people assumption
is that most people want to live by fair,free exchange of produced
values and not by theft. The free people laws are only needed to
restrain the occasional socialist. Of course, the socialists
demonstrate the opposite such as Russian socialism training,
indoctrination and propoganda. Of course, the free people voluntarily
pay the fee based charges for valid free people legal structure. Why do
they need your taking/taxings/forcings to live a good life like in
America before the waves of socialist take over starting around 1900?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This
> > > > means that the result of these living exchanges is human growth
> > > > and happiness and profits and thus a peaceful society as long as
> > > > the king's greedy socialists, who operate by theft instead of
> > > > production and exchange, are kept at a safe distance from the
> > > > capitalists.
>
> And these "capitalist", they are supposed to protect their property
with a
> ball point pen, I suppose?
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Study a little history of American life before the "emergency"
socialist takings for the first world war. The founding of the nation
was done by voluntary actions of wanta-be free people and their desire
to escape from the enslavment by the king's men of Europe.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Good free people legal structure operates by the
> > > > American Constitution to restrain the socialist takers.
> > > >
>
> The Constitution says that the American government has the authority
to lay
> and collect taxes so as to finance defense, and law enforcement, and
to
> promote the common welfare. THAT, sir, is what it says.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Constitution tried to create enough federal strength to preserve
the nation from foreign invasions [emergencies] while preserving
freedom. The one value of conventional Keynesian analysis is that
it allows US to see the amount of freedom destruction produced by the
presence of socman [social manipulator]. The steady growth of human
happiness that freedom brings is only estimable and not exactly
predictable except on averasge but the socialist slavery [SS men]
production of human pain is easily understood. You seem to see some
of the massive distortions of free people economics that has occurred
with the waves of socialist take over and yet you want your own set
of social manipulations which will be "better socialism". What we
should know is that socialist slavery [SSmen] doesn't ever really
work in any sense except for the luxury living of the socialist bosses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > What part of this do you consider trivial, wrong, stupid or some
> > > > combine? JD
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
----
> > --
> > >
> > > All of it. Exercise for you, JD: categorise it sentence by
sentence,
> > which
> > > is which.
> > >
> > > -dlj.
> > >
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> >
> > Tell me! Do I look surprised that a confessed socialist such as
> > yourself, can't deal with these economic ideas? Not likely! You
> > believe in the initiation of Fing [forcing,fearing,frauding] to over
> > or enslave OTHER people who are the real wealth producers. JD
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
> That is a horseshit conclusion if ever there was one. Asset values
should
> be taxed so as to finance a system of governance that provides for
> individual ownership of property that is seminal to free trade among
these
> free people.
>
> --
> Mike Coburn
>
> "It's the tax system, stupid. No, it's the ludicrous
> banking system. Well, actually, its both." -- Mike Coburn
>
> "Rentier: A person who has a fixed income from land,
> bonds, etc." -- Webster's dictionary.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
It's unpleasant to even need to consider the SSmen or the socman
but they are a part of economic reality. They will always be with
US because it is much easier to take/tax/steal wealth than it is
to produce and exchange it. It is necessary to understand this
reality to know what is happening and to be prepared so we never
have to feel that we have even accidentally supported their takings
and taxings and forcings. See and avoid socman! JD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Coburn
Sorry I asked..... You are simply hopeless. You and Hyman make quite a
pair. His was FOOD and yours is RAND.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > This
> > > > > means that the result of these living exchanges is human growth
> > > > > and happiness and profits and thus a peaceful society as long as
> > > > > the king's greedy socialists, who operate by theft instead of
> > > > > production and exchange, are kept at a safe distance from the
> > > > > capitalists.
>
> >
> > And these "capitalist", they are supposed to protect their property
> with a
> > ball point pen, I suppose?
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Study a little history of American life before the "emergency"
> socialist takings for the first world war. The founding of the nation
> was done by voluntary actions of wanta-be free people and their desire
> to escape from the enslavment by the king's men of Europe.
It was done by stealing all the land from the Indians, you idiot. It
lasted until the white people were forced to steal land from each other.
JohnT
Marky Moonbeam wrote:
It's easy to see why a pimp like Marky would like deregulation.
JohnT
Mike Coburn wrote:
> jddescr...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > pay the fee based charges for valid free people legal structure. Why do
> > they need your taking/taxings/forcings to live a good life like in
> > America before the waves of socialist take over starting around 1900?
>
> Sorry I asked..... You are simply hopeless. You and Hyman make quite a
> pair. His was FOOD and yours is RAND.
Someone a few weeks ago said that Libertarianism was a terminal
mental illness. Could be.
But before 1900....Who was the bigger bunch of thieves, the Jesse
James gang or the bankers they robbed? Bankers were so generally
disliked back then that many people cheered for the James gang.
Then there were miners, ranchers and railroaders who did land grabbing,
horse thieves, genuine pirates who pillaged on the high seas, nations
trying to steal from other nations, and lesser thieves no longer
remembered.
>
> > socialist takings for the first world war. The founding of the nation
> > was done by voluntary actions of wanta-be free people and their desire
> > to escape from the enslavment by the king's men of Europe.
>
> It was done by stealing all the land from the Indians, you idiot. It
> lasted until the white people were forced to steal land from each other.
>
> --
> Mike Coburn
There was a guy named Phillip Luce who wrote a small book in the
1960s called Road To Revolution. He was a former member of the
US communist party, and described a plan to bring about revolution
here by promoting reactionary politics and policies. I can't think of
any more reactionary political ideas than Libertarianism. And----Ayn
Rand was a Russian who supposedly was horribly offended by the
coercive socialism of her country. Suppose she was really a commie
agent whose mission was to start the rightwing funnyfarm politics
now called libertarianism?
JohnT
add that taxes for deficit and debt reduction also are a good idea.
John