Are you a good slave?
Publius2k
day?
Or is that dictated to you by others? Do you have to report,
punch clock or sign in on "the job"? Are you a wage slave? Do
you like it or would you prefer to be your own boss, to be
master of your own time and of your life?
Have we Americans become accustomed to the yoke of servitude to
capitalists and their corporations? Are there any viable
alternative options to our WASP work "ethic"?
"The desire to better one's economic position seems to lose its
force in the upside-down world south of the Rio Grande. The
Indian-Mexican enjoys savoring life {with rest and leisure), and
the Americans enjoys crowding it. ...But they (the Mexicans)
look happy. They are reposeful and contented.
Of Course they are happy. That is the worst of it.
Until the Mexican-Indian wants money to buy things that money
can buy more than he wants mastery over time, he will not labor
consistently like the Americans, except by force."
Helen Walker (1928) Mexicans Immigrants as Laborers, Sociology
and social Research, 13, 55-62, p. 60; quoting from an article
in the Nation.
Force, that is the one thing the good ol' superpower USA excels
at.
J.D.
is ?
the fact is mexico is slowly losing its people to america because they have
a chance to earn a real living so they can feed their family.
the problem with whiners is they don't do anything to better themselves like
working, in order for anyone to achieve anything in life they have to work
for it
also the officials are elected in mexico just like they are in the good ole
USA so mabe instead of bitching and whining about how the USA is to blame
for mexico's problems try voting instead of whining. elect people that will
do the best job not the those that tell you what you want to hearactions are
what count. we americans are not obligated to reform your political system,
thats YOUR job also dont think i hate the mexican people (I DON'T) i am not
a racist and i think anyone that is is a total loser.
if the mexican government cared even a tiny bit about the people of mexico
they would make a deal with the USA so we could open up the borders for real
free trade and reform.
so it all boils down to this if you don't like the situation in mexico
(CHANGE IT!) and remember if you free your mind your ass will follow
go to school, learn and do somthing other than whine and blame someone else
for your actions.
David O. Garcia
to cause vapor lock in work ethic types.
David O.
"Publius2k" <Pub?*@?*li.us> wrote in message
news:yhhW6.3437$vI3.88...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
Chuck Robinson
"David O. Garcia" <the...@widomaker.com> wrote in message
news:tijgnd6...@corp.supernews.com...
How about a quote from INS Agents in southern NJ.
The occasion was 1994, in a wooded area overlooking large strawberry fields
where two INS agents were watching field workers from a distance with
binoculars. They were asked what they were doing and replied "watching for
illegals". How do you determine that from this distance? "Simple" was the
answer, "we watch over a period of time and those pickers which we can only
see their 'butts' are illegals." "In other words, if they are working they
must be illegals".
So our Government collects those who want to work and send them back while
it keeps those who don't want to work. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
>
Zeitgeist
we seem to forget that Mexico is much more corrupt then the US every will
be, and if they don't like it they don't have to massively immigrate here.
David O. Garcia
Your premise is wrong. The USA is not a corrupt nation, however when a
politico is found to be corrupt then we all hear about it, and which then
provides fuel for those who do believe that the US is corrupt.
Obbop
> The occasion was 1994, in a wooded area overlooking large strawberry
fields
> where two INS agents were watching field workers from a distance with
> binoculars. They were asked what they were doing and replied "watching
for
> illegals". How do you determine that from this distance? "Simple" was
the
> answer, "we watch over a period of time and those pickers which we can
only
> see their 'butts' are illegals." "In other words, if they are working
they
> must be illegals".
>
> So our Government collects those who want to work and send them back while
> it keeps those who don't want to work. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
>
> >
I chuckle at the posts written by those that have NOT worked with and/or
amongst immigrants. I have done it for years while residing in California.
Sorry immigrant lovers.... whether legal immigrants or illegals... those
folks could NOT keep up with the Protestant Germanic work ethic ingrained in
me from birth. I was stronger and more durable than ANY of the immigrants I
worked with. I was also able to work smarter....
Words can't adequately describe the various scenarios are refer to here. I
am amused by the labels placed on thos immigrants.... such hard workers.....
willing to do work Americans won't, etc etc on and on. The reality is
different. I was there... lived it.... saw it. Tired rhetoric without truth
behind the words. Immigrants are NOT that wonderful. If they WERE such
wonderful workers, doers of deeds, why were they unable to create a decent
economic system and society in their own country??
Adam
> punch clock or sign in on "the job"? Are you a wage slave? Do
> you like it or would you prefer to be your own boss, to be
> master of your own time and of your life?
All anarchists are lazy fucks. Get a job, you wasters!
Chuck Robinson
"Obbop" <squantosquant...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8eRW6.621$Lj.2...@news.uswest.net...
>
> > The occasion was 1994, in a wooded area overlooking large strawberry
> fields
> > where two INS agents were watching field workers from a distance with
> > binoculars. They were asked what they were doing and replied "watching
> for
> > illegals". How do you determine that from this distance? "Simple" was
> the
> > answer, "we watch over a period of time and those pickers which we can
> only
> > see their 'butts' are illegals." "In other words, if they are working
> they
> > must be illegals".
> >
> > So our Government collects those who want to work and send them back
while
> > it keeps those who don't want to work. Makes a lot of sense, doesn't
it?
> >
> > >
>
> I chuckle at the posts written by those that have NOT worked with and/or
> amongst immigrants.
Sorry fool but I personally have worked with immigrants both legal and
illegal for over 30 years. Among other things I managed farming operations
in several states and three foriegn countries. So don't tell me you have
better knowledge than me.
I have done it for years while residing in California.
> Sorry immigrant lovers.... whether legal immigrants or illegals... those
> folks could NOT keep up with the Protestant Germanic work ethic ingrained
in
> me from birth. I was stronger and more durable than ANY of the immigrants
I
> worked with. I was also able to work smarter....
>
I'm impressed, I believe every word you say and I can see you are impressed
with yourself too.
> Words can't adequately describe the various scenarios are refer to here. I
> am amused by the labels placed on thos immigrants.... such hard
workers.....
> willing to do work Americans won't, etc etc on and on. The reality is
> different. I was there... lived it.... saw it.
You must have been one of those ones the INS agents referred to as
citizens--those standing on the side of the field watching and stealing
others bags.
Tired rhetoric without truth
> behind the words. Immigrants are NOT that wonderful. If they WERE such
> wonderful workers, doers of deeds, why were they unable to create a decent
> economic system and society in their own country??
Perhaps the problem was that they had you as their model?
>
>
>
>
Obbop
> Sorry fool but I personally have worked with immigrants both legal and
> illegal for over 30 years. Among other things I managed farming
operations
> in several states and three foriegn countries. So don't tell me you have
> better knowledge than me.
> You must have been one of those ones the INS agents referred to as
> citizens--those standing on the side of the field watching and stealing
> others bags.
>
> Tired rhetoric without truth
> > behind the words. Immigrants are NOT that wonderful. If they WERE such
> > wonderful workers, doers of deeds, why were they unable to create a
decent
> > economic system and society in their own country??
>
>
>
> Perhaps the problem was that they had you as their model?
Your diatribe does not address the final statement.... if those immigrants
from below the southern border are as wonderful as thou claims.... such good
workers..... performing tasks White Americans won't perform, etc etc then
why did I outwork them for the decades I worked alongside them. Then, if
those immigrants are soooo wonderful, such able reliable workers then WHY
CAN THEY NOT PERFORM ECONOMIC MIRACLES WITHIN THEIR OWN COUNTRY?????
So.... you hired them. You enriched yourself by hiring illegals at reduced
wages. Please... inform us who you are so I can report you to the feds for
breaking numerous laws. You MAY be a felon.... that is, if the words you
type even remotely resemble the truth.
Publius2k
Why do you presume that anarchists are lazy and don't have a
job?
Is it because wage slaves have to give up their right to
dissent, to protest, to agitate, iow their right of free speech
and political action? Are wage slaves free to take days off to
work for some meaningful social cause? Would they have a 'job'
to return to? Could they be free to criticize their industry
and employer, perhaps exposing some great harm being done
without fear of retribution? Could they risk having their
employer see their face on the evening news? Wage slaves lose
much much more than their freedom of time. They lose their
freedom of conscience. They lose their soul.
What is this obsession with servitude, jobs, slaving so others
can enjoy the 'lifestyle of the rich and famous'? Wouldn't you
prefer that the fruits of your effort benefit yourself, your
family and your friends, community?
Is having a job a measure of your self worth? Does the size of
your paycheck correlate to the value of your being?
What is it with this 'you ain't nothing if you don't have a job'
crap? Do you erroneously equate a job with work? Work does not
have to be a job, a drudgery, an unwelcome chore. The rich have
tried to make it so so they can skim from the producers and not
have to toil themselves.
You miss the point, but obviously are not alone as most have
bought into the capitalists propaganda. And a what cost?
Do you not understand the societal and human costs of this wage
slave racket? For those trapped in the rat race of corporate
employment, whose social status depends on their salary, how
devastating it is to be "laid off", considered 'redundant'. You
are 'worthless' and can do nothing because you don't have a
'job'. You have to work to be somebody and you can't work with
out a job. You have no control over working then because
employment under this 'marvelous' system is "at will", at the
will of the rich employer. They determine your self worth by
either giving of denying you a job. This wage slave culture
twists reality.
Look at other cultures. There are still some left that have not
yet been sabotaged by capitalists. In a communal culture, there
is no such thing as being 'unemployed' or 'out of a job'. There
are always activities one can share in to help themselves and
others. Of these, Jefferson wrote:
"That, on the principle of a communion of property, small
societies may exist in habits of virtue, order, industry, and
peace, and consequently in a state of as much happiness as
Heaven has been pleased to deal out to imperfect humanity, I can
readily conceive, and indeed, have seen its proofs in various
small societies which have been constituted on that principle."
Being industrious is not the exclusive domain of wage slaves,
not is quality of life.
Seneca:
"Slavery holds few men fast; the greater number hold fast their
slavery."
Marquis de Luc de Clapiers Vauvenargues:
"Servitude debases men to the point where they end up liking
it."
Jean Jacques Rousseau:
"Slaves lose everything in their chains, even the desire of
escaping from them."
Happy wage slaves are not the answer to slavery.
-------
You might hop over to your local library or bookstore and see if
they have the writings of Gerry Spence, including:
"From Freedom to Slavery-The Rebirth of Tyranny in America"
and
"GIVE ME LIBERTY!-Freeing Ourselves in the 21st Century"
"Free men work when their work is their joy. Free men work when
they are also free not to work, when they work but remain the
master of themselves."
In chapter 12, The Religion of Work, Spence relates:
"---Work, The Virtue That Enslaves
Elevating the drudgery of work to a virtue is our dubious gift
from the Puritans. Martin Luther and John Calvin laid the way
in the late Middle Ages. Erich Fromm, the renowned American
psychoanalyst, thought that the reformation's doctrine of
predestination--that is, that God, at the time of our birth, has
already made his choice as to who will and who will not be
saved--created in man such an anxiety over not knowing his
eternal fate that it was necessary for him to treat the pain of
his anxiety with compulsive, meaningless activity.
Fromm likened the phenomenon of ceaseless work to a man awaiting
the pronouncement of the doctor as to whether he is afflicted
with a terminal disease. The man, waiting, waiting, paces the
floor to assuage the terrible pain of his anxiety. But the
American worker does not engage in a fury of meaningless
activity to ease the anxiety described by Fromm. He works
because he is enslaved. He works mostly to eat.
In the new industrial state, the rich and the powerful, too, are
compulsively at work, impelled by insatiable greed, greed born
of man's terror of death, for no matter how hard and how long he
works, no matter how much money he accumulates, no matter the
power he wields, he still can never conquer death. Here he
stands, this puny man bearing the burden of a free will that, at
last, proves useless as a weapon against the grave.
The work ethic in America, flowering from the original doctrines
of Luther and Calvin, fulfilled the requirements of the
industrial state. Indeed, man might achieve salvation if he
were honest, diligent, and responsible and worked hard in
accordance with the model set by Henry Ford--which is to say
that man could enter the Pearly Gates if he in all ways
qualified as a good, reliable, and efficient worker-slave. And
he might feed his family well. If one worked at lawful work,
even at worthless work, even at work that might bring misery or
death to many, still, because of such work alone, one could be
adjudged worthy.
One thinks of the workers at Los Alamos in the early 1940's,
laboring away on a nuclear bomb that could destroy the world.
One thinks of the workers in the tobacco fields and the
cigarette factories. One thinks of the clever gurus on Madison
Avenue whose creative advertising will hook three thousand kids
on cigarettes every day. Such work is respected not because it
produces good, but because it is work. Such workers are
respected not because they produce a useful product, but because
they work.
Under the Puritan doctrines, even the sinner, if he worked hard
enough, could finally earn the respect of his neighbors. Hard
work was the only means by which the poor could, in the eyes of
the community, rise above the degradation of poverty. "He was a
hardworking man" were the words spoken over many a corpse.
I do not argue that people ought not work. But let us for once
be practical about it. Likely one must work if one has not
chosen his parents carefully for their stock portfolio and has
not thrown off the troublesome eating habit. Moreover, a man
must likely resort to work to find a mate and feed and educate
the squalling aftermath. But aside from the plain necessity of
work and its status as the most laudable evidence of a person's
worth, what, I ask, is there about work that makes it
intrinsically right?
---The Ignominy of Work---
Work as an abstract activity, undertaken for itself, has no
merit. Native man did not work. He hunted, which was his
pleasure. He gathered, which was his joy. Anthropologists
insist that in his nascent state man was engaged in providing
himself food but an hour or two a day. And that was not work.
It was his play, his adventure, the fulfillment of his genetic
purpose. Work was unknown to native man.
Smohalla, who belonged to the Nez Perce Indians, saw work as
evil.
'My young men shall never work.
Men who work cannot dream, and wisdom comes to us in dreams.
You ask me to plow the ground.
Shall I take a knife and tear my mother's breast?
then when I die she will not take me to her bosom to rest.
You ask me to dig for stone.
Shall I dig under the skin for her bones?
Then when I die I cannot enter her body to be born again.
You ask me to cut grass and make hay and sell it and be rich
like the white man. But how dare I cut off my mother's hair?'
Only a harsh master could force us to the relentless drudgery of
endless, meaningless, numbing toil. It is the religion of work,
like all religions, that creates our anxiety. It is against the
religion of work to embrace the moment, to feel, to experience
one's relatedness to the earth and its occupants. It is insane
to stop and hug a tree. In light of the endless work that lies
waiting, its foot tapping in impatience, it is irresponsible to
stop and to wonder at the simple beauty of a forest fern.
The notion of work, and its puritanical elevation as among the
greatest of virtues, is a religion that converts the diamonds of
human creativity into the coal of the industrial machine. The
religion of work has transformed human life and all of its
potential, its great capacity for joy and fulfillment, into the
inert fuel that is dumped into the furnaces of the New Master.
Out of this religion is produced the gadgets and trinkets we
purchase from the great war machinery that is destined to one
day destroy the human race as the final vengeance of the insane
machine against its insane inventors.
Yet I do not wish to confuse the idea of work on the one hand
with slavery on the other. Work and slavery are not reciprocal
concepts, although slaves work. On the other hand, the mere
fact that people work does suggest that they are slaves. Free
men work when their work is their joy. Free men work when they
are also free not to work, when they work but remain the master
of themselves."
Resist. Be all you want to be. Be your own person. Dare to
think you can be free. Then think what changes you have to make
to actually be free.
One can work without being a slave to others. One can live
without being in servitude. In fact one can only live life at
its fullest when free of corporate servitude.
Adam
> Is it because wage slaves have to give up their right to
> dissent, to protest, to agitate, iow their right of free speech
> and political action? Are wage slaves free to take days off to
> work for some meaningful social cause? Would they have a 'job'
> to return to? Could they be free to criticize their industry
> and employer, perhaps exposing some great harm being done
> without fear of retribution? Could they risk having their
> employer see their face on the evening news? Wage slaves lose
> much much more than their freedom of time. They lose their
> freedom of conscience. They lose their soul.
Your view of "some meaningful social cause" may not be the same as your
employer's. Your view of "some great harm" may not be the same as your
employer's. You shouldn't even be criticising your employer. You should be
grateful to have a job and a means of feeding yourself, and learn some
repect for authority, Mr. Anarchist.
> Look at other cultures. There are still some left that have not
> yet been sabotaged by capitalists. In a communal culture, there
> is no such thing as being 'unemployed' or 'out of a job'. There
> are always activities one can share in to help themselves and
> others.
If you love these other cultures so much, then fuck off to the desert and
live in a cave. Times have changed in the developed world. Whether that
change has been for better or for worse is irrelevant, as not only is it a
matter of individual opinion, it cannot be reversed either. Anarchists are
in the minority and there's nothing you can do to eliminate capitalism. Stop
complaining and do some work.
Publius2k
>
> "Publius2k" <Pub?*@?*li.us> wrote in message
> news:uO%W6.19$5u4.11...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> > Is it because wage slaves have to give up their right to
> > dissent, to protest, to agitate, iow their right of free speech
> > and political action? Are wage slaves free to take days off to
> > work for some meaningful social cause? Would they have a 'job'
> > to return to? Could they be free to criticize their industry
> > and employer, perhaps exposing some great harm being done
> > without fear of retribution? Could they risk having their
> > employer see their face on the evening news? Wage slaves lose
> > much much more than their freedom of time. They lose their
> > freedom of conscience. They lose their soul.
>
> Your view of "some meaningful social cause" may not be the same as your
> employer's.
So? Does that mean you are not entitled to express your
opinion?
You make my point.
> Your view of "some great harm" may not be the same as your
> employer's.
So? Does that mean you are not entitled to express your
opinion?
you make my point again.
> You shouldn't even be criticising your employer.
Are employers now sacred? What church do you go to? Or what
are they putting into the bottle water at the factory?
> You should be
> grateful to have a job and a means of feeding yourself, and learn some
> repect for authority, Mr. Anarchist.
Yes master. Right away master. Anything you say master.
Overtime? why yes master. I had nothing planned but to spend
time with my daughter. I can make it up to her. With the extra
money I earn I can buy her a new dolly that has computer
generated voice response. Or maybe some more Ritalin. She does
seem a bit hyper of late.
People have been working and feeding themselves for thousands of
years, without capitalists I might add. The problem with your
beloved system is that you want others to work to feed the rich
families too so that they do not have to toil at all.
>
> > Look at other cultures. There are still some left that have not
> > yet been sabotaged by capitalists. In a communal culture, there
> > is no such thing as being 'unemployed' or 'out of a job'. There
> > are always activities one can share in to help themselves and
> > others.
>
> If you love these other cultures so much, then fuck off to the desert and
> live in a cave.
Spoken like a true capitalist thief who hoards the arable land
for themselves and then confines those who resist and don't
accept servitude with a smile to a desert isle, or a maximum
security prison.
> Times have changed in the developed world. Whether that
> change has been for better or for worse is irrelevant, as not only is it a
> matter of individual opinion, it cannot be reversed either. Anarchists are
> in the minority and there's nothing you can do to eliminate capitalism. Stop
> complaining and do some work.
Times can change again. Faster now than ever. Damned internet
and all, you know...
G*rd*n
| ... Times have changed in the developed world. Whether that
| change has been for better or for worse is irrelevant, as not only is it a
Since revolutions and other political changes have occurred
in the past, the empirical data refutes your proposition that
contemporary political facts are unchangeable. Given that
you do not appear to be a professional flack paid to write
conservative propaganda, I wonder why you bothered with it?
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/19/01 <-adv't
Adam
> Times can change again. Faster now than ever. Damned internet
> and all, you know...
Don't expect the human race to return to the Stone Age any time soon.
Anarchism is a minority belief. You alone cannot possibly effect any
significant change on the world stage, and don't tell me that you and your
buddies are going to bring about the downfall of global capitalism simply by
posting messages on a newsgroup.
Adam
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9giad7$3o8$1...@panix6.panix.com...
> Since revolutions and other political changes have occurred
> in the past, the empirical data refutes your proposition that
> contemporary political facts are unchangeable. Given that
> you do not appear to be a professional flack paid to write
> conservative propaganda, I wonder why you bothered with it?
If some political group, regardless of its initial ideals, successfully
overthrows a government and suddenly finds itself in possession of wealth
previously undreamt of to its members, do you honestly think this new
government is going to give up all that wealth and allow its nation to
revert back to a tribal existence? If so, you anarchists are either more
naive or more stupid than you seem. Or maybe I'm the stupid one. Yes, that
would seem more likely now that I think about it...
Adam
>The USA is not a corrupt nation
The term 'corrupt', like many adjectives in the English language, is highly
subjective. You might as well say that all nations are corrupt and then
settle down to a nice glass of turnip juice. Mmmmm!
David O. Garcia
"Adam" <apoca...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4HNX6.114169$ML4.8...@nnrp4.clara.net...
mowhak
> All anarchists are lazy fucks. Get a job, you wasters!
-Go tell that to the anarcho-capitalists. Some day you might even be
slaving for THEM. You could even become a BOSS.
mowhak
R. Terry McCutchen
/s/ Terry
{Working in the international arena I would be pleased if all the TRIBAL and
SUBSISTANCE FARMERS were forced to live in their own world. (with NO outside
assistance) Let them STARVE}
"Adam" <apoca...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:IENX6.114166$ML4.8...@nnrp4.clara.net...
G*rd*n
| Why is tribal "GOOD"?
|
| /s/ Terry
|
| {Working in the international arena I would be pleased if all the TRIBAL and
| SUBSISTANCE FARMERS were forced to live in their own world. (with NO outside
| assistance) Let them STARVE}
Well, evidently the "international arena" has turned you into
a rather hostile if passive person. But I suppose that's what
arenas are for.
Timothy Wesson
Even if you favour the present system to what you perceive anarchists to
support, you would have to admit that if the world could work without laws or
coercion so that people provided naturally for one another, that that would be
a good thing. I'm assuming that your position is not that anarchy is bad, but
that it isn't possible. Folks who would be anarchists are almost certainly in
the majority!
--
Tim Wesson
James A. Donald
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:21:34 +0100, Timothy Wesson
<tr...@below-render.com> wrote:
> Even if you favour the present system to what you perceive
> anarchists to support, you would have to admit that if the world
> could work without laws or coercion so that people provided
> naturally for one another, that that would be a good thing.
No it would not be a good thing.
A world where people provided for themselves through trade and
exchange without laws and coercion would be a good thing, but world
where people provided for each other would be extremely bad.
If we assume that society is to work by everyone being wonderfully
benevolent and terribly caring about others, then someone else has to
know what is good for Joe. This has a suspicious resemblance to a
society where what Joe thinks is good for Joe does not count for much.
In a capitalist society, we assume that everyone has the right and the
duty to look out for number one, with a certain amount of concern for
those close, but little if any concern for strangers far away.
The advantage of this system is that I know what I want, and I do not
know what strangers far away want.
Thus for example if something is in limited supply, and it gets used
by those willing to pay, and not used by those unwilling to pay, it
seems likely that those willing to pay for the most part had more
valuable uses than those unwilling to pay, but those producing the
thing to do not have to evaluate those uses.
If however we assume that society is to work by everyone being
wonderfully benevolent and terribly caring about others, then someone
else has to know what is good for Joe
Institutions constructed on the basis of everyone loving everyone are
likely to take on a dark and terrible meaning when that love is in
short supply. But even if, for some reason, everyone does love
everyone, this is merely the difference between the distopia of "1984"
and the distopia of "Brave New World". Not a difference anyone is
likely to care about. Distant and loving owners are not a big
improvement on distant and hostile owners.
The problem is that a society designed to work on the basis of
universal impartial love for distant strangers necessarily has the
same institutions, mechanisms, and structures as a society designed to
work by slavery and terror, the same institutional mechanisms as a
world of savage inequality, where a privileged few wield absolute
power over a mass of frightened slaves. The difference is merely the
benevolence of those operating the institutions, which counts for very
little. It counts for a lot in a small family sized operation, and
for almost nothing in a big bureaucratic operation.
What you think of a utopia of universal love, because you imagine
yourself holding the whip and the baton, sounds to me like a nightmare
of unending humiliation and frequent brutal torture, because I imagine
myself on the receiving end of the whip and the baton.
The problem is that a society designed to work on the basis of
universal impartial love for distant strangers necessarily has the
same institutions, mechanisms, and structures as a society designed to
work by slavery and terror, the same institutional mechanisms as a
world of savage inequality, where a privileged few wield absolute
power over a mass of frightened slaves.
So how then should I tell the difference between someone who advocates
these institutions because he is confident in the power and
effectiveness of universal love, and someone who advocates these
institutions because he desires to stomp on my face repeatedly and
grind his heel into my eyeballs and spread my eyeballs all over the
floor, and then compel me to say that I am evil and deserve to be
stomped, and that he is good?
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
8Ps4Z0Sm6WfQTotoQUxbFTxwRuxzxjtW8+kuSugM
401nuJG1S+DFlsM4Nbf6KS9+kxK+KKULava3MnAS2
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
Timothy Wesson
> --
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:21:34 +0100, Timothy Wesson
> <tr...@below-render.com> wrote:
> > Even if you favour the present system to what you perceive
> > anarchists to support, you would have to admit that if the world
> > could work without laws or coercion so that people provided
> > naturally for one another, that that would be a good thing.
>
> No it would not be a good thing.
>
> A world where people provided for themselves through trade and
> exchange without laws and coercion would be a good thing, but world
> where people provided for each other would be extremely bad.
>
> If we assume that society is to work by everyone being wonderfully
> benevolent and terribly caring about others, then someone else has to
> know what is good for Joe. This has a suspicious resemblance to a
> society where what Joe thinks is good for Joe does not count for much.
I assume that Joe can speak and (probably) write.
> In a capitalist society, we assume that everyone has the right and the
> duty to look out for number one, with a certain amount of concern for
> those close, but little if any concern for strangers far away.
>
> The advantage of this system is that I know what I want, and I do not
> know what strangers far away want.
People are similar enough statistically, if not the same, and, although
there are regional variations, one knows what a region's demands are.
Quite possibly a money-like construct might be found to be useful, with
the advantage that redistribution could be built into the constuct. It
is not beyond the wit of man to create distributed (non-centralised)
logistical systems with information exchange (and probably of a higher
caliber than the information transmitted though pricing).
> Thus for example if something is in limited supply, and it gets used
> by those willing to pay, and not used by those unwilling to pay, it
> seems likely that those willing to pay for the most part had more
> valuable uses than those unwilling to pay, but those producing the
> thing to do not have to evaluate those uses.
>
> If however we assume that society is to work by everyone being
> wonderfully benevolent and terribly caring about others, then someone
> else has to know what is good for Joe
Okay, so _maybe_ anarchy isn't possible (but then maybe it is), or else
we have a libertarian anarchy with redistribution. I was to a great
extent replying to Adam's apparent false dichotomy between authority (not
trade) and the creation of wealth.
> Institutions constructed on the basis of everyone loving everyone are
> likely to take on a dark and terrible meaning when that love is in
> short supply. But even if, for some reason, everyone does love
> everyone, this is merely the difference between the distopia of "1984"
> and the distopia of "Brave New World". Not a difference anyone is
> likely to care about. Distant and loving owners are not a big
> improvement on distant and hostile owners.
Hello? Is anyone listening to anyone but themselves?
> The problem is that a society designed to work on the basis of
> universal impartial love for distant strangers necessarily has the
> same institutions, mechanisms, and structures as a society designed to
> work by slavery and terror, the same institutional mechanisms as a
> world of savage inequality, where a privileged few wield absolute
> power over a mass of frightened slaves. The difference is merely the
> benevolence of those operating the institutions, which counts for very
> little. It counts for a lot in a small family sized operation, and
> for almost nothing in a big bureaucratic operation.
Bland statement. I'm sure that what you are in opposition to is worth
this kind of attention. The point is that you don't need all those
institutional mechanisms, or certainly not to the degree that they are
applied. To me, anarchy is an ideal, a direction. For example, I don't
think that punishment is desperately effective; locking someone up
doesn't undo any harm in itself. It may inhibit the prisoner from
causing further harm whilst caged, and keep them in one place if you want
to teach them new skills (this is a possiblitity, I am not trying to say
how things should be), but prison doesn't deter very well.
> What you think of a utopia of universal love, because you imagine
> yourself holding the whip and the baton, sounds to me like a nightmare
> of unending humiliation and frequent brutal torture, because I imagine
> myself on the receiving end of the whip and the baton.
Only if you're into S&M.
> The problem is that a society designed to work on the basis of
> universal impartial love for distant strangers necessarily has the
> same institutions, mechanisms, and structures as a society designed to
> work by slavery and terror, the same institutional mechanisms as a
> world of savage inequality, where a privileged few wield absolute
> power over a mass of frightened slaves.
I think that that's the point: in an anarchist society, those same
institutions are not required.
> So how then should I tell the difference between someone who advocates
> these institutions because he is confident in the power and
> effectiveness of universal love, and someone who advocates these
> institutions because he desires to stomp on my face repeatedly and
> grind his heel into my eyeballs and spread my eyeballs all over the
> floor, and then compel me to say that I am evil and deserve to be
> stomped, and that he is good?
I think that you are confusing me with an authoritarian.
> --digsig
> James A. Donald
> 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
> 8Ps4Z0Sm6WfQTotoQUxbFTxwRuxzxjtW8+kuSugM
> 401nuJG1S+DFlsM4Nbf6KS9+kxK+KKULava3MnAS2
>
> ------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
> http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
Hmm.
--
Tim Wesson
R. Terry McCutchen
position.
Kill the police!
"Timothy Wesson" <tr...@below-render.com> wrote in message
news:3B4DDC9E...@below-render.com...
James A. Donald
Timothy Wesson
> > > Even if you favour the present system to what you perceive
> > > anarchists to support, you would have to admit that if the world
> > > could work without laws or coercion so that people provided
> > > naturally for one another, that that would be a good thing.
James A. Donald:
> > No it would not be a good thing.
> >
> > A world where people provided for themselves through trade and
> > exchange without laws and coercion would be a good thing, but
> > world where people provided for each other would be extremely bad.
> >
> > If we assume that society is to work by everyone being wonderfully
> > benevolent and terribly caring about others, then someone else has
> > to know what is good for Joe. This has a suspicious resemblance
> > to a society where what Joe thinks is good for Joe does not count
> > for much.
> >
> > [....]
> > [...] I know what I want, and I do not know what strangers
> > far away want.
Timothy Wesson
> People are similar enough statistically, if not the same, and, although
> there are regional variations, one knows what a region's demands are.
"a region's demands"
One could know this if one imagines oneself to be one of the masters,
If one imagines oneself as one of the ordinary proles, one would not
know or much care what "what a region's demands are". Nor would one
much care what a "region" is.
The problem of deciding peoples needs and desires and how best to
satisfy them, and deciding which ones to satisfy and which ones to
sacrifice, seems wonderfully easy if one imagines oneself in a postion
of power. If one imagines oneself an ordinary prole with someone else
deciding on one's behalf, the problem seems considerably more
difficult.
If one imagines that one could have Joe beaten to a pulp if he fails
to be adequately greatful for all the good that is being done to him
then the problem of deciding what is good for Joe, what he should have
and what he can do without, seems wonderfully easy.
If one imagines oneself as Joe, one is inclined to be less optimistic.
James A. Donald:
> > The problem is that a society designed to work on the basis of
> > universal impartial love for distant strangers necessarily has the
> > same institutions, mechanisms, and structures as a society
> > designed to work by slavery and terror.
Timothy Wesson
> Bland statement. I'm sure that what you are in opposition to is
> worth this kind of attention. The point is that you don't need all
> those institutional mechanisms, or certainly not to the degree that
> they are applied.
When you refer to "a region's demands" and "statistical similarity",
it sounded to me as if you were describing the institutions of
recently existent socialism, only run by people a loving, kind, and
benevolent as yourself.
> To me, anarchy is an ideal, a direction.
Recently existent socialism was run by people who believed in anarchy
as a goal, a direction, but not something that was practical to
actually apply.
When the anarcho socialists took over in Barcelona, they promptly
violated every key point of their platform and program. Some might
call this realism. Others might call it treachery, hypocrisy, and
lies.
James A. Donald repeats:
> > the same institutional mechanisms as a
> > world of savage inequality, where a privileged few wield absolute
> > power over a mass of frightened slaves.
Timothy Wesson
> I think that that's the point: in an anarchist society, those same
> institutions are not required.
But a moment ago you told us that anarchy was a direction, an ideal, a
goal, not an actual program to be applied in practice.
Thus your actual program to be applied in practice is not anarchy, but
merely people as kind and benevolent as yourself in charge of the
institutions of recently existent socialism.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
3S3LRNkSyM6zuEvW/9hxprMKiCx+qjcmkWJa2jhl
4l3MsTJ32tv1/bdBBThOBCqXvctSS70+QvGYlUMki
Sol Iacere
finally have decided to show my ugly, and often controversial, face by
responding to this post.
What can I say? How about we look at the definition of Anarchy, shall we?
Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no
ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
Date: 1539
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder
due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of
individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of
order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel
Shenker>
Well, absence of government? Impossible, really. Absence of leadership and
laws? Impossible. If we removed these things then chaos would reign. And
then do you know what would happen? order would start to automatically set
things straight again ... Leaders would emerge, policies, differences of
opinion ... from there we go back into politics, and soon enough, you have
found yourself back to where you started from.
The natural way of things is to sort themselves into groups. This should be
obvious. Animals do it as do we. There are followers and leaders, and
because of this, there are politics, laws, etc. If you took out the law
think of all the criminals that would take advantage of this. What of
murderers? What if someone went on an Anarchist killing spree? What would
happen then?
Law is there for a reason. As is the government. Many people need
structure in their lives. Not everyone has the ability or wish to bother
with things on their own, so a government is formed to keep things in check
and to make people feel comfortable. As with everything in life,
governments are flawed, but we cannot help that. I am sure that if we were
to remove the government, we would find ourselves in more shit than we
originally were.
But then, where would we be without anarchists too? We do need people to
step out of line and say no, and we do need people to not be content with
how things are. Without such people, things would not be improved. Nothing
would be questioned.
I myself choose to generally live outside of what society dictates. I am an
artist and a philosopher and the way my country is, it is quite hard to get
support in these ventures. They would much rather you become a number
cruncher, which is fine, if you want to be one. So, throughout my life I
have found myself naturally outcast from the majority of society. So I do
understand the necessity of anarchy and chaos. In order for things to
exist, there must be an equal balance of positive and negative. Yin and
yang. If we all became anarchists, fairly soon there would be a small group
of people calling themselves the 'REAL' anarchists, and soon enough, they
would grow and the world would be balanced again.
Anyway, that is my long winded thoughts on the topic. Great way to
introduce myself, huh? ;)
Eternally,
Sarazen Jehwan
JoeG
news:rJp47.7399$Xr6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Greetings all! I have been lurking somewhat for the past few days and
> finally have decided to show my ugly, and often controversial, face by
> responding to this post.
>
> What can I say? How about we look at the definition of Anarchy, shall we?
>
> Main Entry: an·ar·chy
> Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no
> ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
> Date: 1539
> 1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political
disorder
> due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of
> individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
> 2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence
of
> order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature --
Israel
> Shenker>
That definition was writtent by people who oppose Anarchy.
> Well, absence of government? Impossible, really.
Most of human history was lived without government.
> Absence of leadership and
> laws? Impossible.
Most of history was lived without them.
> If we removed these things then chaos would reign.
Actual removal of them disproves your thesis.
> And
> then do you know what would happen? order would start to automatically
set
> things straight again ... Leaders would emerge, policies, differences of
> opinion ... from there we go back into politics, and soon enough, you have
> found yourself back to where you started from.
You cannot prove that.
> The natural way of things is to sort themselves into groups.
You can have groups without hierarchy!
> This should be
> obvious. Animals do it as do we. There are followers and leaders, and
> because of this, there are politics, laws, etc.
Some groups don't have followers or leaders. Instead, everyone in them gets
and equal say in the group's decisions and people are free to leave the
group without any coercision.
> If you took out the law
> think of all the criminals that would take advantage of this. What of
> murderers? What if someone went on an Anarchist killing spree? What
would
> happen then?
What would happen if the rulers went on a killing spree? Oh, wait, they do
and they're called wars and genocide. The government commits far worse
crimes then so-called "criminals". If people are too wicked to be free then
they are far too wicked to govern. Most anti-social acts like murder are
the result of social conditions connected to hierarchical society, anyway.
> Law is there for a reason. As is the government.
Yeah, to exploit people.
> Many people need
> structure in their lives.
You can have structure without coercision!
> So I do
> understand the necessity of anarchy and chaos.
Anarchy has nothing to do with choas.
--
Joe R. Golowka
Jo...@ieee.org
Anarchist FAQ - http://www.anarchistfaq.org
"The great means for the defence of the revolution remain as ever that of
depriving the bourgeoisie of the economic means by which they rule, of
arming everyone (until such time as they can be induced to toss their
weapons aside as useless and dangerous toys) and of interesting the great
mass of the population in victory. If to win, we have to set up the gallows
in the public square, I would prefer to lose." - Errico Malatesta
Sol Iacere
at prehistoric man ... they moved as a nomadic group, all putting i ntheir
fair share of work ... but there was always a leader. The strongest to lead
the pack .. it has been that way ALL THROUGH history. I cannot see how you
can say we have lived without leadership and government ... Africans,
American Indians, Aborignes ... they all had leaders. So I must denounce
your statements referring to the absence of government and leadership.
The definition of Anarchy ... Well, although you cannot prove it was written
by someone that opposes anarchy, it is irrelevant. How about you give me
YOU definition of anarchy...
I am not too clear on what you meant by the 'Actual removal of them
disproves your thesis.' Explain how.
And indeed, I cannot prove that we would go full circle. In fact, I can't
prove anything in the future ... but in that case, neither can you. It is
all hypothesis - I am simply providing my views on it. What I seem to have
received from you though is a whole heap of denial without any arguement.
What happens to your groups without leaders or followers when decisions
conflict? Who decides what to do? What would happen if there were fifteen
people that wanted to bomb Hiroshima again, and fifteen people that didn't
... what would happen then? Who gets the last say?
Who's government are you referring to when you talk of wars and genocides?
And can you prove that 'Most anti-social acts like murder are the result of
social conditions connected to hierarchial society'? What about people who
just enjoy killing? What about people that commit crimes for the fun of it?
Are you blaming society for that? I've grown up in the same society as
millions of other people and every day there are murders and crimes
comitted, yet I don't feel the need to go out and kill someone because of
society. I think society is just a scape-goat for people unwilling to look
within themselves.
And whether you like it or not, the law does work ultimately for the better.
It has served me well quite a few times in my life, and although it is not
perfect, what is?
It doesn't matter what form of 'government' we have, we will never be
satisfied. We all belong to groups, whether we wish to or not ... even
people who don't belong to groups belong to a group. Do you know what the
problem with that is? We all have different ideals. There will never, ever
be the ONE path, the ONE truth or the ONE way of life. It is impossible.
You may not like democracies and politicians, but other people do. And it
seems like the majority want to keep law and order around, or else wouldn't
it be out by now?
Sol
James A. Donald
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 06:54:43 GMT, "Sol Iacere"
<kheld...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Most of human history has lived without government? Bullshit. Let's look
> at prehistoric man ... they moved as a nomadic group, all putting i ntheir
> fair share of work ... but there was always a leader.
Untrue. Often there were several leaders.
More importantly, a leader is not government. The defining property
of government is a monopoly of legitimate force. A policeman can
whack you, and you cannot whack a policeman.
A system like that was uncommon among primitive peoples. Some
primitve peoples had a system were they had a chiefly caste, a small
group of people with supposedly noble blood, where someone of the
chiefly caste could whack a commoner, but a commoner could not whack
someone of the chiefly caste, but most did not. By and large, use of
force by the leaders was judged by much the same standards as use of
force by anyone.
By and large, for the most part, leadership was a matter of prestige,
wealth, perceived wisdom, and the ability to put on a good party. The
leader could not make anyone obey, while the modern state can make
people obey.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
j7h5/AphLlZT2Ao9WxQ2oxsGWX2tPhZgB4OmEK5E
4PdEybjG+hmostaV+hjvcyiz1AFUnuKXqVPD5w1HM
Sol Iacere
that there were indeed leaders and followers. With that would naturally
come law ... A leader's position is to look out for his followers and to do
what he thinks is best for them. Sadly, many people abuse this position.
Yes, governments impose laws and restrictions on us. Yes, certain factions
within governments abuse their position and theit power. Yes, sometimes we
get abused by the system. But that is only because the system is not
perfect. Nothing is, really. Governments and laws also provide good things
for communities - we cannot deny that.
Once more I state that no matter what movement is in power, people will
always be dissatisfied. You simply cannot please all of the billions of
people within the world. Let's say that anarchists had their way and their
own policies came to power. Can you seriously think that no one in the
world/country would oppose it?
How much freedom would anarchy give us, exactly? I am curious. I myself am
not a die hard anarchist ... perhaps someone can clue me in to their
perceptions of anarchy....
Sol
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:faf5462006c2192c...@meganetnews.com...
JoeG
> Most of human history has lived without government? Bullshit.
According to the encyclopedia the first governments came about around 5,000
years ago. The human race has existed for about half a million years.
> Let's look
> at prehistoric man ... they moved as a nomadic group, all putting i ntheir
> fair share of work ... but there was always a leader.
First of all, leader is not the same as government. IMO, everyone should be
leader. Secondly, there was not always a leader. The !kung, for example,
had no formal hierarchy AFAIK.
> The strongest to lead
> the pack .. it has been that way ALL THROUGH history. I cannot see how
you
> can say we have lived without leadership and government ...
Because it's the truth. Read "People Without Government: An Anthropology of
Anarchism" by Harold Barclay.
> The definition of Anarchy ... Well, although you cannot prove it was
written
> by someone that opposes anarchy, it is irrelevant.
If you tell me which dictionary you were using I could.
> How about you give me
> YOU definition of anarchy...
Anarchy = the absence of rulers.
> I am not too clear on what you meant by the 'Actual removal of them
> disproves your thesis.' Explain how.
There are many historical examples of Anarchist societies and they disprove
your thesis that Anarchy = choas.
> And indeed, I cannot prove that we would go full circle.
Then lets try Anarchy and see what happens. You could be wrong. We'll
never improve things if we don't try new things.
> In fact, I can't
> prove anything in the future ... but in that case, neither can you.
I can cite historical examples of Anarchist societies, none of which led to
any more choas then in statist societies (usually they were much more
orderly). Therefore, I can say with high probability that future Anarchist
societies will not be choas.
> It is
> all hypothesis - I am simply providing my views on it. What I seem to
have
> received from you though is a whole heap of denial without any arguement.
Your claims directly contradict historical fact. There's no "arguement" to
be had about it - if you had studied anthropology you would not make the
claims your'e making. Your'e the one who's throwing out a heap of denial
without any arguement. If, instead of taking your ignorance to represent
the absolute truth, you had bothered to research Anarchism, both it's theory
and history, you would not be saying the things you are saying. You reject
a philosophy you know almost nothing about and instead reguritate the dogma
the rulers brainwash everyone with.
> What happens to your groups without leaders or followers when decisions
> conflict? Who decides what to do?
The participants in the group get together, talk about the issue, and come
to a consensus on what to do. If they can't reach consensus they could vote
and go with what the majority wants. If the minority has a moral objection
to this, they don't have to follow the decision but the majority will
anyway. If there are two or more factions they could find a neutral third
party to arbitrate the dispute, flip a coin, or something along those lines.
If they refuse to compromise, they could just separate and each do their own
thing.
For example, say some people want to build a bridge across a river, but they
disagree as to position. How will I settle it?
To begin with, it is obvious, but important, to notice that it is not I,
but they, who would settle it. The way it would work out, I imagine, is
something like this:
We will call the two groups who differ A and B. Then-
1 A may be of opinion that the B scheme would be utterly useless to it,
and that the only possible position for the bridge is where it has
suggested. In which case it will say: 'Help our scheme, or don't co-operate
at all.'
2 A may be of opinion that the B scheme is useless, but, recognising
the value of B's help, it may be willing to budge a few yards, and so
effect a compromise with B.
3 A, finding it can get no help from B unless it gives way altogether, may
do so, believing that the help thus obtained is worth more than the
sacrifice of position.
These are, I think, the three courses open to A. The same three are open to
B. I will leave it to the reader to combine the two, and I think he will
find the result will be either:
1 That the bridge is built in the A position, with, we will say, the
half-hearted support of B;
or
2 The same thing, but with letters A and B reversed;
or
3 The bridge is built somewhere between, with the partial support of
both parties;
or
4 Each party pursues its own course, independent of the other.
In any case it will be seen, I hope, that the final structure will
be representative, and that, on the other hand, if one party was able to
force the other to pay for what it did not want, the result would not be
representative or just.
> What would happen if there were fifteen
> people that wanted to bomb Hiroshima again, and fifteen people that didn't
> ... what would happen then? Who gets the last say?
What a rediculous scenario. Yeah, let's go blow up Hiroshima again! How
nonsensical. The only people dumb enough to advocate that aren't
intelligent enough to construct a nuclear bomb. That's like asking what
would happen to your system if all government functionaries and politicians
suddenly caught a disease and died overnight. Utterly unrealistic.
> Who's government are you referring to when you talk of wars and genocides?
I was refering to the majority of the governments that have existed
throughout history, which have constantly engaged in warfare and Genocide
since the dawn of the state. Government is the #1 cause of war. With a
state you have a group of leaders who order other people to go fight wars
for them. The people who start the wars, the rulers, aren't usually the
ones who go to the front lines and die in their wars. This separation
encourages warfare, since the rulers can gain the benefits of attacking
neighbors while shoving the risk of dying off onto their subjects. If we
had no state wars would be less common because the same people declaring war
would fight and die in them - which is a strong incentive not to fight wars.
> And can you prove that 'Most anti-social acts like murder are the result
of
> social conditions connected to hierarchial society'?
Yes. Historical Anarchist societies saw fewer anti-social acts like murder,
hence hierarchical societies must have a link with the anti-social acts that
are common within them.
> What about people who
> just enjoy killing?
This is connected to the existance of the state, the most violent and
destructive organization in human history, because statist societies have a
tendancy to promote violence in order to justify their own wars and
violence. Furthermore, many people like that were victimized by violence as
a child, and were thus the victims of hierarchy. In the United States, many
people who enjoy killing and cruelty join the police or military where they
get to kill lots of people. Even if there were a few people who somehow
just enjoyed killing, there are ways of dealing with that without resorting
to a state. The community could ostracise him and exile him from the
community, for example. If there are large numbers of people who enjoy
killing we should just get them all together and have them kill each other.
Or you could give them a video game which enables them to act out their
violent fantasies withot harming real people. Counseling would probably do
such a person a world of good.
> What about people that commit crimes for the fun of it?
There wouldn't be any crimes in Anarchy because there would be no laws to
break.
> Are you blaming society for that?
I wouldn't use that phrase, no.
> I've grown up in the same society as
> millions of other people and every day there are murders and crimes
> comitted, yet I don't feel the need to go out and kill someone because of
> society.
Then why do you think other people will kill others?
> And whether you like it or not, the law does work ultimately for the
better.
Only if you consider mass murder and theft "better."
> It has served me well quite a few times in my life, and although it is not
> perfect, what is?
Anarchy, which is not perfect either, would work better.
> It doesn't matter what form of 'government' we have, we will never be
> satisfied. We all belong to groups, whether we wish to or not ... even
> people who don't belong to groups belong to a group. Do you know what the
> problem with that is? We all have different ideals. There will never,
ever
> be the ONE path, the ONE truth or the ONE way of life. It is impossible.
It is because we cannot all agree that anarchism becomes necessary. If we
all thought alike it would not matter in the least if we had one common law
to which we must all submit. But as many of us think differently, it
becomes absurd to try to force us to act the same by means of the
government.
> You may not like democracies and politicians, but other people do. And it
> seems like the majority want to keep law and order around, or else
wouldn't
> it be out by now?
The fact that it's still around just means that the rulers are efficient at
controlling people. 500 years ago most people supported Monarchies and
reacted to the notion of Democracy the same way you react to Anarchy today.
They thought democracy would be choas. But, fortunetly, some people were
open-minded enough to try a different system. Just as people's minds have
changed over the last 500 years they will change over the next 500 years.
The current order is bound to end eventually, every empire falls. And it'll
probably fall within the next century or two because the current order is
not ecologically sustainable. What will come next I don't know, but I hope
it'll be Anarchy.
--
Joe R. Golowka
Jo...@ieee.org
Anarchist FAQ - http://www.anarchistfaq.org
"The fact is that Liberal-Democracy seldom voices any arguments against
Anarchism as such -- other than relying on prejudice -- because its
objections are purely authoritarian and unmask the innate Statism and
authoritarianism of liberalism. Nowadays conservatives like to appropriate
the name 'libertarianism' to describe themselves as if they were more
receptive to freedom than socialists. But their libertarianism is confined
to keeping the State out of interfering in their business affairs. Once
anarchism makes it plain that it is possible to have both social justice and
to dispense with the State they are shown in their true colours. Their
arguments against State socialism and Communism may sound 'libertarian', but
their arguments against Anarchism reveal that they are essentially
authoritarian. That is why they prefer to rely upon innuendo, slanders, and
false reporting, which is part of the establishment anti-anarchism,
faithfully supported by the media." - Albert Meltzer
Matt
"Sol Iacere" <kheld...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Whether one leader or two leaders or even ten leaders, there is no doubt
> that there were indeed leaders and followers. With that would naturally
> come law ...
A non-sequitur. From the fact that one follows a leader, it doesn't
follow that the leader's rules or commands are binding upon him (which
would be necessary for the leader to impose law).
> A leader's position is to look out for his followers and to do
> what he thinks is best for them.
It depends on what kind of leader he is. Again, any position of
leadership doesn't in of itself confer the power of law upon the leader.
A priest may try to do what's best for his congregation, but he can't
force them to abide by his commands--unless, of course, we are talking
about some country in which religion is connected to the state.
> Yes, governments impose laws and restrictions on us. Yes, certain factions
> within governments abuse their position and theit power. Yes, sometimes we
> get abused by the system. But that is only because the system is not
> perfect. Nothing is, really.
That is correct but irrelevant. The anarchist contention is not that
government fails to be perfect, so we should discard it, but rather that
government is worse than potential alternative arrangements.
> Governments and laws also provide good things
> for communities - we cannot deny that.
First, to clarify, anarchists (or at least those you are arguing with
right now) do not oppose law per se. We support laws arising out of
voluntary cooperation, and reject the authority of laws coming only from
the fiat of the state.
Second, it is true that governments provide some good things. It is our
contention that the bad things government does are worse than the good
things it provides, and also that most of the good things it provides
(e.g., schooling, mail delivery) would be provided more efficiently in a
free market.
> Once more I state that no matter what movement is in power, people will
> always be dissatisfied. You simply cannot please all of the billions of
> people within the world.
This is not a good argument because it could justify any position at
all, even ones that you no doubt find completely unjustifiable. Hitler,
for example, could say, "Yes, the Jews may not like my policies, but
under any system some people will be dissatisfied. I can't please
everyone, you know...."
Appealing to the fact that in a world of lots of people, some will
always be displeased, is no justification for violating the rights of
others.
> Let's say that anarchists had their way and their
> own policies came to power. Can you seriously think that no one in the
> world/country would oppose it?
No, and we would not expect everyone to support it.
One appealing facet of anarchism, however, is the potential for a more
peaceful, pluralistic society in which people with very different values
can coexist without imposing on each other. To some extent we already
have this, but the state permits influential factions of society to use
the force of government to confiscate property from other factions and
to impose their social agenda upon everyone, consenting or not.
In anarchy, by contrast, no one has any such power, meaning people must
make voluntary exchanges and form voluntary associations with others to
live the way they want; they cannot simply force everyone else to live
their way. The people who would "suffer" most from such a system,
therefore, are those who most wish to impose a uniform lifestyle on
others. I have about as much sympathy for these people as I do for a
rapist who is "dissatisfied" because he is unable to rape women at will.
> How much freedom would anarchy give us, exactly? I am curious. I myself am
> not a die hard anarchist ...
Evidently not!
> perhaps someone can clue me in to their
> perceptions of anarchy....
Based on theory and historical examples, I think an anarchist society
would have much more freedom than is permitted today, but nothing close
to "absolute freedom." Victimless crimes, most restrictions on free
speech, trade, etc. would disappear, but people would make arrangements
to protect themselves from transgressions from others. Hurting or
stealing from someone else would provoke expensive conflicts.
I'm not saying it would never happen--this is no utopia--but it would be
considerably costly, meaning most people, most of the time, would be
secure in their person and properties.
Sol Iacere
Intriguing? Yes. Satisfied? No. I for one am happy with government ... it
is something familiar, and it has worked for me. I take risks, but only
when I know there is some way out....
You say that 'hurting or stealing from someone else would provoke expensive
conflicts.'
What kind of expensice conflicts? Please elaborate.
Also, what happens when people start exploiting anarchism too ...?
And, in the scheme of things, if Hitler has said that, then I would be
inclined to agree with him. I wouldn't be satisfied with the change, and
I'm sure there are millions more who wouldn't be. But would you impose it
upon people anyway? Remember, we really CAN'T please everyone.
Look, I can understand that anarchists are looking to make something good
... a utopia, if you will. But realistically? I can't see it ever
happening. Ever. Not even a few million years down the track. It's not
being closed to your philosophies ... I hear and accept them ... I agree in
many points. But to me it is something that just cannot happen.
I wish you all luck on your quest.
Sol
"Matt" <ma...@anarchomail.com> wrote in message
news:matt-26D74D.1...@corp.supernews.com...
James A. Donald
> Whether one leader or two leaders or even ten leaders, there is no doubt
> that there were indeed leaders and followers.
Leaders and followers are not government and governed.
The big difference is that government can compel. If you do not obey,
a policeman will whack you. If you whack him back, he will kill you.
Indeed there have always been leaders and led. There have not always
been governments and governed.
Thomas Taylor
it
> is something familiar, and it has worked for me. I take risks, but only
> when I know there is some way out....
So, if you were fed mud, and you were used to it, and someone said there
was this great new food called "bread" you could it, you wouldn't try it
incase it was poisonous? And then you'd say mud was obviously better
because it's familiar and "works for you".
Tom
JoeG
>
> Look, I can understand that anarchists are looking to make something good
> ... a utopia, if you will. But realistically? I can't see it ever
> happening. Ever. Not even a few million years down the track. It's not
> being closed to your philosophies ... I hear and accept them ... I agree
in
> many points. But to me it is something that just cannot happen.
That's the same thing people said 500 years ago about getting rid of
Monarchies. That what they said about women's suffrage and giving them
greater equality. Thats what they said about the United States becoming
independant from Britain. It's what they said about abolishing slavery.
Time and time again, new ideas have been confronted with the same kind of
knee jerk "it'll never happen" claims like the above and time and time again
those claims have been disproven. Whenever there's a revolutionary new idea
there's a time period before it's implementation when most people think it
"won't work" and "will never happen" and the only people who advocate it are
"crackpots" and "extremists". Every Empire falls, and so will the current
one. There is massive unrest in many "third world" countries - I could
easily see an Anarchist revolution breaking out within the next few decades.
"Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if
not utterly impossible." -- Editorial in the New York Times, December 10,
1903
--
Joe R. Golowka
Jo...@ieee.org
Anarchist FAQ - http://www.anarchistfaq.org
"The fact is that Liberal-Democracy seldom voices any arguments against
Matt
"Sol Iacere" <kheld...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Intriguing? Yes. Satisfied? No. I for one am happy with government ... it
> is something familiar, and it has worked for me. I take risks, but only
> when I know there is some way out....
I appreciate your honesty, but I don't think this is a sensible way of
justifying your belief in government--or, for that matter, anything else.
This standard of reasoning could justify any form of society--including
ones that are completely incompatible with each other--depending only on
what form of society you happened to be born into and what you became
accustomed to. The other posters made apt analogies showing the
weakness in this type of reasoning.
> You say that 'hurting or stealing from someone else would provoke expensive
> conflicts.'
>
> What kind of expensice conflicts? Please elaborate.
In anarchy there is no organization capable of overwhelming force that
can raise funds coercively; i.e., no state with the power to tax. If
you wish to impose your will on someone, you will have to pay for it
yourself.
In anarchy we expect people to take measures to defend themselves, which
will vary according to people's preferences. Most will subscribe to
organizations promising to defend their rights, some of which may be
for-profit enterprises, others of which may be citizen-militias.
Should an individual aggress against another, his victim will probably
have some defense organization to stop the aggression, if possible, or,
if not, to at least pursue restitution from the aggressor.
Specifically, I imagine the aggressor would be arrested by his victim's
defense organization, and the dispute settled before an indepedenent
arbitrator. If he is proven guilty, he could face a costly fee to
compensate his victim. The aggressor would probably himself subscribe
to a defense organization, but it would find it far more respectable and
inexpensive to settle the matter peacefully; otherwise, it would go out
of business fighting for high-risk clients.
> Also, what happens when people start exploiting anarchism too ...?
Can you clarify the question?
> And, in the scheme of things, if Hitler has said that, then I would be
> inclined to agree with him.
What do you mean? Surely you don't mean "Hey, I can't please everyone,"
is a plausible justification for the Holocaust??
> I wouldn't be satisfied with the change, and
> I'm sure there are millions more who wouldn't be. But would you impose it
> upon people anyway? Remember, we really CAN'T please everyone.
The concept of "imposition" is misleading in this context because we are
actually talking about _resistance to_ other people's impositions. That
some people are accustomed to imposing their will on others, and even
think they have a right to do so, does not make it true; therefore,
removing government, removing their ability to impose their views by
force of law upon others, is not in fact any imposition at all.
If some people want to follow a leader, or join an organization wherein
the members set the rules through majority vote, that is all well and
good with anarchists. We only object to the notion that those people
have a right to force us and everyone else to submit to them regardless
of whether we wish to. That is an imposition upon us, and we have a
right to defend ourselves.
> Look, I can understand that anarchists are looking to make something good
> ... a utopia, if you will.
Actually not. Some anarchists may be utopian, but not all. To the
contrary, many of us recognize that a perfect society is not an option,
but we think our preferred anarchist society would be substantially
better than a statist one. That there are no examples of large scale
industrial anarchy makes our proposals somewhat speculative, to be sure,
but they are not necessarily utopian.
> But realistically? I can't see it ever
> happening. Ever. Not even a few million years down the track.
If you asked someone in the nineteenth century how long it would take
before ordinary people would be flying across the country in big metal
tubes at 400 mph, he might also predict a million years. Recently the
world has been changing very rapidly (and not just technologically). I
don't know if I will see anarchy, but I would be very surprised if the
world 30 years from now is very similar to the world today.
Another poster brought up issues such as the abolition of slavery,
women's rights, etc. These are good points because throughout the bulk
of history many facets of society that we take for granted today would
have seemed impossible and utopian.
> It's not
> being closed to your philosophies ... I hear and accept them ... I agree in
> many points. But to me it is something that just cannot happen.
>
> I wish you all luck on your quest.
Well, thanks.
Timothy Wesson
"James A. Donald" wrote:
> --
> Timothy Wesson
> > > > Even if you favour the present system to what you perceive
> > > > anarchists to support, you would have to admit that if the world
> > > > could work without laws or coercion so that people provided
> > > > naturally for one another, that that would be a good thing.
>
> James A. Donald:
> > > No it would not be a good thing.
> > >
> > > A world where people provided for themselves through trade and
> > > exchange without laws and coercion would be a good thing, but
> > > world where people provided for each other would be extremely bad.
> > >
> > > If we assume that society is to work by everyone being wonderfully
> > > benevolent and terribly caring about others, then someone else has
> > > to know what is good for Joe. This has a suspicious resemblance
> > > to a society where what Joe thinks is good for Joe does not count
> > > for much.
> > >
> > > [....]
> > > [...] I know what I want, and I do not know what strangers
> > > far away want.
>
> Timothy Wesson
> > People are similar enough statistically, if not the same, and, although
> > there are regional variations, one knows what a region's demands are.
>
> "a region's demands"
As in supply and demand.
> One could know this if one imagines oneself to be one of the masters,
Or you could have another way of matching supply and demand (meaning
resources such as human capital as against what people [say they] want).
Modern technology could do this without the inequity, or at least the degree
of inequity implicit in a money-based system, and the technology could
easily be designed to be distributed, so that it has no locus, no centre.
> If one imagines oneself as one of the ordinary proles, one would not
> know or much care what "what a region's demands are". Nor would one
> much care what a "region" is.
You're reading far too much into what I'm saying. To give you an idea of my
political perspective, I view a system of capital with a flat rate of tax
and a literally universal benefit as a pretty good starting point.
> The problem of deciding peoples needs and desires and how best to
> satisfy them, and deciding which ones to satisfy and which ones to
> sacrifice, seems wonderfully easy if one imagines oneself in a postion
> of power. If one imagines oneself an ordinary prole with someone else
> deciding on one's behalf, the problem seems considerably more
> difficult.
>
> If one imagines that one could have Joe beaten to a pulp if he fails
> to be adequately greatful for all the good that is being done to him
> then the problem of deciding what is good for Joe, what he should have
> and what he can do without, seems wonderfully easy.
>
> If one imagines oneself as Joe, one is inclined to be less optimistic.
I've not been saying this at all.
> James A. Donald:
> > > The problem is that a society designed to work on the basis of
> > > universal impartial love for distant strangers necessarily has the
> > > same institutions, mechanisms, and structures as a society
> > > designed to work by slavery and terror.
>
> Timothy Wesson
> > Bland statement. I'm sure that what you are in opposition to is
> > worth this kind of attention. The point is that you don't need all
> > those institutional mechanisms, or certainly not to the degree that
> > they are applied.
>
> When you refer to "a region's demands" and "statistical similarity",
> it sounded to me as if you were describing the institutions of
> recently existent socialism, only run by people a loving, kind, and
> benevolent as yourself.
No. I'm saying that just as the system of supply and demand in orthodox
capitalism relies upon statistical phenonema insofar as the agents in it try
to predict future requirements.
> > To me, anarchy is an ideal, a direction.
>
> Recently existent socialism was run by people who believed in anarchy
> as a goal, a direction, but not something that was practical to
> actually apply.
>
> When the anarcho socialists took over in Barcelona, they promptly
> violated every key point of their platform and program. Some might
> call this realism. Others might call it treachery, hypocrisy, and
> lies.
I agree.
> James A. Donald repeats:
> > > the same institutional mechanisms as a
> > > world of savage inequality, where a privileged few wield absolute
> > > power over a mass of frightened slaves.
>
> Timothy Wesson
> > I think that that's the point: in an anarchist society, those same
> > institutions are not required.
>
> But a moment ago you told us that anarchy was a direction, an ideal, a
> goal, not an actual program to be applied in practice.
>
> Thus your actual program to be applied in practice is not anarchy, but
> merely people as kind and benevolent as yourself in charge of the
> institutions of recently existent socialism.
I think that centralisation of power is generally not a good idea, although
the compromise that is modern government shows that it can have some
utility, but just as extreme socialists confuse control with rationality
(ignoring systemic properties, seeing only chaos where people aren't in
control), people who oppose anarchy tend to do this to a lesser extent:
they want to see transparent mechanisms of control, properly accountable...
but the tyrany of the majority raises its head. I think that extending
liberalism is a better route to anarchy than that of revolution (which can
only change the head of government, really) or of strong socialism, which by
centralising power is heading in the wrong direction.
> --digsig
> James A. Donald
> 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
> 3S3LRNkSyM6zuEvW/9hxprMKiCx+qjcmkWJa2jhl
> 4l3MsTJ32tv1/bdBBThOBCqXvctSS70+QvGYlUMki
>
> ------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
> http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
It's my opinion that our desire for (exclusive) property is something that
can be largely overcome by the common belief in its antisocial character, in
much the same way that most people don't steal, except for in petty ways,
and on rare occasions.
--
Tim Wesson
James A. Donald
James A. Donald wrote:
> > > > If we assume that society is to work by everyone being
> > > > wonderfully benevolent and terribly caring about others, then
> > > > someone else has to know what is good for Joe. This has a
> > > > suspicious resemblance to a society where what Joe thinks is
> > > > want, and I do not know what strangers far away want.
Timothy Wesson:
> > > People are similar enough statistically, if not the same, and,
> > > although there are regional variations, one knows what a
> > > region's demands are.
James A. Donald:
> > "a region's demands"?
Timothy Wesson:
> As in supply and demand.
Supply and demand are not "a region's demands". Only people demand
stuff.
James A. Donald:
> > One could know [a region's demands] if one imagines oneself to be
> > one of the masters,
Timothy Wesson:
> Or you could have another way of matching supply and demand (meaning
> resources such as human capital as against what people [say they]
> want).
Your choice of words hint at what you imagine this system to be. In
the system you envisage "A region demands", but people merely "say
they want".
When describing capitalism, we speak of "consumer demand".
When you refer to "a region's demands" you imagine a region incarnated
in one man, or a small group of planners. When you say "what people
say they want" instead of "demand", you imagine the good and the wise
deciding for other people better than they in their foolish
selfishness can decide for themselves.
> Modern technology could do this without the inequity, or at least the degree
> of inequity implicit in a money-based system, and the technology could
> easily be designed to be distributed, so that it has no locus, no centre.
It is meaningless to talk of technology. Wants are infinite, whether
the technology is high or low. Some of what Joe wants he cannot get.
How who then shall decide which of Joe's wants shall be fulfilled, and
which is not fulfilled? Technology is nothing to do with it. The
question is who wields the baton, and who gets the baton in the face?
James A. Donald:
> > If one imagines oneself as one of the ordinary proles, one would not
> > know or much care what "what a region's demands are". Nor would one
> > much care what a "region" is.
Timothy Wesson
> You're reading far too much into what I'm saying.
You say are in favor of everything being nice to everyone. So is
everyone. I want to draw your attention to what you are thinking.
You think that if people as wise and nice as yourself had all power
over everyone and everything, you could and would make things nice for
everyone. I am inclined to doubt this, and if you phrased as
bluntly as that in your own mind, you would come to doubt it also.
>To give you an idea of my
> political perspective, I view a system of capital with a flat rate
> of tax and a literally universal benefit as a pretty good starting
> point.
A pretty good starting point for a system with no money? I am afraid
this does not give me much of an idea of your political perspective.
James A. Donald:
> > The problem of deciding peoples needs and desires and how best to
> > satisfy them, and deciding which ones to satisfy and which ones to
> > sacrifice, seems wonderfully easy if one imagines oneself in a
> > position of power. If one imagines oneself an ordinary prole with
> > someone else deciding on one's behalf, the problem seems
> > considerably more difficult.
> >
> > If one imagines that one could have Joe beaten to a pulp if he
> > fails to be adequately grateful for all the good that is being
> > done to him then the problem of deciding what is good for Joe,
> > what he should have and what he can do without, seems wonderfully
> > easy.
> >
> > If one imagines oneself as Joe, one is inclined to be less
> > optimistic.
Timothy Wesson
> I've not been saying this at all.
You have been saying that the problem of determining "a regions
demands" is very easy. I have been saying that it is not at all easy
to determine what Joe should have. Observe the big difference in
perspective between myself and yourself.
James A. Donald:
> > When you refer to "a region's demands" and "statistical similarity",
> > it sounded to me as if you were describing the institutions of
> > recently existent socialism, only run by people a loving, kind, and
> > benevolent as yourself.
Timothy Wesson
> No. I'm saying that just as the system of supply and demand in orthodox
> capitalism relies upon statistical phenonema insofar as the agents in it try
> to predict future requirements.
This sounds to me like the old argument for the planning of recently
existent socialism "in capitalism, capitalists plan, in socialism, the
representatives of the people plan. Why should socialist planning be
inherently more oppressive than capitalist planning?"
Well there is a great big obvious difference between socialist
planning and the plans of particular capitalists. Do you need me to
explain it to you?
> I think that extending
> liberalism is a better route to anarchy than that of revolution
> (which can only change the head of government, really
Every revolution except the French revolution made a real and vast
change for liberty and freedom. A coup d'état makes not change other
than the head of government. Compare the American revolution with the
Bolshevik coup.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
wZxYHWqwjAxiJ8RPeR7ylFP1mHXW+1PQwYS81fRc
4gUO1YataT0cZtP06HyUq+rsGuOdwO5ESBiYFvscw
Phee
For More Information Take A Look: http://www.bloctoq.demon.nl
Greetings From Phee Bloctoq
JoeG schreef:
Phee
For More Information Take A Look: http://www.bloctoq.demon.nl
Greetings From Phee Bloctoq
JoeG schreef:
> "Sol Iacere" <kheld...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
_______TVD________
Different type of cor' . Mexico does not push down men as U.S. does .
30 million U.S. men can't get to the Sup' Court with their loss of
custody / peverse monitary encentive comm' property settlements etc .
It's clearly unconstitutional , but S.C. won't hear it . Afirm' Act'
violates '64 civil rights amend , but no one can get the S.C. to
hear it !!
Our cor' is at the top , with unconst' laws , in Mex ,
corruption is out front where you can see it . And they don't
beat up on men as we do . And they don't think they need
to hire too many cops to run about handing out tickets as a
way to better their country !
==========================================
Zeitgeist <
> People seem to love to make fun of the USA and supposed corruption of
course
> we seem to forget that Mexico is much more corrupt then the US every will
> be, and if they don't like it they don't have to massively immigrate here.
_______TVD________
Anarchists is a misunderstood word . Some see it as those who
want less govt , some as more power in the hands of the people
and others as mob rule . The dictionary leans toward mob rule .
Which is only possible in a dictator scheme , and for short
periods ( intellegent types ).
When intellegent people rid them selves of the dictator/heavy govt
there is no need for a strong govt to replace it , some times no govt
at all , just citizens committees ..
Then why do intell' people as the U.S. has , fall to heavy , persecuting
govt ? The gene pool . It's only intellegent types that can set up
very small govt/democratic systems ( Switzerland , Holland ) . The rest
must suffer under crooked govt / dictators .
Our gene pool has been ruined by the govt allowing low intellegent
types, by the millions , in . Mixing pot makes crap .
The U.S. will die in a revolt in 2018 . Blame it on A.A. Child Support,
E.E.O.C . ....and
"In 1980 , with the stroke of a legal pen , the U.S. govt turned 50
million into felons " ....... quintupled the jail population .
=====================================
Timothy Wesson
_______TVD________
Anarchy is " without a king.." It means without strong leadership .
All crime , violence , trouble is caused by too much govt .
You are confused , you think capitalists want no govt . We want
a small enough govt to stop it from causing crime , poverty and war ,
setting wages , printing too much money and stealing it .....
You fools think capitalism needs to be watched by govt .
Cap' puts food on your plate , govt takes food of your plate ,
it is govt that needs to be watched , not Capitaism .
Complaints of many poor and a few rich is a product of big crooked govt,
not of capitalism . Capitalism makes all rich , completely eliminates
poverty . ZERO POVERTY ! NOT ONE POOR PERSON in
millions .
=========================================
> "Adam" <apoca...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<992732059.204068@dionysos>...
> > All anarchists are lazy fucks. Get a job, you wasters!
>
mowhak
> -Go tell that to the anarcho-capitalists. Some day you might even be
> slaving for THEM. You could even become a BOSS.
>
> mowhak
Obbop
_______TVD________ <NOSPA...@ultrasw.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:tqk2pj7...@corp.supernews.com...
> KC...@hotmail.com
>
> Anarchy is " without a king.." It means without strong leadership .
> All crime , violence , trouble is caused by too much govt .
> You are confused , you think capitalists want no govt . We want
> a small enough govt to stop it from causing crime , poverty and war ,
> setting wages , printing too much money and stealing it .....
>
> You fools think capitalism needs to be watched by govt .
> Cap' puts food on your plate , govt takes food of your plate ,
> it is govt that needs to be watched , not Capitaism .
>
> Complaints of many poor and a few rich is a product of big crooked govt,
> not of capitalism . Capitalism makes all rich , completely eliminates
> poverty . ZERO POVERTY ! NOT ONE POOR PERSON in
> millions .
> =========================================
>
"Robber Barons"? Monopoly. ad nauseum?
d...@cheetah.net
<NOSPA...@ultrasw.com.invalid> wrote:
>KC...@hotmail.com
>
>Anarchy is " without a king.." It means without strong leadership .
>All crime , violence , trouble is caused by too much govt .
> You are confused , you think capitalists want no govt . We want
>a small enough govt to stop it from causing crime , poverty and war ,
>setting wages , printing too much money and stealing it .....
>
> You fools think capitalism needs to be watched by govt .
>Cap' puts food on your plate , govt takes food of your plate ,
>it is govt that needs to be watched , not Capitaism .
>
Therefore, down with government?
DCI
G*rd*n
| KC...@hotmail.com
|
| Anarchy is " without a king.." It means without strong leadership .
| All crime , violence , trouble is caused by too much govt .
| You are confused , you think capitalists want no govt . We want
| a small enough govt to stop it from causing crime , poverty and war ,
| setting wages , printing too much money and stealing it .....
|
| You fools think capitalism needs to be watched by govt .
| Cap' puts food on your plate , govt takes food of your plate ,
| it is govt that needs to be watched , not Capitaism .
|
| Complaints of many poor and a few rich is a product of big crooked govt,
| not of capitalism . Capitalism makes all rich , completely eliminates
| poverty . ZERO POVERTY ! NOT ONE POOR PERSON in
| millions .
And they said that satire was dead.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 8/30/01 <-adv't
_______TVD________
<> > KC...@hotmail.com
> >
> > Anarchy is " without a king.." It means without strong leadership .
> > All crime , violence , trouble is caused by too much govt .
> > You are confused , you think capitalists want no govt . We want
> > a small enough govt to stop it from causing crime , poverty and war ,
> > setting wages , printing too much money and stealing it .....
> >
> > You fools think capitalism needs to be watched by govt .
> > Cap' puts food on your plate , govt takes food of your plate ,
> > it is govt that needs to be watched , not Capitaism .
> >
> > Complaints of many poor and a few rich is a product of big crooked
govt,
> > not of capitalism . Capitalism makes all rich , completely eliminates
> > poverty . ZERO POVERTY ! NOT ONE POOR PERSON in
> > millions .
=============================
"Robber Barons"? Monopoly. ad nauseum?
KC...@hotmail.com
Monopolies , robber barons , unions , crime , poverty , etc etc are
impossible
in a Capitalist free market economy .
>
_______TVD________
> > KC...@hotmail.com
> >
> > Anarchy is " without a king.." It means without strong leadership .
> > All crime , violence , trouble is caused by too much govt .
> > You are confused , you think capitalists want no govt . We want
> > a small enough govt to stop it from causing crime , poverty and war ,
> > setting wages , printing too much money and stealing it .....
> >
> > You fools think capitalism needs to be watched by govt .
> > Cap' puts food on your plate , govt takes food of your plate ,
> > it is govt that needs to be watched , not Capitaism .
> >
> > Complaints of many poor and a few rich is a product of big crooked
govt,
> > not of capitalism . Capitalism makes all rich , completely eliminates
> > poverty . ZERO POVERTY ! NOT ONE POOR PERSON in
> > millions .
=========================
Let me guess: you were principle advisor to Herbert Hoover, right?
> Ever hear of robber barons, child labor, 12-hour days and a six-day
> work week, The Trusts ...? Captalism isn't bad; but capitalists,
> like politicans, have power that must be regulated, or abuses
> are inevitable.
======================
KC...@hotmail.com
Your robber barons , 12 hour days ,6 day work week
occured under heavy govt control . Capitalism encourages people to
make higher wages , govt encourages peopel to make lower wages .
It is govt that needs regulation , not free market capitalism . Free mkt
cap'
is peopel thrilled about making higher wages thru productivity ......this
needs
no regulation !
Obbop
_______TVD________ <NOSPA...@ultrasw.com.invalid> wrote in message
Justin The Great
for paltry wages, 10 hours a day. This increases Company A's profits, which
is the entire point of the capitalist economic system it operates under.
Company B is a large media outlet. Company B's reporters find out about the
activities of Company A, but doesn't report them because they are dependent
on the advertising money that Company A provides to them. Somewhere down
the line a maverick reporter for independent media outlet C attempts to
uncover the story of Company A expoiting children to increase it's profit
margin, but is murdered by "defense organization" Q who has been hired by
Company A to keep the media silent. Those few who did find out about the
story were soon told that it was all farce, or that Company A was cleaning
up it's act, by media outlet B (who is now owned by Company A).
_______TVD________ wrote in message ...
Kyle J. Pennington III
<kar...@idworld.net> wrote:
>Company A, a textile factory, hires young girls to work in their sweatshops
>for paltry wages, 10 hours a day. This increases Company A's profits, which
>is the entire point of the capitalist economic system it operates under.
>Company B is a large media outlet. Company B's reporters find out about the
>activities of Company A, but doesn't report them because they are dependent
>on the advertising money that Company A provides to them. Somewhere down
>the line a maverick reporter for independent media outlet C attempts to
>uncover the story of Company A expoiting children to increase it's profit
>margin, but is murdered by "defense organization" Q who has been hired by
>Company A to keep the media silent. Those few who did find out about the
>story were soon told that it was all farce, or that Company A was cleaning
>up it's act, by media outlet B (who is now owned by Company A).
>
>
Yes, but, Justin, won't those girls all become wealthy thanks to
capitalism? And if capitalism makes everyone rich, who will make the
SHOES???
Justin The Great
Kyle J. Pennington III wrote in message ...
Of course, you are right. You'll have to exuse me, I was stoned out of my
mind when I wrote that. It seems that sometimes I just have a total lapse
of reason.
Mike
"Justin The Great" <kar...@idworld.net> wrote in message
news:tqn8g82...@corp.supernews.com...
Oh come now, you can't really expect anyone to believe that a private police
force could become a tool of the wealthy to oppress other people. It's not
like it's ever happened before *cough*Pinkerton*ahem*
Obbop
> Company A, a textile factory, hires young girls to work in their
sweatshops
> for paltry wages, 10 hours a day. This increases Company A's profits,
which
> is the entire point of the capitalist economic system it operates under.
> Company B is a large media outlet. Company B's reporters find out about
the
> activities of Company A, but doesn't report them because they are
dependent
> on the advertising money that Company A provides to them. Somewhere down
> the line a maverick reporter for independent media outlet C attempts to
> uncover the story of Company A expoiting children to increase it's profit
> margin, but is murdered by "defense organization" Q who has been hired by
> Company A to keep the media silent. Those few who did find out about the
> story were soon told that it was all farce, or that Company A was cleaning
> up it's act, by media outlet B (who is now owned by Company A).
>
>
Which company has a high paying job awaiting the scum politician lackey when
that puke politician leaves office?
Obbop
Obbop
Ot the national giuard, local police, etc. used to subdue American workers
so that the existing business power structure can maintain control.
Mike
"Obbop" <squantosquant...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kiPq7.9614$0w4.2...@news.uswest.net...
You're right, but I purposely didn't include them because anarchocapitalists
can just say they are like that because it is government and not private
enterprise.
James A. Donald
On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 20:01:24 GMT, Kyle J. Pennington III <
> And if capitalism makes everyone rich, who will make the
> SHOES???
Same people as make them today -- the slaves captured by
socialists. Right now, your shoes are mostly made by
Vietnamese and Chinese.
Of course once we have completely destroyed socialism, it
will become cheaper to build machines to make shoes, rather
than to turn people into machines, but I suspect that
socialism and socialists, like rape and rapists, will always
be around.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
+F8aXTeFUdGaC9tWqGPTGmQJ196QWZrIv2ofRf3j
4FGQRj801GfAdgF3f/lauRI9A3mA6eMakg3+hfFzV
Mike
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:3bacf64...@east.usenetserver.com...
> --
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 20:01:24 GMT, Kyle J. Pennington III <
> > And if capitalism makes everyone rich, who will make the
> > SHOES???
>
> Same people as make them today -- the slaves captured by
> socialists. Right now, your shoes are mostly made by
> Vietnamese and Chinese.
>
Slaves captured by socialists...paid by American capitalists because it's
cheaper to escape unions and wage/labour laws. It'd be great if we got rid
of those unions and wage/labour laws. Then the shoes could be made by
American slaves. I mean come on, let's show some patriotism people!
> Of course once we have completely destroyed socialism, it
> will become cheaper to build machines to make shoes, rather
> than to turn people into machines, but I suspect that
> socialism and socialists, like rape and rapists, will always
> be around.
>
Well it's a good thing we have anarchists like you who think everyone is
entitled to believe what they want, that is, as long as it isn't socialist
thinking. Then it's all right to talk about "destroying" a dangerous
philosophy. How libertarian of you. I certainly don't advocate
"destroying" capitalist thought in a socialist society.
Kyle J. Pennington III
you, James A. McDonald's.
So, now the anarcho-capitalist future has a 'jetsons' quality to it.
As soon as all the people you disagree with are gone, that is...
How sweet.
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 02:26:34 GMT, jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
wrote:
Justin The Great
James A. Donald wrote in message <3bacf64...@east.usenetserver.com>...
> --
>On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 20:01:24 GMT, Kyle J. Pennington III <
>> And if capitalism makes everyone rich, who will make the
>> SHOES???
>
>Same people as make them today -- the slaves captured by
>socialists. Right now, your shoes are mostly made by
>Vietnamese and Chinese.
>
>Of course once we have completely destroyed socialism, it
>will become cheaper to build machines to make shoes, rather
>than to turn people into machines, but I suspect that
>socialism and socialists, like rape and rapists, will always
>be around.
>
This is, in my opinion, the most eloquent and brilliant series of sentences
ever uttered by a philosopher:
Man never regards what he possesses as so much his own, as what he does.
And the laborer who tends a garden is perhaps in a truer sense it's owner
than the listless voluptuary who enjoys it's fruits. And since truly human
action is that which flows from inner impulse, it seems as if all peasants
and craftsmen might be elevated into artists; that is, men who love their
labor for it's own sake, improve it by their own plastic genius and
inventive skill, and thereby cultivate their intellect, ennoble their
character, and exalt and refine their pleasures. And so humanity would be
ennobled by the very things which now, though beautiful in themselves, so
often tend to degrade it. Freedom is undoubtedly the indispensable
condition, without which even the pursuits most congenial to individual
human nature can ever succeed in producing such salutary influences.
Whatever does not spring from a man's free choice, or is only the result of
instruction and guidance, does not enter in to his very being, but remains
alien to his true nature. He does not perform it with truly human energies,
but merely with mechanical exactness. And if a man acts in a mechanical
way, reacting to external demands or instruction, rather than in ways
determined by his own interests, and energies, and power, we may admire what
he does, but we despise what he is. -- Wilhelm von Humboldt
In other words, I think "turning people into machines" is in fact one of the
most prominent features of a capitalist society. The workers become a mere
appertinence of the machine--a tool in the productive process (Marx).
Obbop
Justin The Great <kar...@idworld.net> wrote in message
news:tqnva8p...@corp.supernews.com...
And in a general vein various studies show 4% of Americans owning 95% of
America's wealth. How long would the elite ruling wealthy class exist
without the constant labors of many millions of laboring people paid a bare
subsistence wage. One hears "teamwork" spouted constantly. We must work as a
team!!!! But, then, why aren't the team members rewarded? If the masses of
workers ever realize that their sheer numbers give them imense power perhaps
the wealth be a bit more equitably distributed. Millions of hard-working
Americans can't afford to buy even a small house or a new car, nor do
miilions have health insurance or any sort of pension plan. Yet, the wealthy
ruling elite can ensure their class is well-cared for and that many
multi-billions of dollars can be sent overseas to prop up two-bit
dicatators. Perhaps America's ruling elite doesn't deserve the fruit of the
masses labors. Perhaps the ruling elite should be banned from eating the
food picked by the working poor. Let the ruling elite grow their own food.
Power to the people!!!!!!!!!
James A. Donald
Kyle J. Pennington III
> > > And if capitalism makes everyone rich, who will make
> > > the SHOES???
James A. Donald:
> > Same people as make them today -- the slaves captured by
> > socialists. Right now, your shoes are mostly made by
> > Vietnamese and Chinese.
Mike:
> Slaves captured by socialists...paid by American
> capitalists because it's cheaper to escape unions and
> wage/labour laws.
The wages in Hong Kong are higher than in Europe, and they
had no problem with unions and wage/labor laws.
For a less extreme example, we see the poor leaving france
where they have all those wonderfull unions and wage/labor
laws, and heading to Britain, where the economy is slightly
freer.
If you look at the world, particularly if you look at the
more extreme examples, it is obvious that socialists cause
poverty, and capitalism causes wealth.
And if we look at the response of western socialists to
extreme cases of brutality and slavery carried out by third
world socialists, it is clear that western socialists were
pretty happy to see the peasant bound to the land, and the
laborer to his bench.
James A. Donald:
> > Of course once we have completely destroyed socialism, it
> > will become cheaper to build machines to make shoes,
> > rather than to turn people into machines, but I suspect
> > that socialism and socialists, like rape and rapists,
> > will always be around.
Mike:
> Well it's a good thing we have anarchists like you who
> think everyone is entitled to believe what they want, that
> is, as long as it isn't socialist thinking. Then it's all
> right to talk about "destroying" a dangerous philosophy.
You can believe in murder, slavery, and terror all you want.
But when you try to practice it, you need to be killed.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
wSFBEXMnQ53DqMxEGhy2gi83xnBsb7WcnQhbbgH9
4NzYZYpXEkDNNusr+k5Fk9Fl0NGO2Dq3ZxLPKUJO3
James A. Donald
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 00:21:21 -0500, "Obbop"
> And in a general vein various studies show 4% of Americans
> owning 95% of America's wealth
Only studies carried out by blood crazed communists.
Studies carried out by those with less enthusiasm for mass
murder and slavery show a different picture.
More orthodox studies show the top six percent owning fifty
percent of the stocks and shares, which consitute
considerably less than fifty percent of total assets.
Furthermore that top six percent is mostly old people, so if
we looked at lifetime ownership, it would be a great deal
more than six percent.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
4ebddJIez1n73lKSH37lUfCLBClCav8lTfr21LMC
4MXXGI37FWUm+aTvI7dvRptkNo+AKdhDqx39dEBUB
Mike
I guess someone should notify the executives of Coca-Cola, ITT and United
Fruit that they are in James' hit list.
Justin The Great
James A. Donald wrote in message
> --
>Kyle J. Pennington III
>> > > And if capitalism makes everyone rich, who will make
>> > > the SHOES???
>
>James A. Donald:
>> > Same people as make them today -- the slaves captured by
>> > socialists. Right now, your shoes are mostly made by
>> > Vietnamese and Chinese.
>
>Mike:
>> Slaves captured by socialists...paid by American
>> capitalists because it's cheaper to escape unions and
>> wage/labour laws.
>
>The wages in Hong Kong are higher than in Europe, and they
>had no problem with unions and wage/labor laws.
>
>For a less extreme example, we see the poor leaving france
>where they have all those wonderfull unions and wage/labor
>laws, and heading to Britain, where the economy is slightly
>freer.
>
This isn't true. While I'm sure that some French people leave France to
live in England, it's not like they're all migrating there like you say. It
has nothing to do with the economy being "freer".
>If you look at the world, particularly if you look at the
>more extreme examples, it is obvious that socialists cause
>poverty, and capitalism causes wealth.
>
That would explain why there are nothing but wealthy people in the United
States . . . Either way, the system of socialism we're talking about has
never really been implemented (save the Spanish Civil War), therefore you
can provide historical references to "socialism" failing all you want. It
doesn't prove a thing.
>And if we look at the response of western socialists to
>extreme cases of brutality and slavery carried out by third
>world socialists, it is clear that western socialists were
>pretty happy to see the peasant bound to the land, and the
>laborer to his bench.
>
Bullshit.
>James A. Donald:
>> > Of course once we have completely destroyed socialism, it
>> > will become cheaper to build machines to make shoes,
>> > rather than to turn people into machines, but I suspect
>> > that socialism and socialists, like rape and rapists,
>> > will always be around.
>
>Mike:
>> Well it's a good thing we have anarchists like you who
>> think everyone is entitled to believe what they want, that
>> is, as long as it isn't socialist thinking. Then it's all
>> right to talk about "destroying" a dangerous philosophy.
>
>You can believe in murder, slavery, and terror all you want.
>But when you try to practice it, you need to be killed.
>
I agree. I'm sure the people of Nicaragua, El Salvador, Colombia, Panama,
Guatemala, and Haiti do as well.
Justin The Great
James A. Donald wrote in message
> --
>On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 00:21:21 -0500, "Obbop"
>> And in a general vein various studies show 4% of Americans
>> owning 95% of America's wealth
>
>Only studies carried out by blood crazed communists.
>
>Studies carried out by those with less enthusiasm for mass
>murder and slavery show a different picture.
>
It's idiotic phrases like this that keep you from being taken seriously on
this newsgroup.
>More orthodox studies show the top six percent owning fifty
>percent of the stocks and shares, which consitute
>considerably less than fifty percent of total assets.
>Furthermore that top six percent is mostly old people, so if
>we looked at lifetime ownership, it would be a great deal
>more than six percent.
>
You didn't make a reference to what "orthodox studies" you're referring to.
I know why too. They're either unorthodox, or made up.
Mike
> For a less extreme example, we see the poor leaving france
> where they have all those wonderfull unions and wage/labor
> laws, and heading to Britain, where the economy is slightly
> freer.
>
> If you look at the world, particularly if you look at the
> more extreme examples, it is obvious that socialists cause
> poverty, and capitalism causes wealth.
>
Actually one of the failures of socialism in every country it's ever been
tried in is the relative poverty of the country before its revolution. As
Marx stipulates, it is an absolute necessity that a country have enough
resources to sustain people during the "restructuring" of industry (this is
why he suggests a revolution in France, then Germany, then England rather
than any of the eastern European countries or God forbid it happen in a
backwards, outdated society like the Russians had). If you look at Russia,
Cuba, Vietnam, Albania, and every single other country that has become
socialist you will see that except for the few people at the top, the
population was drastically impoverished. I agree that socialism as we have
seen it in the 20th century is probably one of the greatest crimes against
humanity. Then again, you can't really say capitalism hasn't been as well.
Do you know why there are lists such as "SOCIALISM HAS KILLED XX MILLION
PEOPLE IN THE PAST 100 YEARS?" Because if we compiled a list like this of
all the people capitalism has killed in the past 100 years we would run out
of paper.
On a more personal note, I also like how when they make this list they throw
in all the soldiers who fought under the Soviet Union in World War 2. I've
got news for you, if it weren't for the Soviet Union we would probably all
be living in Nazi territory right now. While Americans like to pretend they
saved Europe from big bad Germany, the truth is the only reason Germany lost
is because they had to fight on two fronts, with 80% of their troops
fighting against the Soviet Union. So yes, tens of millions of Soviet
military men died during World War 2 under the dictatorship of Stalin, but
you should consider yourself lucky that the Soviet Union was prepared to
fight Germany, something they definitely wouldn't have been capable of under
the agrarian rule of the Tsar.
Justin The Great
Justin The Great wrote in message ...
>
>James A. Donald wrote in message
><3bb02f2b...@east.usenetserver.com>...
>> --
>>Kyle J. Pennington III
>>> > > And if capitalism makes everyone rich, who will make
>>> > > the SHOES???
>>
>>James A. Donald:
>>> > Same people as make them today -- the slaves captured by
>>> > socialists. Right now, your shoes are mostly made by
>>> > Vietnamese and Chinese.
>>
>>Mike:
>>> Slaves captured by socialists...paid by American
>>> capitalists because it's cheaper to escape unions and
>>> wage/labour laws.
>>
>>The wages in Hong Kong are higher than in Europe, and they
>>had no problem with unions and wage/labor laws.
>>
>>For a less extreme example, we see the poor leaving france
>>where they have all those wonderfull unions and wage/labor
>>laws, and heading to Britain, where the economy is slightly
>>freer.
>>
>
>This isn't true. While I'm sure that some French people leave France to
>live in England, it's not like they're all migrating there like you say.
It
>has nothing to do with the economy being "freer".
>
I should also point out that in Germany workers are paid wages 60% higher
than in the United States, Italy, 30% higher. If workers wages in the
United States had risen at the same rate as CEO salaries in the past few
decades, they'd be making over 20 dollars an hour. The increase in CEO
salaries is also uncorrelated with performance. Also, if the minimum wage
had tracked productivity (like it should, at least, and DID do, up until
about 1975) it would now be roughly 12 dollars an hour. In most all
European countries workers are paid more than in the United States (the
richest country in the world). Incidentally they also have a higher
after-tax income in most European countries, as well as access to numerous
social services that are run by the private sector in America (usually payed
for by the state. The profit is private though). I don't mean to suggest
that Europe is paradise whereas the United States is hell. In fact they're
not very different. Europe just has more of a real social contract. If
workers wages in the United States had risen at the same rate as CEO
salaries in the past few decades, they'd be making over 20 dollars an hour.
The increase in CEO salaries is also uncorrelated with performance.
Kyle J. Pennington III
>For a less extreme example, we see the poor leaving france
>where they have all those wonderfull unions and wage/labor
>laws, and heading to Britain, where the economy is slightly
>freer.
That's not about 'freer', it's about BEER.
>If you look at the world, particularly if you look at the
>more extreme examples, it is obvious that socialists cause
>poverty, and capitalism causes wealth.
I wish there was a way I could convey to you that we are living in a
GLOBAL CAPITALISM. I spelled that in all-capital letters, for
emphasis. Look at it. Think about it. Roll it over in your mind.
Can you imagine how this might affect some of the smaller countries
out there, full of people struggling to keep themselves fed? What they
do internally, government-wise, is not nearly as important as what's
being done to them externally.
Think 'Big Picture', James. Think about how Americans couldn't live
the way they do, without those small countries acting, more or less,
as slave nations, as colonies, as little factories, regardless of what
their local politics are. (unless of course they get so socialist they
don't want to play ball with us anymore, then it's time to send in the
CIA)
A vietnamese girl 'chooses' to make shoes for a wage that is barely
above a starvation wage, rather than actually starve. Do you honestly
think that is a 'voluntary contract'?
hugs,
K.J.P. III
Obbop
Justin The Great <kar...@idworld.net> wrote in message
news:tqpd1hf...@corp.supernews.com...
A few studies have been done comparing not only tax rates among nations but
ALSO what the taxpayer receives in return for paying those taxes. While many
1st-world nations did have from marginally to roughly 20% higher tax levies
than Americans the American taxpayer was determined to receive the least
amount for taxes paid. Averages were used but specific examples were given.
When looking at those averages and the specific examples..... I was
convinced that the typical American worker... the norm, the average is being
screwed.
James A. Donald
> > You can believe in murder, slavery, and terror all you
> > want. But when you try to practice it, you need to be
> > killed.
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 10:07:28 -0500, "Justin The Great"
> I agree. I'm sure the people of Nicaragua, El Salvador,
> Colombia, Panama, Guatemala, and Haiti do as well.
To judge by how they voted, they agree with me -- except of
course the Haitians have not been permitted to vote freely
yet.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
7FV0VGGedlYZ0NtMuJmAelyLQ/XEPlB3jq82bRhb
4kMxfXAG85QxkLAIuSxqf/YNxLlJZ4PE3e1ZlD2zW
Mike
> --
> > > You can believe in murder, slavery, and terror all you
> > > want. But when you try to practice it, you need to be
> > > killed.
>
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 10:07:28 -0500, "Justin The Great"
> > I agree. I'm sure the people of Nicaragua, El Salvador,
> > Colombia, Panama, Guatemala, and Haiti do as well.
>
> To judge by how they voted, they agree with me -- except of
> course the Haitians have not been permitted to vote freely
> yet.
>
It's sort of hard to vote against someone when the political opposition is
assassinated every single year.
James A. Donald
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 00:21:21 -0500, "Obbop"
> > > And in a general vein various studies show 4% of
> > > Americans owning 95% of America's wealth
James A. Donald:
> > Only studies carried out by blood crazed communists.
> > Studies carried out by those with less enthusiasm for
> > mass murder and slavery show a different picture.
> >
> > More orthodox studies show the top six percent owning
> > fifty percent of the stocks and shares, which constitute
> > considerably less than fifty percent of total assets.
> > Furthermore that top six percent is mostly old people, so
> > if we looked at lifetime ownership, it would be a great
> > deal more than six percent.
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 10:10:30 -0500, "Justin The Great"
> You didn't make a reference to what "orthodox studies"
> you're referring to. I know why too. They're either
> unorthodox, or made up.
Business week, September 1 1997, page 67: Top 6% own 55% of
the shares, top 26% own 82%.
Average income of the top 10% is 2.2 times the average income
of the whole.
Which means that those evil capitalists who supposedly own
everything and exploit everyone are about a quarter of the
workforce and have about twice the average income.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
RGoqe6Sz019s1Tpx650cem91zdAMGsFfimbYmmuB
4+rSt30u8UVbL6gv36f9NO5ptzHswL+11rOPZmzRd
Kyle J. Pennington III
wrote:
>Business week, September 1 1997, page 67: Top 6% own 55% of
>the shares, top 26% own 82%.
nice unbiased source.
>Average income of the top 10% is 2.2 times the average income
>of the whole.
>
>Which means that those evil capitalists who supposedly own
>everything and exploit everyone are about a quarter of the
>workforce and have about twice the average income.
What about the top 2%, James McDonalds? They make about twice the
average? If you're going to try and deny that there are an elite
wealthy class that have much disproportionate control of the economy,
I'm afraid you might be silly.
kisses,
kyle
Mike
If we're going to speak of Businessweek, how about this article from January
31, 2000:
Not Enough Is Trickling Down
How income gaps rose in the '90s
Tight labor markets and minimum-wage hikes in recent years may well have
halted, at least temporarily, the rise in income inequality plaguing the
U.S. economy. But as a new analysis of income data makes clear, the
long-term trend toward greater income dispersion has hardly been affected.
In the late 1990s, report the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities and the
Economic Policy Institute, the average pretax income of the top 20% of U.S.
families was 10.6 times as large as that of the bottom 20% of families. Two
decades ago, the multiple was just 7.4. And the average income of the top 5%
of families has jumped to 18.3 times that of the bottom 20%, from 11 times
as large in the late 1970s.
The 1990s were especially good to the top 20% and top 5% of families. During
the decade, their average real incomes before taxes grew by $17,870 and
$50,760 (1997 dollars), respectively, while those of the bottom and middle
20% of families edged up by only $100 and $780.
Since these numbers don't include capital gains, upper-income groups
undoubtedly made out even better. On the other hand, most low-income
families don't pay income taxes and many receive cash supplements via the
earned income tax credit. Still, even on an aftertax basis, Congressional
Budget Office projections indicate that the income gaps between poor and
affluent families rose between 1989 and 1999.
As for individual states, two-thirds saw income gaps rise during the 1990s.
Those with the greatest inequality (income ratios of over 11.5 between the
top and bottom 20% of families) are New York, Arizona, New Mexico,
Louisiana, California, Rhode Island, and Texas. The states with the least
inequality (income ratios under 8) are North Dakota, Iowa, Indiana, and
Utah.
The report notes that rising income inequality seems to have many causes,
including a shift to higher-skill jobs, globalization, immigration, fewer
factory jobs, and declining unionization. Like many economists, the authors
worry about rising inequality--not only on moral grounds but also because it
makes problems like poverty and crime more intractable, and undermines the
political base of democratic capitalism.
If the economy slows or falls into recession, income disparities could well
worsen again. With surplus revenues at hand, the authors think the states
and federal government have a unique opportunity to craft tax changes,
minimum-wage hikes, and other measures to keep that from happening."
James A. Donald
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 10:55:59 -0500, "Justin The Great"
<kar...@idworld.net> wrote:
> I should also point out that in Germany workers are paid
> wages 60% higher than in the United States, Italy, 30%
> higher.
Bullshit.
Marketing surveys show that the poor in America have more
stuff than the middle class in Germany and vastly more stuff
than the middle class in Italy.
Economic refugees fleeing from the third world to the EEC
want to get to England to take working class jobs, rather
than france or germany, and certainly not italy, and anyone
can see that the poor and working class in the US are far
better off than the poor and working class in England.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
Qz0Yqwgjn+g+g00Lgy93h7xxaX+3K/9lK2FC1i6A
4XTmyZ0mN+bJdXgmiGz9EjoPOQoS9O2Sm9yLN4Gjo
Justin The Great
James A. Donald wrote in message <3bb0c866...@east.usenetserver.com>...
> --
>On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 00:21:21 -0500, "Obbop"
>> > > And in a general vein various studies show 4% of
>> > > Americans owning 95% of America's wealth
>
>James A. Donald:
>> > Only studies carried out by blood crazed communists.
>> > Studies carried out by those with less enthusiasm for
>> > mass murder and slavery show a different picture.
>> >
>> > More orthodox studies show the top six percent owning
>> > fifty percent of the stocks and shares, which constitute
>> > considerably less than fifty percent of total assets.
>> > Furthermore that top six percent is mostly old people, so
>> > if we looked at lifetime ownership, it would be a great
>> > deal more than six percent.
>
>On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 10:10:30 -0500, "Justin The Great"
>> You didn't make a reference to what "orthodox studies"
>> you're referring to. I know why too. They're either
>> unorthodox, or made up.
>
>Business week, September 1 1997, page 67: Top 6% own 55% of
>the shares, top 26% own 82%.
>
That's extremely concentrated. Middle and lower class families own
something like 4% of the shares.
>Average income of the top 10% is 2.2 times the average income
>of the whole.
>
Um, the whole includes themselves. If you're comparing the wealthy to the
poor, you don't figure the wealth's money in with the poor's money. That's
stupid.
>Which means that those evil capitalists who supposedly own
>everything and exploit everyone are about a quarter of the
>workforce and have about twice the average income.
>
Yeah . . . "workforce". Did I ever tell you that you're an idiot?
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > > > You can believe in murder, slavery, and terror all
> > > > you want. But when you try to practice it, you need
> > > > to be killed.
Justin The Great:
> > > I agree. I'm sure the people of Nicaragua, El
> > > Salvador, Colombia, Panama, Guatemala, and Haiti do as
> > > well.
James A. Donald;
> > To judge by how they voted, they agree with me -- except
> > of course the Haitians have not been permitted to vote
> > freely yet.
Mike;
> It's sort of hard to vote against someone when the
> political opposition is assassinated every single year.
Non violent opponents of the regime have always been allowed
to freely organize in El Salvador and Guatemala, and when the
Soviet Union collapsed, all violent opponents collapsed, so
everyone can now freely organize in those countries. With
great regularity, those who formerly killed large numbers of
communists, suspected communists, potential communists, and
suspected potential communists have been re-elected in free
and fair elections against a free, unafraid opposition in El
Salvador and Guatemala.
A similar election result looks imminent in Nicaragua, where
it was the Soviet pawns murdering their opponents, not the
other way around. The presidential candidate who will
probably win makes much out of the fact he was a contra.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
bVHMdUypmVRrFL0PTWJbgiPNefcy1T93R+P3sbaj
4SZTJy6PWlFD0now0bxOW1mRX6BTWjDDHaP8FEsgm
Justin The Great
James A. Donald wrote in message <3bb2cd2e...@east.usenetserver.com>...
> --
>On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 10:55:59 -0500, "Justin The Great"
><kar...@idworld.net> wrote:
>> I should also point out that in Germany workers are paid
>> wages 60% higher than in the United States, Italy, 30%
>> higher.
>
>Bullshit.
>
>Marketing surveys show that the poor in America have more
>stuff than the middle class in Germany and vastly more stuff
>than the middle class in Italy.
>
For those of you who don't know, amount of "stuff" is the measure of a
decent existence.
>Economic refugees fleeing from the third world to the EEC
>want to get to England to take working class jobs, rather
>than france or germany, and certainly not italy, and anyone
>can see that the poor and working class in the US are far
>better off than the poor and working class in England.
>
The poor and working class are not better off in the United States. As I
said, the two systems are hardly different, but the European states do offer
slighty higher benefits to their populations. First you said France to
England, now you're saying Third World. That's not true either. I don't
have figures in front of me, but I seriously doubt that the amount of people
going to England is all that greater than to any other European country. I
happen to know a great deal of Arabs flee to Sweden from the Middle East.
Either way, those in the third world who come to places like the United
States do so because of the fairy tale "american dream". They're ignorant
of the actual situation (as most of the American population is as well).
Mike
> to freely organize in El Salvador and Guatemala, and when the
> Soviet Union collapsed, all violent opponents collapsed, so
> everyone can now freely organize in those countries. With
> great regularity, those who formerly killed large numbers of
> communists, suspected communists, potential communists, and
> suspected potential communists have been re-elected in free
> and fair elections against a free, unafraid opposition in El
> Salvador and Guatemala.
Really, because I could've sworn just a few months ago in Guatemala
nonviolent opponents of President Alfonso Portillo who ran the daily
newspapers El Periodico and Nuestro Diario were attacked in an attempt to
shut down their presses. This is due to the fact that El Periodico
published a piece on a member of the government allocating public contracts
to fake companies, which resulted in death threats to the author and the
invasion of the offices of the newspaper. During the civil war in Guatemala
it was also common practice for the government to heavily censor the press
if anything seemed too unsupportive. In El Salvador there are what are
called "crimes against honour," which make it illegal for anyone to publish
anything that is critical of the government or public officers. I don't
know where you're getting your information from, but it seems to be mostly
self-delusion of Utopian democracies in a magical land called South America,
which I assume in your opinion is somewhere east of Narnia and Munchkinland.
Justin The Great
James A. Donald wrote in message <3bb3cef3...@east.usenetserver.com>...
This is utter stupid nonsense. America has suppressed POPULAR reovlutions
in all of these countries and props up puppet regimes at all times.
>A similar election result looks imminent in Nicaragua, where
>it was the Soviet pawns murdering their opponents, not the
>other way around. The presidential candidate who will
>probably win makes much out of the fact he was a contra.
>
The Sandanistas were not Soviet pawns, that is an uncontroversial fact. The
contras were a hated murderous band of criminals, that's why they had to be
based on Honduras. If he does win the election it will not be because the
masses believe in his policies, I can promise you that. I mean seriously I
can only take so much bullshit before I just get pissed off and don't even
want to address crap like this. You're a real fucking idiot. Go suck
Ronald Reagan's dick you dumb cunt.
Mike
"Mike" <mib...@home.com> wrote in message
news:6w4r7.25651$NT3.3...@news1.rdc1.ct.home.com...
Before I have to hear you reply with "they are in Central America" I will
take the liberty of correcting myself.
Ray S. Elizondo
the sweat chops run by Chinese, bring Chinese immigrants, mostly illegally,
and have them working in closed shops. This was published recently in the
Chronicle, with pictures, unions are trying to stop this slave laborers
exploitation.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:3bb2cd2e...@east.usenetserver.com...
Mike
"Ray S. Elizondo" <eliz...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:xi4r7.9499$427.117...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> For your information, here in San Francisco, CA USA, we have slave
laborers,
> the sweat chops run by Chinese, bring Chinese immigrants, mostly
illegally,
> and have them working in closed shops. This was published recently in the
> Chronicle, with pictures, unions are trying to stop this slave laborers
> exploitation.
>
This is true in New York City, and I don't doubt Chicago and many other big
cities as well.
_______TVD________
A serious mistake in your logic . It has to do with the lack of competition
with your company A . When there is competition , that company will
lose it's workers to another company that pays higher wages...... steals
workers
from Company A 'cause there's a shortage of workers caused by those
smart workers getting out of that profession 'cause they are smart enough
to train into something that is in very high demand .
You simplistic bulls shit don't cut it !! You know nothing about
capitalism .
================================================
Justin The Great <kar...@idworld.net> wrote in message
news:tqn6lsb...@corp.supernews.com...
> Company A, a textile factory, hires young girls to work in their
sweatshops
> for paltry wages, 10 hours a day. This increases Company A's profits,
which
> is the entire point of the capitalist economic system it operates under.
> Company B is a large media outlet. Company B's reporters find out about
the
> activities of Company A, but doesn't report them because they are
dependent
> on the advertising money that Company A provides to them. Somewhere down
> the line a maverick reporter for independent media outlet C attempts to
> uncover the story of Company A expoiting children to increase it's profit
> margin, but is murdered by "defense organization" Q who has been hired by
> Company A to keep the media silent. Those few who did find out about the
> story were soon told that it was all farce, or that Company A was cleaning
> up it's act, by media outlet B (who is now owned by Company A).
>
>
> _______TVD________ wrote in message ...
> >
> >> > KC...@hotmail.com
> >> >
> >> > Anarchy is " without a king.." It means without strong leadership
.
> >> > All crime , violence , trouble is caused by too much govt .
> >> > You are confused , you think capitalists want no govt . We want
> >> > a small enough govt to stop it from causing crime , poverty and war ,
> >> > setting wages , printing too much money and stealing it .....
> >> >
> >> > You fools think capitalism needs to be watched by govt .
> >> > Cap' puts food on your plate , govt takes food of your plate ,
> >> > it is govt that needs to be watched , not Capitaism .
> >> >
> >> > Complaints of many poor and a few rich is a product of big crooked
> >govt,
> >> > not of capitalism . Capitalism makes all rich , completely eliminates
> >> > poverty . ZERO POVERTY ! NOT ONE POOR PERSON in
> >> > millions .
> >=========================
> >D. Long <
> > Let me guess: you were principle advisor to Herbert Hoover, right?
> >> Ever hear of robber barons, child labor, 12-hour days and a six-day
> >> work week, The Trusts ...? Captalism isn't bad; but capitalists,
> >> like politicans, have power that must be regulated, or abuses
> >> are inevitable.
> >======================
> >KC...@hotmail.com
> > Your robber barons , 12 hour days ,6 day work week
> >occured under heavy govt control . Capitalism encourages people to
> >make higher wages , govt encourages peopel to make lower wages .
> > It is govt that needs regulation , not free market capitalism . Free
mkt
> >cap'
> >is peopel thrilled about making higher wages thru productivity ......this
> >needs
> >no regulation !
> >
> >
>
>
_______TVD________
Thanks , you led them right into my answer !!
That country will push low paying shoe factories offshore !
Go to Scandanavia and look for low paying sweat shops ..... They don't
exist !
They won't allow low paying jobs there ! 'Cause it lowers their std of
living !
Get smart , WORLD , slice your govt to 1/10 th of it's size and get rich
in 20 years !
=============================================
Kyle J. Pennington III <reds...@night.com> wrote in message
news:ne7nqtoo3mj4n7kut...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 14:55:02 -0500, "Justin The Great"
> <kar...@idworld.net> wrote:
>
> >Company A, a textile factory, hires young girls to work in their
sweatshops
> >for paltry wages, 10 hours a day. This increases Company A's profits,
which
> >is the entire point of the capitalist economic system it operates under.
> >Company B is a large media outlet. Company B's reporters find out about
the
> >activities of Company A, but doesn't report them because they are
dependent
> >on the advertising money that Company A provides to them. Somewhere down
> >the line a maverick reporter for independent media outlet C attempts to
> >uncover the story of Company A expoiting children to increase it's profit
> >margin, but is murdered by "defense organization" Q who has been hired by
> >Company A to keep the media silent. Those few who did find out about the
> >story were soon told that it was all farce, or that Company A was
cleaning
> >up it's act, by media outlet B (who is now owned by Company A).
> >
> >
> Yes, but, Justin, won't those girls all become wealthy thanks to
> capitalism? And if capitalism makes everyone rich, who will make the
> SHOES???
_______TVD________
No one wants a union in a capitalistic system , 'cause it lowers wages .
The U.S. is only 20% cap' , 80 % big govt socialism .
=============================================
Mike <mib...@home.com> wrote in message
news:0TSq7.24790$NT3.3...@news1.rdc1.ct.home.com...
>
> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
> news:3bacf64...@east.usenetserver.com...
> > --
> > On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 20:01:24 GMT, Kyle J. Pennington III <
> > > And if capitalism makes everyone rich, who will make the
> > > SHOES???
> >
> > Same people as make them today -- the slaves captured by
> > socialists. Right now, your shoes are mostly made by
> > Vietnamese and Chinese.
> >
>
> Slaves captured by socialists...paid by American capitalists because it's
> cheaper to escape unions and wage/labour laws. It'd be great if we got
rid
> of those unions and wage/labour laws. Then the shoes could be made by
> American slaves. I mean come on, let's show some patriotism people!
>
> > Of course once we have completely destroyed socialism, it
> > will become cheaper to build machines to make shoes, rather
> > than to turn people into machines, but I suspect that
> > socialism and socialists, like rape and rapists, will always
> > be around.
> >
>
> Well it's a good thing we have anarchists like you who think everyone is
> entitled to believe what they want, that is, as long as it isn't socialist
> thinking. Then it's all right to talk about "destroying" a dangerous
> philosophy. How libertarian of you. I certainly don't advocate
> "destroying" capitalist thought in a socialist society.
>
>
Justin
>with your company A . When there is competition , that company will
>lose it's workers to another company that pays higher wages...... steals
>workers
>from Company A 'cause there's a shortage of workers caused by those
>smart workers getting out of that profession 'cause they are smart enough
>to train into something that is in very high demand .
>
>You simplistic bulls shit don't cut it !! You know nothing about
>capitalism .
OK, for one, Company A was employing young girls who can't just go up and
find a better job somewhere else. But just to be fair, let's do it your
way. Company A finds out one day that another textile factory has sprung up
across town, Company X. Company X pays their employees higher wages and
gives them more benefits. Two weeks later Company X starts to realize that
it's having trouble competing with Compnay A, because Company A can sell
it's products for a cheaper price, since it doesn't pay out high wages or
benefits. Right when Company X goes out of business Company A makes the
decision to purchase Company X so they can employ more young girls there in
another sweatshop. The end.
Justin
_______TVD________ wrote in message ...
>
> No one wants a union in a capitalistic system , 'cause it lowers wages .
>The U.S. is only 20% cap' , 80 % big govt socialism .
Please explain to me how unions lower wages. I suppose you will also argue
that minimum wage laws prevent employers from giving more money to their
employees, right?
Mike
"Justin" <kar...@idworld.net> wrote in message
news:tqpu4vq...@corp.supernews.com...
Or Company A and Company X start competing fiercely, get into price wars,
etc. and offset the lowering profits by laying off people from both
companies or reducing their wages and salaries (but not of the executives of
course).
Mike
>
> _______TVD________ wrote in message ...
> >KC...@hotmail.com
> >
> > No one wants a union in a capitalistic system , 'cause it lowers wages .
> >The U.S. is only 20% cap' , 80 % big govt socialism .
>
> Please explain to me how unions lower wages. I suppose you will also
argue
> that minimum wage laws prevent employers from giving more money to their
> employees, right?
>
Justin, he is only doing what most capitalist thinkers do--waiting long
enough after the horrors of the working conditions during the Industrial
Revolution prior to labour regulation until he can pretend they never
happened.
Kyle J. Pennington III
Or the shareholders of both Company A and Company X all go to the same
country club... get to talking over a couple of manhattans... and
come upon an 'arrangement' that they'll both keep wages generally
down, prices generally up, and, since nobody can really even tell the
difference between their products, continue to make a killing until
Company W comes to town, then they'll go talk to him together.
>
Justin
me to it.
Kyle J. Pennington III wrote in message ...
James A. Donald
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 17:57:49 GMT, "Ray S. Elizondo"
<eliz...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> For your information, here in San Francisco, CA USA, we
> have slave laborers, the sweat chops run by Chinese, bring
> Chinese immigrants, mostly illegally, and have them working
> in closed shops. This was published recently in the
> Chronicle, with pictures, unions are trying to stop this
> slave laborers exploitation.
The chronicle is hardly a reliable source. The unions are
not trying to stop slave laborers -- they are trying to get
rid of non union labor, which in practice means white guys
trying to get rid of chinese guys.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
uLKTlqfQiR9LCCrdDgMsiUNPaK+idymcJkJu8Qw6
4F3tDC4uwUBm39TStaFAU8g2n0V2LdM2VpfZaxomx
James A. Donald
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 18:30:49 GMT, "Mike" <mib...@home.com>
wrote:
> This is true in New York City, and I don't doubt Chicago
> and many other big cities as well.
Reports of slave labor in the US resemble reports of flying
saucer abductions.
Whenever one looks for specifics, the story evaporates into
evasions that no one can ever check, much like flying saucer
stories.
There are rarely any specific names, places and dates, and on
those rare occaisions when such things are given they never
check out.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
DDkkaJF1K6mfxqFKo/8xhlmoMSGhL64PaILyYpOE
4MYcA7bEgwzON1DVbEqSK14XBA/ZH1yI0WPUYBtg3
James A. Donald
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 13:03:35 -0500, "Justin The Great"
<kar...@idworld.net> wrote:
> The poor and working class are not better off in the United
> States. As I said, the two systems are hardly different,
> but the European states do offer slighty higher benefits to
> their populations. First you said France to England, now
> you're saying Third World.
My point is that we see poor people, both french poor and
third world poor, preferring England to France, and that we
see everyone preferring the US to England.
> That's not true either. I don't have figures in front of
> me, but I seriously doubt that the amount of people going
> to England is all that greater than to any other European
> country.
I recently read of the troubles of some Afghan refugees held
in France. They are trying to escape to England.
> Either way, those in the third world who come to places
> like the United States do so because of the fairy tale
> "american dream". They're ignorant of the actual situation
> (as most of the American population is as well).
American poor can afford to travel to Europe for their
vacations, if only infrequently. They do not feel like
staying.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
q0WFnXoqXZ57YaG5h6xmaZZPBZp4LjinUUpiwi1Z
4brsnzipfF9dm+rVobm4HpicwJXmfCMrRfFve4eaL
Kyle J. Pennington III
>> For your information, here in San Francisco, CA USA, we
>> have slave laborers, the sweat chops run by Chinese, bring
>> Chinese immigrants, mostly illegally, and have them working
>> in closed shops. This was published recently in the
>> Chronicle, with pictures, unions are trying to stop this
>> slave laborers exploitation.
>"James A. Donald" wrote:
>The chronicle is hardly a reliable source. The unions are
>not trying to stop slave laborers -- they are trying to get
>rid of non union labor, which in practice means white guys
>trying to get rid of chinese guys.
What, James, if it isn't in Business Week, it isn't fit to print?
The unions are doing us all a favor by trying to protect the standard
of living.
The anti-union sweatshops are representing YOUR philosophy, James, and
THEY are where the workers are getting screwed. Hmm. Funny how the
reality of the situation doesn't sit well with your anti-union stance.
By the way, I bet there are some legal Chinese immigrants in those
unions. Since you imply that it's a racal dispute, what's their
motivation supposed to be for trying to stop the sweatshops?
Yours,
Kyle