Libertarian Socialism
G*rd*n
G*rd*n wrote:
| > I find it hard to believe that you're equating the Marxist
| > notion of alienation with having a hard time in the world.
Thant Tessman <add...@signature.below>:
| But that is exactly the attraction of Marxism. Marx gave
| what sounded like a rational explanation for what people
| perceive to be inherent injustices in society. And his
| argument was especially attractive in that it claimed that
| the game was rigged *even if* everybody played fairly by
| the same rules. This argument laid the groundwork for his
| proposed cure to which anything and anyone could be
| sacrificed since anything else was merely oppression
| justified by bourgeois logic.
I haven't Marx thoroughly, but my spies tell me that Marx's
concerns were somewhat more limited. The dissatisfaction
out of which socialism arose in the mid-19th century was a
liberal critique of liberalism, and it might be phrased,
"Why hasn't liberalism worked for the rest of us?" (This
is somewhat short of trying to solve every possible
injustice.) Marx was one of the people who worked on
giving a rational answer to this question. I don't know
where you get "anything and anyone could be sacrificed" as
Marx's cure; it's capitalism that sacrifices anything and
anyone in the sense that it puts the accumulation of
capital ahead of everything else. Of course, Marx may have
admired this -- he admired a good many things about
capitalism. Capitalism has the virtues of destroying
feudalism and classical slavery, for instance.
| Marxism is what you get when you take to an extreme the
| goal of rationalizing your own sorry state of affairs.
My state of affairs is about probably better than that of
99.9% of the human race; I've become interested in Marx
for other reasons -- mainly the fear he seems to elicit.
There must be _something_ there, right?
G*rd*n:
| > And I find it hard to believe you're equating socialism
| > with some kind of pallid social democratic Welfare-statism
| > -- the bourgeois state as nanny. Socialism is about will
| > and power.
Thant Tessman <add...@signature.below>:
| Socialism can be divided into at least two schools of
| thought. One school said that any means to achieve
| communism are justified. This is the revolutionary
| or Marxist branch of socialism. Another school of thought
| was repulsed by the violence of revolution argued that
| socialism could be brought about by more peaceful
| democratic means. Overtly, the goal of the social-
| democratic socialists is to socialize only those
| industries "too important" to leave to the "chaos"
| of capitalism. Such industries include banking,
| transportation, education, and more recently the
| medical industry. But the political goals of these
| social-democratic socialists are really no different
| than those outlined by Marx's Ten Point Plan.
|
| And to such socialists, (who as I said, are known as
| "liberals" or "progressives" in the United States), there
| is no sphere of human activity that can't in some way
| be viewed as being "public" and therefore rightly subject
| to democratic control. (Including smoking!)
Well, mainstream liberals seem quite comfortable with
bourgeois domination. That being the case, I don't think
we can assign them to the socialist camp. I don't know
what "progressive" means so I must forego comment on them.
Thant Tessman <add...@signature.below>:
| It's merely another aspect of the desire for that
| mythical pseudo-religious transformation whereby the
| wants of the individual become indistinguishable from
| the wants of society.
Sounds like the way certain people talk about The Market!
[ ... skipping over the cigarettes (boring) ... ]
Thant Tessman <add...@signature.below>:
| > | And in fact socialists want to control as much of our
| > | lives as they can get away with, from what medical
| > | goods and services we should be allowed to buy to how
| > | our kids are educated to what kind of art we should be
| > | forced to subsidize.
G*rd*n:
| > Maybe, but that's not what they say. What they say is not
| > that _they_ want to control as much of our lives as they
| > can get away with, but that they don't see why the
| > bourgeoisie should control as much of our lives as _it_ can
| > get away with, which is the current state of affairs.
Thant Tessman <add...@signature.below>:
| It is important to categorize socialism not by what its
| advocates claim is their goal (i.e. e.g. "social justice")
| but by the means they advocate for achieving that goal and
| their real as opposed to their "theoretical" effects. The
| real effects of the "socialization of the means of
| production" are poverty and oppression.
I never rewrite people's theories for them. Once we start
to do that, we can say anything, and so we are playing
tennis without a net. Anyway, the real effects of
socialization of the means of production are war (cold,
hot, or medium) with the major capitalist states; what
follows is not likely to be happy for the socializers.
Thant Tessman <add...@signature.below>:
| And your point that socialists "don't see why the
| bourgeoisie should control as much of our lives as
| _it_ can get away with" is exactly what I'm talking
| about.
Well, you're not making yourself clear. Why should people
accept domination by an elite? (That's a rhetorical
question -- I know in fact a good many people seem to slaver
for it. I'm asking on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Socialist.)
| > [...] Socialism is precisely a way of confronting the
| > collectivizing tendencies of capitalism. Remember that
| > alienation?
|
| Marx's theory that capital has an inherent tendency
| to accumulate has been thoroughly discredited not only
| by logic but by history.
|
| In a free market, money capital does indeed have a
| tendency to accumulate, but only to the degree that
| the accumulator is successful at satisfying the wants
| of voluntary consumers.
I'm talking about the alienation of the products of labor
from the laborer. The laborer's labor is taken from her
life. The more of it she gives up, the less individual
life she has and the more she's collectivized into the
purposes of capital, usually instantiated by either a
corporation or an agency serving corporations. And in
recent capitalism, even after she gets off the job, she's
immersed in a sea of propaganda instructing her to work
hard at selecting and consuming the outputs of (over)
production. The degree to which individuality,
particularity, and locality are eaten up and destroyed
by this system is truly astonishing and absolutely
disindividuating -- the worker because cog in a wheel of
production/consumption which exists only for its own sake
and is spread uniformly across the landscape.
| (Note: The claim that the current stagnation in real
| wages in the U.S. is proof of the Marxist critique of
| capitalist economics ignores that real wages are
| measured *after taxes* and that the stagnation of
| real wages can more than be accounted for by the
| fact that the government is relieving us of an ever-
| increasing portion of our paychecks.)
Not according to some statistics I found and published
several months ago; they showed taxes as remaining pretty
level. Anyway, the current stagnation in wages is not
accompanied, as far as I know, by falling profits, which is
another part of the Marxist _Kapitaldaemmerung_, in fact,
the force which is supposed to drive the immiseration of
the working class.
I think we've entered on a phase of capitalism which Marx
didn't foresee -- one in which capitalism not only works on
constantly raising production but at raising consumption as
well. As long as consumption can be driven as hard as
production, other forms of capital destruction like war and
imperialism can be sidelined, yet bourgeois power will be
maintained. I'd expect wages to _rise_ in this system, as
they start to represent not earned freedom from toil but a
new form of it.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
-----------------------------------------------
NOTE: if your ISP permits junkmailing, you will
probably not be able to reach me by email.
Loren Petrich
In article <5qo2ht$9...@panix2.panix.com>, G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote:
... Capitalism has the virtues of destroying
>feudalism and classical slavery, for instance.
Though at the expense of creating a new ruling class, it must be
said. It's a ruling class something like the ruling class of high-level
government bureaucrats.
>| In a free market, money capital does indeed have a
>| tendency to accumulate, but only to the degree that
>| the accumulator is successful at satisfying the wants
>| of voluntary consumers.
Or involuntary ones or suckered ones, let us not forget. I'm sure
that a lot of drug dealers will brag about how they were just giving what
their customers had freely chosen to buy.
>I'm talking about the alienation of the products of labor
>from the laborer. The laborer's labor is taken from her
>life. The more of it she gives up, the less individual
>life she has and the more she's collectivized into the
>purposes of capital, usually instantiated by either a
>corporation or an agency serving corporations. ...
A good way of curing that would be to turn businesses into
worker-owned and worker-run cooperatives. But too many labor unions are
unwilling to conceive of that alternative.
... Anyway, the current stagnation in wages is not
>accompanied, as far as I know, by falling profits, which is
>another part of the Marxist _Kapitaldaemmerung_, in fact,
>the force which is supposed to drive the immiseration of
>the working class.
One thing that's going on, at least in the US: consumer debt is
going up, up, up. As are consumer bankruptcies, which have become
something different from the emotional equivalent of Debtor's Prison. So
money to sustain corporate profits is ultimately coming from those
plastic loansharks that the banks keep sending us. This seems like an
unstable situation -- eventually either the banks will have to slow down
or they will collapse from their load of unpaid debt.
>I think we've entered on a phase of capitalism which Marx
>didn't foresee -- one in which capitalism not only works on
>constantly raising production but at raising consumption as
>well. As long as consumption can be driven as hard as
>production, other forms of capital destruction like war and
>imperialism can be sidelined, yet bourgeois power will be
>maintained. I'd expect wages to _rise_ in this system, as
>they start to represent not earned freedom from toil but a
>new form of it.
One thing that can be done is to refuse forms of consumption that
one decides are unnecessary. For example, I am automotively challenged.
However, any serious effort to do that will undoubtedly generate
charges that this is another example of liberal economic sabotage.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Giovanni 8
> Loren Petrich wrote:
>> Gordon wrote:
>> ...Capitalism has the virtues of destroying
>> feudalism and classical slavery, for instance.
> Though at the expense of creating a new ruling class...
No. Laissez faire capitalism would rule out rulers.
If there were rulers, i.e. if force and fraud are initiated,
then that is not the capitalism to which Libertarians refer.
"Money is the material shape of the principle that men who
wish to deal with one another must deal by trade & give
value for value." --- Ayn Rand 1957 "The Meaning of Money"
in _Atlas Shrugged_
--
copyright 1997 jgo all rights reserved
Permission to down-load solely for purposes of reading
once and responding via usenet news is hereby granted.
Licenses available at reasonable rates.
FORTRAN C++ UNIX Macintosh
G*rd*n
Gordon wrote:
| >> ...Capitalism has the virtues of destroying
| >> feudalism and classical slavery, for instance.
Loren Petrich wrote:
| > Though at the expense of creating a new ruling class...
gio+van+no+ni+8@tal+star+spam.com (Giovanni 8):
| No. Laissez faire capitalism would rule out rulers.
| If there were rulers, i.e. if force and fraud are initiated,
| then that is not the capitalism to which Libertarians refer.
| ...
Jefferson's idea was that a "natural aristocracy" would
emerge to guide a liberal society. He probably didn't
guess the degree to which it would progress toward the
plutocracy we see around us today, however.
I guess I have to remind everybody, once again, that force
and fraud have _already_ been initiated. For example, a
person who has no capital _must_, is compelled, to find
employment. Such people may be better off than they would
be scrabbling roots in a state of nature, but they don't
have the choice. I've recently referred to the large-
scale violence which went into establishing this state of
affairs, so I won't go over it again.
In order to put a truly voluntary basis under human affairs,
including its politics and its markets, we'd have to
institute some kind of communism, at least for basic
necessities, so that nobody would be coerced into trade (of
either goods or labor). But that's not likely to happen.
Perhaps it's impractical, or unaesthetic -- there's another
article current in this newsgroup in which a worker is the
butt of humor which portrays him as complaining because the
boss makes him wear a clean T-shirt. Obviously the author
thinks coercion is good in _his_ case -- and I suspect this
spirit is far more prevalent in capitalist fandom than one
of idealized freedom from rulers.
T.Asquith
On 20 Jul 1997 03:49:33 GMT, gio+van+no+ni+8@tal+star+spam.com
(Giovanni 8) wrote:
>> Loren Petrich wrote:
>>> Gordon wrote:
>>> ...Capitalism has the virtues of destroying
>>> feudalism and classical slavery, for instance.
>
>> Though at the expense of creating a new ruling class...
>
>No. Laissez faire capitalism would rule out rulers.
>If there were rulers, i.e. if force and fraud are initiated,
>then that is not the capitalism to which Libertarians refer.
It would create new rulers (nature abhors a vacuum). In those
past cases (such as Depression-era Chicago) where laws
were lax, and capitalism was allowed to prosper more or less
unchecked, competitors frequently resorted to force to ensure
that their competition didn't get the upper hand. I'm sorry but
up til now true laissez-faire capitalism has been a utopian vision and
will probably remain so.
>"Money is the material shape of the principle that men who
> wish to deal with one another must deal by trade & give
> value for value." --- Ayn Rand 1957 "The Meaning of Money"
> in _Atlas Shrugged_
But she doesn't say whether the two values would be equivalent. ;-)
----
Tom Asquith
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
University of Alberta
tasquith 'at' gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
To reply: kill the "SPAMBOT" in the replyto address
*************************************************************************
* "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent *
* suffer." *
* -- Sir William Blackstone *
*************************************************************************
Paul Brizant
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>In order to put a truly voluntary basis under human affairs,
>including its politics and its markets, we'd have to
>institute some kind of communism, at least for basic
>necessities, so that nobody would be coerced into trade (of
>either goods or labor). But that's not likely to happen.
>Perhaps it's impractical, or unaesthetic -- there's another
>article current in this newsgroup in which a worker is the
>butt of humor which portrays him as complaining because the
>boss makes him wear a clean T-shirt. Obviously the author
>thinks coercion is good in _his_ case -- and I suspect this
>spirit is far more prevalent in capitalist fandom than one
>of idealized freedom from rulers.
That's an awful lot to assume on the basis of one Usenet post.
What I was mocking in that post - and what I also mock in yours - is the idea
that Capitalism can be denegrated on the basis of the fact that it doesn't let
people just sit around and yank their crank.
No working system on the planet will allow otherwise able people to not
participate in the economy without some form of punishment. Under a free
market, it means that you have to either take a serious cut in lifestyle, or
find able employment that allows you to yank your crank. Many people do make
a job of that anyway - night watchmen, people in the sex industries, and
newspapers columnists being three obvious examples.
The difference is that in a free system you choose your form and level of
coercion, as is evidenced in the popular film "Take This job and Shove It."
One can imagine Robert Hays being sent to the gulag for re-education if he had
taken a similar approach in any centrally-planned economies.
Come on. The truth is, there is no coercion at work. There is participation
in the process, or there is non-participation. Participate in the economy,
and you are rewarded. I don't feel coerced when I work - even if I do have to
occasionally put on a clean shirt and tie - just like my boss doesn't feel
coerced when, at the end of the week, he turns over a large sum of money to
me. It is a free arrangement, a free exchange. Fail to participate in the
society, as an able-bodied able-minded member of it, and the society does not
owe you a life.
Thant Tessman
G*rd*n wrote:
> [...] I guess I have to remind everybody, once
> again, that force and fraud have _already_ been
> initiated. For example, a person who has no
> capital _must_, is compelled, to find employment.
> Such people may be better off than they would be
> scrabbling roots in a state of nature, but they don't
> have the choice. [...]
This is about as pure an expression of the motivation
for socialism as it gets. We are forced by our
circumstances to work together for survival, and
yet we are in control only of our own actions. Some
become so obsessed with this tortuous little practical
joke god has played on us that they delude themselves
into believing that there must be a solution--a
*political* solution to this problem if only we were
smart or strong or determined enough to find it.
-thant
--
thant at acm dot org
G*rd*n
G*rd*n wrote:
| > [...] I guess I have to remind everybody, once
| > again, that force and fraud have _already_ been
| > initiated. For example, a person who has no
| > capital _must_, is compelled, to find employment.
| > Such people may be better off than they would be
| > scrabbling roots in a state of nature, but they don't
| > have the choice. [...]
Thant Tessman <add...@signature.below>:
| This is about as pure an expression of the motivation
| for socialism as it gets. We are forced by our
| circumstances to work together for survival, and
| yet we are in control only of our own actions. Some
| become so obsessed with this tortuous little practical
| joke god has played on us that they delude themselves
| into believing that there must be a solution--a
| *political* solution to this problem if only we were
| smart or strong or determined enough to find it.
But liberal bourgeois capitalism is precisely such a
solution. There's quite a bit of elegant political
theory associated with it.
The socialist idea is that the "coercion" imposed by Nature
is amplified or exacerbated by the political arrangements
socialism criticizes, including of course capitalism, and
that something ought to and can be done about it by the
people in general -- usually through rational public
discourse and democratic procedures. This is why I've said
elsewhere that socialism is concerned with consciousness,
as well as will and power.
My previous remarks, though, were too general to promote
socialism in particular; they serve only to remove the
false halo of alleged nonviolence from liberalism. I feel
that our argument as to how the 20th century should have
been implemented can be improved by eschewing this and
other now unnecessary propaganda.
Roger Dapson
The difference between capitalism and socialism/communism is the degree of force. The
latter obviously carries the largest degree of force. Under socialism/communism there
is a single power structure controlled by power elite that is not held or constrained.
Throughout history, it has been clearly demonstrated that recipients of power lust for
increased power. Eventually, they start usurping power not authorized to them. The
powerless public can only yield to their demands.
Capitalism is also a power structure. The key is to maintain other power structures
which hold and constrain its power. To believe that any one power structure can remain
uncorrupted is defies history. A system of checks and balances is the best hope for the
general public. The worst is to blindly trust in the benevolence of government.
Mike Wooding
G*rd*n wrote:
> I guess I have to remind everybody, once again, that force
> and fraud have _already_ been initiated. For example, a
> person who has no capital _must_, is compelled, to find
> employment.
And I must continually remind Mr. Gordon Fitch that the compulsion
to find employment is not the initiation of force or fraud. It's
the price the Universe extracts in exchange for your existence. If
this bargain doesn't sit right with you, then take it up with the
Universe. In any case, your desire to live at the expense of others
should in no way cause those others any sense of obligation to
accomodate your desire.
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Proudhon
But it is the worker who supports the parasitical capitalist
in our Universe... and the only thing keeping the worker from
shrugging off the exploiter is their own fear, lack of organization,
and lack of soliderity.
-Proudhon
Krist van Besien
On 22 Jul 1997 20:14:36 -0600, anon...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Proudhon)
wrote:
>But it is the worker who supports the parasitical capitalist
>in our Universe... and the only thing keeping the worker from
>shrugging off the exploiter is their own fear, lack of organization,
>and lack of soliderity.
Yep, his _own_ fear, his _own_ lack of organization, his _own_ lack of
solidarity. But nevertheless the capitalist is to blame ofcourse....
Krist van Besien
--------------------------------------------------------
Krist van Besien besien(at)solair1.inter.nl.net
System Administrator Kuwait Petroleum Benelux bv
--------------------------------------------------------
Thant Tessman
I wrote:
> We are forced by our
> circumstances to work together for survival, and
> yet we are in control only of our own actions. Some
> become so obsessed with this tortuous little practical
> joke god has played on us that they delude themselves
> into believing that there must be a solution--a
> *political* solution to this problem if only we were
> smart or strong or determined enough to find it.
G*rd*n wrote:
> But liberal bourgeois capitalism is precisely such a
> solution. [...]
This is dead wrong. Classical liberals do not `propose'
capitalism as a `solution' to the inherent division of
the interests of individuals. They take as a given the
fact that only the individual can decide for themselves
how best to pursue happiness. This is in stark contrast
to the socialist's desire to `solve' the problem of
conflicting interests by relegating the role of the
individual to the service of `society' (which in practice
is always the state).
As for capitalism, it is the use in production of
resources made available through differred consumption.
Capitalism isn't a social objective at all. It is a
category of human action. It is one of the things people
do when they are allowed to bring about their own
individually chosen objectives. And this is why
capitalism is the enemy of those who resent the lack
of control they have over others.
G*rd*n
Thant Tessman <add...@signature.below>:
| > We are forced by our
| > circumstances to work together for survival, and
| > yet we are in control only of our own actions. Some
| > become so obsessed with this tortuous little practical
| > joke god has played on us that they delude themselves
| > into believing that there must be a solution--a
| > *political* solution to this problem if only we were
| > smart or strong or determined enough to find it.
G*rd*n wrote:
| > But liberal bourgeois capitalism is precisely such a
| > solution. [...]
Thant Tessman <add...@signature.below>:
| This is dead wrong. Classical liberals do not `propose'
| capitalism as a `solution' to the inherent division of
| the interests of individuals. They take as a given the
| fact that only the individual can decide for themselves
| how best to pursue happiness. This is in stark contrast
| to the socialist's desire to `solve' the problem of
| conflicting interests by relegating the role of the
| individual to the service of `society' (which in practice
| is always the state).
|
| As for capitalism, it is the use in production of
| resources made available through differred consumption.
| Capitalism isn't a social objective at all. It is a
| category of human action. It is one of the things people
| do when they are allowed to bring about their own
| individually chosen objectives. And this is why
| capitalism is the enemy of those who resent the lack
| of control they have over others.
It certainly looks like you're describing a solution to me,
and a social objective too.
Capitalism solves the problem of conflicting interests by
relegating the individual to the service of society, as
embodied in corporations and the government, both operated
by the bourgeoisie. Obviously some socialists have found
this pattern inspiring, but in need of a little adjustment
in the form of a change of the ruling class. Possibly it
is they to whom you refer? I think you're missing others
whose resentments may be more creative.
Well, time to go home -- on my way I must express my
individuality by choosing between Texaco and Exxon.
Sean Peck
Proudhon wrote:
>
> In article <33D4F3...@wse.com>, Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> wrote:
> >G*rd*n wrote:
> >> I guess I have to remind everybody, once again, that force
> >> and fraud have _already_ been initiated. For example, a
> >> person who has no capital _must_, is compelled, to find
> >> employment.
> >
> > And I must continually remind Mr. Gordon Fitch that the compulsion
> > to find employment is not the initiation of force or fraud. It's
> > the price the Universe extracts in exchange for your existence. If
> > this bargain doesn't sit right with you, then take it up with the
> > Universe. In any case, your desire to live at the expense of others
> > should in no way cause those others any sense of obligation to
> > accomodate your desire.
>
> in our Universe... and the only thing keeping the worker from
> shrugging off the exploiter is their own fear, lack of organization,
> and lack of soliderity.
>
What a bunch of CRUD! Nothing in this world has done more to raise the
human experience than capitalism, that is a historical fact.
Not to mention the predicated assumtions that start this discussion,
that being a person with no capital must seek employment. This is
indeed not the case, a person without capital has other paths available
if he is willing to take the risk and put forth the time to persue
them. However, most are never willing to take the risk, and stay with
the path of least risk and resistance.
Secondly is the unstated but implied assumption that once an employee
always an employee, which again is not true. No where but in a free
capitalist society can a one time Slaughter House worker become an
independently wealthy man, or a small group of people with $3000 to
their name build a company that rivals AT&T. Employment is only a
lifetime situation if the employee chooses it to be.
Also your rediculous statement that the Capitalist is parasitic,
nothing could be honestly more from the truth. Capitalism does not leech
off the backs of workers and investors as you so coyly assume. Parasites
provide no benefit to their host and simply steal from it, which your
myopic viewpoint is that Capitalist steal from the worker and provide no
benefit and evenutally kill the host (workers). Again this is not true,
the worker/capitalist association is symbiotic one, not a parasitic one,
for without one the other cannot exist. Without capital there can be no
work only slavery, for persons do not work simply out of the goodness of
their hearts, and without workers or methods to enhance it, capital is
nothing more than an object that benefits noone. Only through both of
them working together can any benefit occur.
Sean
Mike Wooding
T.Asquith wrote:
> On 20 Jul 1997 03:49:33 GMT, gio+van+no+ni+8@tal+star+spam.com
> (Giovanni 8) wrote:
> >No. Laissez faire capitalism would rule out rulers.
> >If there were rulers, i.e. if force and fraud are initiated,
> >then that is not the capitalism to which Libertarians refer.
>
> It would create new rulers (nature abhors a vacuum). In those
> past cases (such as Depression-era Chicago) where laws
> were lax, and capitalism was allowed to prosper more or less
> unchecked, competitors frequently resorted to force to ensure
> that their competition didn't get the upper hand. I'm sorry but
> up til now true laissez-faire capitalism has been a utopian vision and
> will probably remain so.
Well, I don't think anyone proposes a free-market, laissez-faire
capitalism which allows/permits the resort to violence. We just
don't see that fetter as justification for say the state dictating
what color socks you can wear to work. (I believe it was NYC which
made it illegal for cab drivers to wear white socks a few years
back?)
So is it possible to get something in-between? If we accept the
need to proscribe violence/force in bsuiness dealings, will the
opposition to free-market, laissez-faire capitalism suggest in
principle if not in practice a limit to those fetters? Or are
we to assume if any fetters whatsoever are allowed, then the
fetterer is un-fettered? Now which are you more afraid of, an
un-fettered gov't or an un-fettered market?
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
reid jeffrey alan
On Wed, 23 Jul 1997, Krist van Besien wrote:
> On 22 Jul 1997 20:14:36 -0600, anon...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Proudhon)
> wrote:
>
>
> >But it is the worker who supports the parasitical capitalist
> >in our Universe... and the only thing keeping the worker from
> >shrugging off the exploiter is their own fear, lack of organization,
> >and lack of soliderity.
>
> Yep, his _own_ fear, his _own_ lack of organization, his _own_ lack of
> solidarity. But nevertheless the capitalist is to blame ofcourse....
>
> Krist van Besien
>
It is the worker's lack of ambition, education, new ideas, and will to
improve himself that holds him back. Many poor men have become rich, and
many rich men have become poor, why? Desire, vision, and ambition, or lack
of it. This is still the land of opprotunity and anyone can become
president: just look at who is president today!!
JR
James A. Donald
Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> wrote:
> Well, I don't think anyone proposes a free-market, laissez-faire
> capitalism which allows/permits the resort to violence.
Uh, that should read "initiation of violence"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com
James A. Donald
wo...@woofwoofwoof.com (Woof) wrote:
> There are about 5 million rich people in the United States and about 260
> million who are not.
>
> You are advocating a system that serves only 5 million out of 265 million
> people.
Under capitalism people get rich by serving the customers desires.
Under socialism they get rich by torturing and killing.
So under capitalism we get Disneyland and air conditioning, under
socialism we get torture and killing fields.
What do you expect?
Under capitalism, the selfish desires of the rich lead them to serve
your need. Under socialism the selfish desires of the powerful lead
them to ram an electric cattle prod up your ass.
Loren Petrich
In article <33da233...@news.nl.net>,
Krist van Besien <th...@is.not.my.email> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:55:36 -0700, wo...@woofwoofwoof.com (Woof)
>wrote:
>>There are about 5 million rich people in the United States and about 260
>>million who are not.
>This depends on your standards. Compared to a century ago I 'd say
>that there are 265 million rich people in the US.
Which does not stop some from being much richer than others.
Krist van Besien
>In article
><Pine.A41.3.95.970725...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>, reid
>jeffrey alan <jar...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
>> It is the worker's lack of ambition, education, new ideas, and will to
>> improve himself that holds him back. Many poor men have become rich, and
>> many rich men have become poor, why? Desire, vision, and ambition, or lack
>> of it. This is still the land of opprotunity and anyone can become
>> president: just look at who is president today!!
>
>
>OK. Let's just for a minute pretend that nonsense is true.
>
>There are about 5 million rich people in the United States and about 260
>million who are not.
This depends on your standards. Compared to a century ago I 'd say
that there are 265 million rich people in the US.
greetings,
Krist
Paul Brizant
>>>There are about 5 million rich people in the United States and about 260
>>>million who are not.
>>This depends on your standards. Compared to a century ago I 'd say
>>that there are 265 million rich people in the US.
I'm glad we got to the root of anti-Capitaist leanings:
Envy.
Loren Petrich
In article <5rddaf$efm$1...@fish.vf.pond.com>,
Paul Brizant <br...@pond.com> wrote:
>I'm glad we got to the root of anti-Capitaist leanings:
> Envy.
So if you don't like being mugged, you envy the mugger???
Woof
In article <5rd8uo$35e$3...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, jam...@echeque.com (James A.
Donald) wrote:
> wo...@woofwoofwoof.com (Woof) wrote:
> > There are about 5 million rich people in the United States and about 260
> > million who are not.
> >
> > You are advocating a system that serves only 5 million out of 265 million
> > people.
>
> Under capitalism people get rich by serving the customers desires.
> Under socialism they get rich by torturing and killing.
>
> So under capitalism we get Disneyland and air conditioning, under
> socialism we get torture and killing fields.
Chile. Contras. Guatemala. Argenitna. etc...
--
Woof - so I don't get any more SPAM!!!
Saulius Muliolis
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <33da233...@news.nl.net>,
> Krist van Besien <th...@is.not.my.email> wrote:
> >wrote:
>
> >>There are about 5 million rich people in the United States and about 260
> >>million who are not.
>
> >that there are 265 million rich people in the US.
>
> Which does not stop some from being much richer than others.
And what's the problem with that?
Saulius Muliolis
muli...@en.com
James A. Donald
wo...@woofwoofwoof.com (Woof) wrote:
> > There are about 5 million rich people in the United States and about 260
> > million who are not.
Krist van Besien wrote:
> This depends on your standards. Compared to a century ago I 'd say
> that there are 265 million rich people in the US.
Compared to any of the former communist countries, there are 265
million rich people in the US, and indeed even compared to supposedly
affluent Sweden, the people in North American slums are wealthy, when
affluence is measured in terms of eating out, owning air conditioning,
having your own car, getting your nails manicured, and suchlike, which
is how people who live in slums tend to measure affluence, rather than
measuring affluence in the way the Swedish government does.
James A. Donald
>In article <5rd8uo$35e$3...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, jam...@echeque.com (James A.
>Donald) wrote:
>> So under capitalism we get Disneyland and air conditioning, under
>> socialism we get torture and killing fields.
wo...@woofwoofwoof.com (Woof) wrote:
>Chile. Contras. Guatemala. Argenitna. etc...
If any communist had murdered as few people as Pinochet, etc, you
would count them as saintly pacifists.
The Contras were fighting for democracy.
Peron in Argentina was anti capitalist.
Mike Wooding
Proudhon wrote:
> In article <33D4F3...@wse.com>, Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> wrote:
> >G*rd*n wrote:
> >> I guess I have to remind everybody, once again, that force
> >> and fraud have _already_ been initiated. For example, a
> >> person who has no capital _must_, is compelled, to find
> >> employment.
> >
> > And I must continually remind Mr. Gordon Fitch that the compulsion
> > to find employment is not the initiation of force or fraud. It's
> > the price the Universe extracts in exchange for your existence. If
> > this bargain doesn't sit right with you, then take it up with the
> > Universe. In any case, your desire to live at the expense of others
> > should in no way cause those others any sense of obligation to
> > accomodate your desire.
>
> in our Universe... and the only thing keeping the worker from
> shrugging off the exploiter is their own fear, lack of organization,
> and lack of soliderity.
Really? That's not what the workers around the water cooler here
talk about. Seems more likely thay'd like to shrug off a gov't
they've come to realize is not under their control and not in
their interests. No?
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Loren Petrich
In article <5re6vu$e8n$2...@nntp2.ba.best.com>,
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>Compared to any of the former communist countries, there are 265
>million rich people in the US, and indeed even compared to supposedly
>affluent Sweden, the people in North American slums are wealthy, when
>affluence is measured in terms of eating out, owning air conditioning,
>having your own car, getting your nails manicured, and suchlike, which
>is how people who live in slums tend to measure affluence, rather than
>measuring affluence in the way the Swedish government does.
Pure bogosity. Large numbers of American poor people do *not* own
cars, and are dependent on urban-transit systems for their transportation.
And as to "eating out", fast food is relatively cheap; I think
that Mr. Donald thinks of "eating out" in terms of eating Filet Mignon
steaks at some ritzy upscale restaurant.
Loren Petrich
In article <5rg19v$5ea$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>,
>>Chile. Contras. Guatemala. Argenitna. etc...
>If any communist had murdered as few people as Pinochet, etc, you
>would count them as saintly pacifists.
I wonder how many right-wing "libertarians" secretly wish that the
world had Pinochet-type leaders -- those who protect business elites and
their privileges while being ruthlessly repressive in everything else.
I notice also that Mr. Donald complains much more loudly about
the Spanish Civil War's left wing than its right wing (which had been
supported by Hitler and Mussolini); one wonders which side he is on :-)
>The Contras were fighting for democracy.
Dream on.
>Peron in Argentina was anti capitalist.
Depends on how you define "capitalism".
James A. Donald
pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
> I notice also that Mr. Donald complains much more loudly about
> the Spanish Civil War's left wing than its right wing
I do not hear anyone claiming that Franco's regime was paradise on
earth, a utopia of liberty and freedom. If people were to claim that,
I would conclude that they sought to kill me and everyone like me,
just as I am fairly sure for exactly the same reason that Loren
Petrich seeks to kill me and everyone like me.
reid jeffrey alan
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Krist van Besien wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:55:36 -0700, wo...@woofwoofwoof.com (Woof)
> wrote:
>
> >In article
> ><Pine.A41.3.95.970725...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>, reid
> >jeffrey alan <jar...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> It is the worker's lack of ambition, education, new ideas, and will to
> >> improve himself that holds him back. Many poor men have become rich, and
> >> many rich men have become poor, why? Desire, vision, and ambition, or lack
> >> of it. This is still the land of opprotunity and anyone can become
> >> president: just look at who is president today!!
> >
> >
> >OK. Let's just for a minute pretend that nonsense is true.
> >
> >There are about 5 million rich people in the United States and about 260
> >million who are not.
>
>
> This depends on your standards. Compared to a century ago I 'd say
> that there are 265 million rich people in the US.
>
> greetings,
>
> Krist
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Krist van Besien besien(at)solair1.inter.nl.net
> System Administrator Kuwait Petroleum Benelux bv
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Not only that, but the so called "rich", or "upper clas" is constantly
changing. 80% of those who make over $300,000 per year were not in that
group 15 years ago. Welcome to a free economy---sink or swim.
JR
reid jeffrey alan
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Loren Petrich wrote:
> In article <33da233...@news.nl.net>,
> Krist van Besien <th...@is.not.my.email> wrote:
> >On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:55:36 -0700, wo...@woofwoofwoof.com (Woof)
> >wrote:
>
> >>There are about 5 million rich people in the United States and about 260
> >>million who are not.
>
> >This depends on your standards. Compared to a century ago I 'd say
> >that there are 265 million rich people in the US.
>
> Which does not stop some from being much richer than others.
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
> Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
>
>
>
>
The alternative, of course, is to make everyone equal in their misery and
poverty. It's been tried, never done, and where it did succeed partially
it collapsed. Libertarian capitalism does not promise that everyone will
be rich and happy, but it does promise that everyone will have the
opporutinity to be rich and happy.
JR
Loren Petrich
In article <Pine.A41.3.95.970728...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
reid jeffrey alan <jar...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>The alternative, of course, is to make everyone equal in their misery and
>poverty. It's been tried, never done, and where it did succeed partially
>it collapsed.
I don't know what you have in mind here, but Communism has
produced enough social inequality to make you drool.
Libertarian capitalism does not promise that everyone will
>be rich and happy, but it does promise that everyone will have the
>opporutinity to be rich and happy.
So it is possible for *everybody* to be the head of some great
corporate empire? In that case, who will be the employees???
Loren Petrich
In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>,
Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <Pine.A41.3.95.970728...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
>reid jeffrey alan <jar...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>>The alternative, of course, is to make everyone equal in their misery and
>>poverty. It's been tried, never done, and where it did succeed partially
>>it collapsed.
> I don't know what you have in mind here, but Communism has
>produced enough social inequality to make you drool.
Furthermore, when you think of Communism, think of yourself the
same way you think of capitalism -- think of yourself as a Party boss.
Think of it this way -- Communist Party bosses were generally not born
into their position, so how did they get there???
Although I will concede that there is a such thing as too much
equality, it must also be conceded that there is a such thing as too
little equality. There are actual studies that show a positive
correlation between equality and overall well-being --
http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo presents several of them. And even
*relative* inequality is bad. Those who whine about how (supposedly) rich
America's poor people are ought to live like some of them and join this
new aristocracy.
> Libertarian capitalism does not promise that everyone will
>>be rich and happy, but it does promise that everyone will have the
>>opporutinity to be rich and happy.
> So it is possible for *everybody* to be the head of some great
>corporate empire? In that case, who will be the employees???
Also, that represents a utopian sort of dream, something like a
Communist Utopia, where everybody will be unselfishly helpful to each other.
reid jeffrey alan
On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Loren Petrich wrote:
> In article <Pine.A41.3.95.970728...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
> reid jeffrey alan <jar...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
> >The alternative, of course, is to make everyone equal in their misery and
> >poverty. It's been tried, never done, and where it did succeed partially
> >it collapsed.
>
> I don't know what you have in mind here, but Communism has
> produced enough social inequality to make you drool.
>
> Libertarian capitalism does not promise that everyone will
> >be rich and happy, but it does promise that everyone will have the
> >opporutinity to be rich and happy.
>
> So it is possible for *everybody* to be the head of some great
> corporate empire? In that case, who will be the employees???
>
No, of course not everybody will be the head of a corporate empire.
However, everyone will have the opporutunity. Some won't want to do the
work necessary, some will be unable to do it, and some would simply prefer
a simpler life--myself included. I am not jealous of, nor do I begrudge
corporate execs just because they have more money than me. In my opinion,
most of them deserve the money they earn, just as much as a factory worker
deserves to get what he/she gets. Life is full of choices, which is what
makes it worthwhile and makes us different in our way, and once you
eliminate choices through a state-run economy life is no longer worth
living, as everyone will be miserable and in chains.
JR
Loren Petrich
In article <5rhc67$nb4$1...@nntp2.ba.best.com>,
>> I notice also that Mr. Donald complains much more loudly about
>> the Spanish Civil War's left wing than its right wing
>I do not hear anyone claiming that Franco's regime was paradise on
>earth, a utopia of liberty and freedom.
Tell that to Pat Buchanan.
If people were to claim that,
>I would conclude that they sought to kill me and everyone like me,
>just as I am fairly sure for exactly the same reason that Loren
>Petrich seeks to kill me and everyone like me.
Whine, whine, whine.
Loren Petrich
In article <Pine.A41.3.95.970728...@red.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
reid jeffrey alan <jar...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>No, of course not everybody will be the head of a corporate empire.
>However, everyone will have the opporutunity. ...
Does that mean that everybody *can*???
Mike Wooding
James A. Donald wrote:
>
> Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> wrote:
> > Well, I don't think anyone proposes a free-market, laissez-faire
> > capitalism which allows/permits the resort to violence.
>
> Uh, that should read "initiation of violence"
Yes it should.
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
RHA
In article <Pine.A41.3.95.970728...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
>
>> On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 22:55:36 -0700, wo...@woofwoofwoof.com (Woof)
>> wrote:
>>
>> ><Pine.A41.3.95.970725...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>, reid
>> >jeffrey alan <jar...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It is the worker's lack of ambition, education, new ideas, and will to
>> >> improve himself that holds him back. Many poor men have become rich, and
>> >> many rich men have become poor, why? Desire, vision, and ambition, or lack
>> >> of it. This is still the land of opprotunity and anyone can become
>> >> president: just look at who is president today!!
>> >
>> >
>> >OK. Let's just for a minute pretend that nonsense is true.
>> >
>> >million who are not.
>>
>>
>> This depends on your standards. Compared to a century ago I 'd say
>> that there are 265 million rich people in the US.
>>
>>
>> Krist
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>> Krist van Besien besien(at)solair1.inter.nl.net
>> System Administrator Kuwait Petroleum Benelux bv
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>Not only that, but the so called "rich", or "upper clas" is constantly
>changing. 80% of those who make over $300,000 per year were not in that
>group 15 years ago. Welcome to a free economy---sink or swim.
15 years ago? As in when they were children, their parents (now
retired) held the top ranks? What would be useful is to know
how many people move from low and middle class origins into the
upper class. How many of those are only sports or entertainment
figures rather than wealth creators?
--
rha
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Loren Petrich wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>In article <5rddaf$efm$1...@fish.vf.pond.com>,
>Paul Brizant <br...@pond.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm glad we got to the root of anti-Capitaist leanings:
>> Envy.
>
> So if you don't like being mugged, you envy the mugger???
And if you don't like the fact that your ancestors have been less than
thrifty for three generations, that gives you the right to take wealth
away from a man who worked HIMSELF from door-to-door-salesman to
multi-millionaire?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Henry Blaskowski
Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Those who whine about how (supposedly) rich
> America's poor people are ought to live like some of them and join this
> new aristocracy.
Been there, done that. It's not as bad as the power-hungry politicians
like to portray, and certainly nothing like the mud huts of socialist/
communist states. Oh, and it's not whining, it's explaining. If
people have lost their perspective, sometimes it helps to remind them
of how good they really have it. I know you like to dismiss
everyone who disagrees with you with claims of whining, but only
very small minds fall for it. And those people already agree with
you ;-)
> > Libertarian capitalism does not promise that everyone will
> >>be rich and happy, but it does promise that everyone will have the
> >>opporutinity to be rich and happy.
> > So it is possible for *everybody* to be the head of some great
> >corporate empire? In that case, who will be the employees???
I'm pretty sure you're not dense enough to actually believe the
point you are trying to make with these questions, but I'll explain
anyway: opportunity is not the same as result. Those who are
obsessed with becoming a corporate leader have a very good chance
of achieving that goal. After all, Clinton, with no skills or ability
except a goofy smile and a will to be president, actually became
president. People who show that level of dedication to becoming
a CEO can do it. I could've by now, but have chosen other
things, like spending time with my family, taking vacations, going
home at 5:00, etc. Since there are not many people willing to go
the distance to become a CEO, those who really want it can probably
succeed at it -- if they will make the sacrifices to do so.
hblask
Bill Reid
In article <Pine.A41.3.95.970728...@red.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
reid jeffrey alan <jar...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Jul 1997, Loren Petrich wrote:
>
>> So it is possible for *everybody* to be the head of some great
>> corporate empire? In that case, who will be the employees???
>>
>No, of course not everybody will be the head of a corporate empire.
>However, everyone will have the opporutunity.
So everyone will be guaranteed to start off with equal nutrition, parental
nurturing, education, capital, etc., etc., etc., etc.? Assuring and
monitoring that would constitute quite a monumental task. I think
Libertarians have something altogether different in mind, something where
extreme competitive advantages will be major factors in determining who
gets what and who gets to do what.
And what about the second generation? Will you claim the ceo's children
will have the same "opportunity" to become the next ceo as the child of
one who freely ;) chose to dig ditches instead?
>Some won't want to do the
>work necessary, some will be unable to do it, and some would simply prefer
>a simpler life--myself included. I am not jealous of, nor do I begrudge
>corporate execs just because they have more money than me. In my opinion,
>most of them deserve the money they earn, just as much as a factory worker
>deserves to get what he/she gets.
That's a nice "opinion" for you to have, since it supports your claims (as
well as your level of insulation).
>Life is full of choices, which is what
>makes it worthwhile and makes us different in our way, and once you
>eliminate choices through a state-run economy life is no longer worth
>living, as everyone will be miserable and in chains.
I suppose eliminating choices via capitalist distribution of choices (with
its resulting distribution of misery and "chains") is okay with you as
well, but you should realize it might not be okay *for others.*
Bill Reid
>James A. Donald wrote:
>>
>> Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> wrote:
>> > Well, I don't think anyone proposes a free-market, laissez-faire
>> > capitalism which allows/permits the resort to violence.
>>
>> Uh, that should read "initiation of violence"
>
> Yes it should.
Big deal. Monarchs and dictators forbid initiation of violence for the
same reason.
Bill Reid
>Loren Petrich wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>
>>In article <5rddaf$efm$1...@fish.vf.pond.com>,
>>Paul Brizant <br...@pond.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm glad we got to the root of anti-Capitaist leanings:
>>> Envy.
>>
>> So if you don't like being mugged, you envy the mugger???
>
>And if you don't like the fact that your ancestors have been less than
>thrifty for three generations, that gives you the right to take wealth
>away from a man who worked HIMSELF from door-to-door-salesman to
>multi-millionaire?
Assuming this is what you're implying, no one has ever "worked himself"
from door-to-door salesman to multi-millionaire. People cannot become
multi-millionaires merely by "working themselves." There are other
factors involved. Many people "work themselves" as door-to-door salsemen
without becoming multi-millionaires.
The "envy" charge is a red herring, btw.
reid jeffrey alan
> So everyone will be guaranteed to start off with equal nutrition, parental
> nurturing, education, capital, etc., etc., etc., etc.? Assuring and
> monitoring that would constitute quite a monumental task. I think
> Libertarians have something altogether different in mind, something where
> extreme competitive advantages will be major factors in determining who
> gets what and who gets to do what.
Of course not everyone is going to start life equally. This DOES NOT, no
matter how much liberals wish or try to convince us, result in inequality.
I know from personal experience that growing up wealthy has nothing to do
with future success. Can it help--yes, of course. Does being poor
hurt--yes it can. But it is not absolute. The truth is, is that those
willing to try something, those who prepare themselves for something, and
those that are able to do something, will usually succeed at what they are
trying to do. Free market competition is the most efficient, and fairest
way to distribute goods. He who is in demand most is in demand because he
is rare, and not many are either willing or able to do his job, and
therefore he gets more than the average person. Everyone complains about
these corporate execs making millions every year, supposebly on the backs
of the people who do the "actual" work. Come on, almost any person can be
taught how to do low-skilled labor jobs, but it takes years to master the
running of a large corp. It's supply and demand.
Also, I don't hear these same people who denounce the corp execs
denouncing movie stars or athletes. My god, Michael Jordan makes $33
million just to play basketball! Albert Belle gets $10 million. Stallone
gets $20 million per movie. Why? Supply and demand. There is only one
person who can do what Michael Jordan can do--and that talent is in
demand, but the supply is very limited. Same goes for the movie stars, and
other athletes. Why should the position of CEO be any different? It is a
very demanding job, that requires managerial talents, marketing skills,
etc. So, the demand for these kind of people is high, while the supply
again is limited. McDonald's cooks make little money because the supply of
people who can and will fill the job are enormous compared to that of a
CEO.
>
> And what about the second generation? Will you claim the ceo's children
> will have the same "opportunity" to become the next ceo as the child of
> one who freely ;) chose to dig ditches instead?
Yes, they will have the same opportunity. Hard work and ambition mean
little to left-wingers I know, but they can overcome any obstacle.
> >Some won't want to do the
> >work necessary, some will be unable to do it, and some would simply prefer
> >a simpler life--myself included. I am not jealous of, nor do I begrudge
> >corporate execs just because they have more money than me. In my opinion,
> >most of them deserve the money they earn, just as much as a factory worker
> >deserves to get what he/she gets.
>
> That's a nice "opinion" for you to have, since it supports your claims (as
> well as your level of insulation).
I don't understand what you mean here.
>
> >Life is full of choices, which is what
> >makes it worthwhile and makes us different in our way, and once you
> >eliminate choices through a state-run economy life is no longer worth
> >living, as everyone will be miserable and in chains.
>
> I suppose eliminating choices via capitalist distribution of choices (with
> its resulting distribution of misery and "chains") is okay with you as
> well, but you should realize it might not be okay *for others.*
>
>
It's not okay for others because they don't want to face the fact that
someone has something they don't. Envy IS the root of opposition against
libertarianism. Many people would rather have some great governmental
levelling force to put everyone on an even scale. These people want
equality of outcomes regardless of personal choices. They want to rid
themselves of responsibility for their own conditions and focus blame on
someone else. I am by no means rich--in fact last year I didn't even hit
the poverty line, but I do not blame "corporations, or the CEOs" of the
world for this. I am working towards a degree--improving myself--so that
one day I will not have to suffer again. If I succeed, I have myself to
thank, if I fail, I have myself to blame. The only misery and chains in a
libertarian society would be those you fasten to yourself, quite the
opposite of socialist, or even modern-American-semi-socialist societies,
where the govts provide the chains, and do the fastening.
JR
Loren Petrich
In article <33dd5bc0...@news.blarg.net>,
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin <wa...@blarg.net> wrote:
>And if you don't like the fact that your ancestors have been less than
>thrifty for three generations, that gives you the right to take wealth
>away from a man who worked HIMSELF from door-to-door-salesman to
>multi-millionaire?
What a poor, exploited worker he is!!!!! [sarcasm]
What do you prefer, that the upper classes be entitled to
everybody else's labor for essentially free???
And don't whine about the free market, because why haven't you
quit your job and let the free market take care of you???
Loren Petrich
In article <breid-29079...@pm6-64.orf.infi.net>,
Bill Reid <br...@din.com> wrote:
>So everyone will be guaranteed to start off with equal nutrition, parental
>nurturing, education, capital, etc., etc., etc., etc.? Assuring and
>monitoring that would constitute quite a monumental task.
I take that you don't *want* to change the fact that some people
have a head start and others don't. If that is the case, then stop
bragging that we've already reached the utopia of equal opportunity.
>And what about the second generation? Will you claim the ceo's children
>will have the same "opportunity" to become the next ceo as the child of
>one who freely ;) chose to dig ditches instead?
And does that mean that, because you have chosen not to run for
President, that you will refuse to be a backseat driver and refuse to
criticize him for *anything*?
Loren Petrich
In article <Pine.A41.3.95.970729...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
reid jeffrey alan <jar...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>Of course not everyone is going to start life equally. This DOES NOT, no
>matter how much liberals wish or try to convince us, result in inequality.
It DOES. See http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo for some actual
*studies*. The majority of business leaders, for example, had at least an
upper-middle-class upbringing. Michael Kinsley notes in _Big Babies_ that
Sun CEO Scott McNealy once posed as working on his car, to give the
appearance of ignoble birth, when his father had been some kind of auto
executive.
Everyone complains about
>these corporate execs making millions every year, supposebly on the backs
>of the people who do the "actual" work. Come on, almost any person can be
>taught how to do low-skilled labor jobs, but it takes years to master the
>running of a large corp. It's supply and demand.
Or more likely market manipulation.
Why don't you actually try *doing* some serious blue-collar jobs.
Like be a construction worker or a truck driver. You'll change your mind
*very* quickly.
> Also, I don't hear these same people who denounce the corp execs
>denouncing movie stars or athletes.
I think that they are greedy also.
[a lot of whining deleted about what oppressed workers CEO's are]
[Also a lot of self-hatred]
Victor Levis
Bill Reid <br...@din.com> wrote in response to Jeffrey Alan Reid
> I suppose eliminating choices via capitalist distribution of choices (with
> its resulting distribution of misery and "chains") is okay with you as
> well, but you should realize it might not be okay *for others.*
Misery is not 'distributed'. Misery is the natural state of mankind unless
intelligent production is undertaken.
Generally speaking, production of values by some people does NOT eliminate
'choices' for others. Indeed, voluntary trade/exchange enables all people
to obtain things they may NOT be good at making in exchange for things they
are better at making, and thus a marketplace -- where trade is free and
consensual -- benefits all who participate.
--
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
James A. Donald
pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
> It DOES. See http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo for some actual
> *studies*. The majority of business leaders, for example, had at least an
> upper-middle-class upbringing.
If one counts the majority of the population as upper middle class,
and only the very rich as business leaders, this might be true.
But according The Stanley Danko survey, quoted on page 68, US News and
World Report, April 14, 1997.
Nearly half of the millionaires in their survey paid their own
way through college with no help from relatives or friends.
This was of course a survey of American millionaires. Social mobility
in Europe is reputedly much lower.
Mike Wooding
Well, actually no. Monarchs and dictators like socialists reserve
for themselves the right to initiate violence.
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Mike Wooding
RHA wrote:
> >Not only that, but the so called "rich", or "upper clas" is constantly
> >changing. 80% of those who make over $300,000 per year were not in that
> >group 15 years ago. Welcome to a free economy---sink or swim.
>
> 15 years ago? As in when they were children, their parents (now
> retired) held the top ranks? What would be useful is to know
> how many people move from low and middle class origins into the
> upper class. How many of those are only sports or entertainment
> figures rather than wealth creators?
Only sports or entertainment figures? They seem far more influential
in the arena of public opinion than scientists and business leaders.
And why is it assumed that they "create" no wealth? Do we only count
tractors and dies as wealth, and all the niceties like the arts and
entertainment are ... well, how do we count those things which seem
to give life interest and perhaps even meaning?
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
James A. Donald wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>>In article <5rd8uo$35e$3...@nntp2.ba.best.com>, jam...@echeque.com (James A.
>>Donald) wrote:
>>> So under capitalism we get Disneyland and air conditioning, under
>>> socialism we get torture and killing fields.
>
>wo...@woofwoofwoof.com (Woof) wrote:
>>Chile. Contras. Guatemala. Argenitna. etc...
>
>If any communist had murdered as few people as Pinochet, etc, you
>would count them as saintly pacifists.
Agreed.
>The Contras were fighting for democracy.
Incorrect. The Contras were fighting for an anti-communist
dictatorship, against a communist dictatorship that was trying to
maintain (and eventually died of) the forms of democracy.
Some of us would prefer to have no dictatorship at all.
>Peron in Argentina was anti capitalist.
That you got right.
James A. donald
> > The Contras were fighting for democracy.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
> Incorrect. The Contras were fighting for an anti-communist
> dictatorship,
The Contra revolution was launched in response to the murder of Pedro
Joaquín Chamorro editor of La Prensa, by the Sandinista government,
thus the key issue that set the contras to fighting was freedom of the
press.
In the deal that finally led to peace, the Contras insisted on free
and fair elections as the price for peace..
What leads you to believe they sought a dictatorship? They certainly
did not say they sought a dictatorship. They say they sought liberty,
violations of liberty were the cause of war, and their demand for
liberty was the price of peace.
Of course socialists do not say they seek a dictatorship either, but
they pursue goals that require a dictatorship. The goals that the
Contras sought do not obviously require a dictatorship.
Those who supported the Contras, such as Reagan, were strong
supporters of western style democracy. Those who opposed the Contras,
such as Chomsky, were apologists for tyranny, brutal inequality of
power, and shocking and savage injustice.
James A. donald
I wrote:
> The Contra revolution was launched in response to the murder of Pedro
> Joaquín Chamorro editor of La Prensa,
This was of course, completely incorrect. Date way wrong.
reid jeffrey alan
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Loren Petrich wrote:
> In article <breid-29079...@pm6-64.orf.infi.net>,
> Bill Reid <br...@din.com> wrote:
>
> >So everyone will be guaranteed to start off with equal nutrition, parental
> >nurturing, education, capital, etc., etc., etc., etc.? Assuring and
> >monitoring that would constitute quite a monumental task.
>
> I take that you don't *want* to change the fact that some people
> have a head start and others don't. If that is the case, then stop
> bragging that we've already reached the utopia of equal opportunity.
>
> >And what about the second generation? Will you claim the ceo's children
> >will have the same "opportunity" to become the next ceo as the child of
> >one who freely ;) chose to dig ditches instead?
>
> And does that mean that, because you have chosen not to run for
> President, that you will refuse to be a backseat driver and refuse to
> criticize him for *anything*?
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
This is quite obviously no the same thing. In a free market,
free-political environment you are free to criticize anyone. Because I
choose not to be a CEO has nothing to do with whether or not I can
criticize CEOs. I don't criticize CEOs as some people do, because it is
unfair. It means grouping the good with the bad under one stereotype,
which to me is anethma, but I guess for all the liberals lip-service to
equality, it is okay to stereotype and be prejudicial.
Also, I will restate this: Libertarians do not promise a utopia-- they
promise to bring the greatest amount of wealth and freedom to those
willing to work for it, and promise that everyone will have an equal
opprotunity to achieve their goals. We are currently not even close, and
moving ever farther away from libertarianism with the current and recently
past govts.
JR
Mark Roddy
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997 16:44:25 GMT, jam...@echeque.com (James A. Donald)
wrote:
>pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>> It DOES. See http://www.scruznet.com/~kangaroo for some actual
>> *studies*. The majority of business leaders, for example, had at least an
>> upper-middle-class upbringing.
>
>If one counts the majority of the population as upper middle class,
>and only the very rich as business leaders, this might be true.
>
>But according The Stanley Danko survey, quoted on page 68, US News and
>World Report, April 14, 1997.
>
> Nearly half of the millionaires in their survey paid their own
> way through college with no help from relatives or friends.
>
>This was of course a survey of American millionaires. Social mobility
>in Europe is reputedly much lower.
And this is the kind of self serving survey that makes a mockery of
legitimate social sciences.
What does this mean: " paid their own
way through college with no help from relatives or friends."?
Does it have anything at all to do with their socio-economic status?
The answer of course is "it depends."
For example the subject might simply have had $30K a year in income
from investments. This would qualify as "no help from relatives or
friends." The fact that this wealth might very well have been
inherited would not deter the respondent from honestly saying that he
or she "paid their own way through college..".
In fact one would expect middle-class and lower class respondents to
have answered: "some help from relatives or friends." There are very
few people from these ranks who can afford college without help from
family, friends, and of course the hideous evil dreaded government.
Mark Roddy
reid jeffrey alan
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997, Loren Petrich wrote:
> In article <33dd5bc0...@news.blarg.net>,
> Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin <wa...@blarg.net> wrote:
>
> >And if you don't like the fact that your ancestors have been less than
> >thrifty for three generations, that gives you the right to take wealth
> >away from a man who worked HIMSELF from door-to-door-salesman to
> >multi-millionaire?
>
> What a poor, exploited worker he is!!!!! [sarcasm]
>
> What do you prefer, that the upper classes be entitled to
> everybody else's labor for essentially free???
>
> And don't whine about the free market, because why haven't you
> quit your job and let the free market take care of you???
>
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
I don't understand your first reaction at all. What if the person in
question was a meat packer who, after saving much of his earnings, and
observing the plant he works in, came up with a better idea, and opened
his own small packing facility? Say this was highly successful and he
expanded and kept expanding until he was a millionaire. Now, should we
take what he earned and give it to his former fellow employees? If so why?
And, if we do, what is the incentive to save money, or work hard, or take
pride in your work, or produce anything that benefits others? Do you think
that if Merck couldn't make a profit no matter what it produced that it
would spend millions on r&d to come up with better drugs? What would be
the incentive?
The upper classes are not entitled to anything that the poor are not
entitled to also. Employment is a contract, mutually agreed to by employer
and employee. Actually the employee has far more rights than the employer
under any such agreement. And what do you consider "essentially free?" A
person making $8/hr? $16/hr? What?
And, how do you know that it was not the free market that gave the poster
his job? Also, your phrasing "let the free market take care of you" is
ironic. I realize socialists and many Democrats would like the govt to
"take care" of everyone. In a free market, the market does not take care
of you, the govt does not take care of you, but YOU take care of you. Can
you actually say that you would rather have someone tell you that YOU
can't take care of yourself, and they will decide what you need? Anybody
with common sense and dignity realizes that this is one hell of a horrible
way to live your life.
JR
Harold Brashears
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997 16:08:36 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
wrote:
>In article <33dd5bc0...@news.blarg.net>,
>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin <wa...@blarg.net> wrote:
>
>>And if you don't like the fact that your ancestors have been less than
>>thrifty for three generations, that gives you the right to take wealth
>>away from a man who worked HIMSELF from door-to-door-salesman to
>>multi-millionaire?
>
> What a poor, exploited worker he is!!!!! [sarcasm]
No Loren, he has worked until he has the capital to hire someone less
provident. He is a worker, though, you got that right.
> What do you prefer, that the upper classes be entitled to
>everybody else's labor for essentially free???
Is that the only choice? The previous poster asks why you think you
are entitled to the resources that another person worked for, and you
respond with this?
You appear to me to be asking for the privileges you attribute now to
somone else. You want to plunder the work of others, as you claim
they plunder the poor now. Are you just another type of oppressor?
> And don't whine about the free market, because why haven't you
>quit your job and let the free market take care of you???
Why would anyone whine if the free market did not care for them? Do
you need somone to care for you so much Loren?
The free market is to allow the citizens to have the opportunity to
care for themselves. The free market cannot "care", as a restricted
market cannot "care", markets, free or otherwise never care. Only
people care.
Regards, Harold
-----
"There are two things which cannot be attacked in front:
ignorance and narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken
by the simple development of the contrary qualities."
---Lord Acton (1834-1902) Letter, 23 Jan. 1861
Harold Brashears
>In article
><Pine.A41.3.95.970725...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>, reid
>jeffrey alan <jar...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
>> It is the worker's lack of ambition, education, new ideas, and will to
>> improve himself that holds him back. Many poor men have become rich, and
>> many rich men have become poor, why? Desire, vision, and ambition, or lack
>> of it. This is still the land of opprotunity and anyone can become
>> president: just look at who is president today!!
>
>OK. Let's just for a minute pretend that nonsense is true.
>
>There are about 5 million rich people in the United States and about 260
>million who are not.
how do you define rich. Clinton seems to think anything above $75,000
a year is rich. Is this your definition?
>
>You are advocating a system that serves only 5 million out of 265 million
>people.
You were not reading when he wrote. He said it allowed all 265
million the opportunity. You have a system that will make everyone
rich?
>What do you think its chances of success are, before the 5
>million at the top are killed by the 260 million at the bottom?
Ah, yes! The threat of violence. Always the threat of violence. I
can tell you are a liberal.
Do you really think the "poor oppressed" US worker, with one of the
highest living standards in the world, with a piece of the action in
their pension plan and their own home will rebel. You poor deluded
person.
Regards, Harold
-----
"Of all checks on democracy, federation has been the most
efficacious and the most congenial... The federal system
limits and restrains the sovereign power by dividing it
and by assigning to Government only certain defined rights.
It is the only method of curbing not only the majority but
the power of the whole people."
---Lord Acton (1834-1902)
James A. Donald
br...@din.com (Bill Reid) wrote:
> Big deal. Monarchs and dictators forbid initiation of violence for the
> same reason.
Except, of course, initiation of violence by themselves.
Loren Petrich
In article <33e0b2f9....@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
Harold Brashears <brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Jul 1997 16:08:36 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
>wrote:
>>In article <33dd5bc0...@news.blarg.net>,
>>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin <wa...@blarg.net> wrote:
>>>And if you don't like the fact that your ancestors have been less than
>>>thrifty for three generations, that gives you the right to take wealth
>>>away from a man who worked HIMSELF from door-to-door-salesman to
>>>multi-millionaire?
>> What a poor, exploited worker he is!!!!! [sarcasm]
>No Loren, he has worked until he has the capital to hire someone less
>provident. He is a worker, though, you got that right.
Thanx for gulping down my bait. What I did was use some classic
Marxist rhetoric, and you swallowed it whole. In fact, I'm surprised that
the ultracapitalists are not saying that Marx got it right that there are
workers and exploiters, but that he misidentified these classes.
>> What do you prefer, that the upper classes be entitled to
>>everybody else's labor for essentially free???
>Is that the only choice? The previous poster asks why you think you
>are entitled to the resources that another person worked for, and you
>respond with this?
>You appear to me to be asking for the privileges you attribute now to
>somone else. You want to plunder the work of others, as you claim
>they plunder the poor now. Are you just another type of oppressor?
Boo hoo hoo hoo hoo. The presumption here is that the upper
classes are the only ones who really work; that ignores the labors of the
rest of the population.
>> And don't whine about the free market, because why haven't you
>>quit your job and let the free market take care of you???
>Why would anyone whine if the free market did not care for them? Do
>you need somone to care for you so much Loren?
My challenge was in response to those who never tire of saying
"let the free market do it."
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
James A. donald
On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 04:36:18 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
wrote:
> Large numbers of American poor people do *not* own
> cars, and are dependent on urban-transit systems for their transportation.
True: And urban transit systems in America are dreadful, in large
part because in most of america, only the poor and desperate use them.
But most poor people in America *do* have cars, and the proportion is
increasing, as is demonstrated by the fact that Greyhound is closing
down most of its few remaining bus stations.
There was a presumption that if someone travels by greyhound bus, they
are poor. Very few people these days meet that criterion. A great
many people in Europe *do* meet that criterion. In terms of material
possessions, "poor" in America usually means something very different
from "poor" in Europe.
Now you can argue that by such criteria as infant mortality, America
does badly compared to Europe, and it certainly does. But in terms of
material goods, the poor in America do very well compared to Europe.
Perhaps the poor in America have more opportunity, more liberty, to
behave in stupid and self destructive ways, as well as more
opportunity, more liberty, to acquire material goods.
Loren Petrich
In article <33e106c0...@news.jps.net>,
James A. donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 04:36:18 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
>wrote:
>> Large numbers of American poor people do *not* own
>> cars, and are dependent on urban-transit systems for their transportation.
>
>True: And urban transit systems in America are dreadful, in large
>part because in most of america, only the poor and desperate use them.
>But most poor people in America *do* have cars,
I wonder who Mr. Donald counts as poor; only about 10% of welfare
recipients have cars, IIRC. I'm sure I could find out more at
misc.transport.urban-transit.
Also, I've experienced some transit systems with rather upscale
ridership, such as commuter-rail systems. It's nice to have someone else
do the driving as one travels; one can read or work or nap as one travels.
and the proportion is
>increasing, as is demonstrated by the fact that Greyhound is closing
>down most of its few remaining bus stations.
I'm not aware of that, and I'm sure that there are alternate
possibilities, such as consolidation of facilities with other systems.
For example, in San Francisco, Greyhound does not have a separate
facility, but instead shares the Transbay Terminal with several local bus
systems.
[a whole lot of other economic-elitist fantasies deleted...]
Harold Brashears
On Fri, 1 Aug 1997 01:37:32 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
wrote:
>In article <33e106c0...@news.jps.net>,
>James A. donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 04:36:18 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
>>wrote:
>>> Large numbers of American poor people do *not* own
>>> cars, and are dependent on urban-transit systems for their transportation.
>>
>>True: And urban transit systems in America are dreadful, in large
>>part because in most of america, only the poor and desperate use them.
>
>>But most poor people in America *do* have cars,
>
> I wonder who Mr. Donald counts as poor; only about 10% of welfare
>recipients have cars, IIRC. I'm sure I could find out more at
>misc.transport.urban-transit.
Where did you get *that* number? Did you make it up? You can look up
these questions, you know. See the American Housing Survey, performed
by the Census Bureau. The one I have available is 1987, and I am not
going over to the library to look at a more recent one just for you.
You will find on page 46 that more than 60% of the poor own
automobiles. 14% have two or more cars. The poor are defined as
those households with an income below the official poverty level.
[deleted]
Regards, Harold
----
"The great dialectic in our time is not, as anciently and by
some still supposed, between capital and labor; it is between
economic enterprise and the state."
---John Kenneth Galbraith, A History of Economics,
ch. 21(1987).
reid jeffrey alan
Autombiles, eh? Look, I don't own a car, haven't had one for 3 yrs now. I
also make less than the poverty line. But who cares? I do fine without a
car. I don't bitch and moan about having to ride the bus--it's a hell of a
lot cheaper, albeit less convenient than paying for a car, but so what? I
have to work--I cannot sit on my ass and make excuses like: Well, the mass
transit system is so bad that it takes an hour for me to get to work when
a car would get me there in 15 mins. I have way too much dignity to accept
welfare, food stamps, and the like because I am perfectly capable of
working. I would be one of those people the socialists and Democrats would
like to call the "opressed" or the "unfortunate." This is crap. No one
oppresses me. With my meager wages over the years, and by doing without
some luxuries, such as a car--yes it is a luxury not a necessity--I have
been able so far to put myself through 3 yrs of college while working
full-time. Anybody willing to work hard and sacrifice temporarily can do
this--but I can see the allure of not doing it because the govt is willing
to subsidize everything from purchasing a home, to food, to cable TV. In
my opinion, if you can't afford something, you don't get it. It has been
difficult these last three years, but in one year I will have a degree and
will hopefully be able to improve my position. THEN I will buy a car, eat
well, and get cable TV, but until then I must continue to live as my
income permits.
JR
Gav. McNett
reid jeffrey alan wrote:
>
> Autombiles, eh? Look, I don't own a car, haven't had one for 3 yrs now. I
> also make less than the poverty line. But who cares? I do fine without a
> car. I don't bitch and moan about having to ride the bus--it's a hell of a
> lot cheaper, albeit less convenient than paying for a car, but so what? I
> have to work--I cannot sit on my ass and make excuses like: Well, the mass
> transit system is so bad that it takes an hour for me to get to work when
> a car would get me there in 15 mins. I have way too much dignity to accept
> welfare, food stamps, and the like because I am perfectly capable of
> working.
> I would be one of those people the socialists and Democrats would
> like to call the "opressed" or the "unfortunate." This is crap. No one
> oppresses me. With my meager wages over the years, and by doing without
> some luxuries, such as a car--yes it is a luxury not a necessity--I have
> been able so far to put myself through 3 yrs of college while working
> full-time. Anybody willing to work hard and sacrifice temporarily can do
> this--but I can see the allure of not doing it because the govt is willing
> to subsidize everything from purchasing a home, to food, to cable TV.
Which government is this? Somebody sign me up.
> In my opinion, if you can't afford something, you don't get it. It has been
> difficult these last three years, but in one year I will have a degree and
> will hopefully be able to improve my position. THEN I will buy a car, eat
> well, and get cable TV, but until then I must continue to live as my
> income permits.
>
Where did your student loans come from, Reid? And isn't the University
of Iowa a state school?
reid jeffrey alan
On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Gav. McNett wrote:
> reid jeffrey alan wrote:
> >
> > Autombiles, eh? Look, I don't own a car, haven't had one for 3 yrs now. I
> > also make less than the poverty line. But who cares? I do fine without a
> > car. I don't bitch and moan about having to ride the bus--it's a hell of a
> > lot cheaper, albeit less convenient than paying for a car, but so what? I
> > have to work--I cannot sit on my ass and make excuses like: Well, the mass
> > transit system is so bad that it takes an hour for me to get to work when
> > a car would get me there in 15 mins. I have way too much dignity to accept
> > welfare, food stamps, and the like because I am perfectly capable of
> > working.
> > I would be one of those people the socialists and Democrats would
> > like to call the "opressed" or the "unfortunate." This is crap. No one
> > oppresses me. With my meager wages over the years, and by doing without
> > some luxuries, such as a car--yes it is a luxury not a necessity--I have
> > been able so far to put myself through 3 yrs of college while working
> > full-time. Anybody willing to work hard and sacrifice temporarily can do
> > this--but I can see the allure of not doing it because the govt is willing
> > to subsidize everything from purchasing a home, to food, to cable TV.
>
>
> Which government is this? Somebody sign me up. (Do I get M2 with my
> cable?
Sure, you can. The US govt recognizes television as necessity. They
obviously consider those without TV as barren of anything. Since when is
entertainment a right?
>
>
> > In my opinion, if you can't afford something, you don't get it. It has been
> > difficult these last three years, but in one year I will have a degree and
> > will hopefully be able to improve my position. THEN I will buy a car, eat
> > well, and get cable TV, but until then I must continue to live as my
> > income permits.
> >
>
> What about your student loans, Reid?
>
>
What student loans?
JR
Loren Petrich
In article <Pine.A41.3.95.970801...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
Are you that much of a masochist, Mr. Reid?
Loren Petrich
>> Autombiles, eh? Look, I don't own a car, haven't had one for 3 yrs now. I
>> also make less than the poverty line. ...
According to your own ideology, then, you are a no-good loser.
Ask yourself how much you get for the work that you do.
... I have way too much dignity to accept
>> welfare, food stamps, and the like because I am perfectly capable of
>> working.
Sometimes, pride has to be swallowed :-)
For my part, I'd avoid anything that has 100% marginal income and
wealth taxes.
>> I would be one of those people the socialists and Democrats would
>> like to call the "opressed" or the "unfortunate." This is crap. No one
>> oppresses me. ...
So you enjoy seeing your corporate superiors living off of your labor???
And have you requested a pay cut for yourself??? Must keep labor
costs down, y'know.
G*rd*n
reid jeffrey alan <jar...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>:
| Sure, you can. The US govt recognizes television as necessity. They
| obviously consider those without TV as barren of anything. Since when is
| entertainment a right?
Probably in tribal and family life. Babies who are not
entertained, that is, given mental stimulation, often die
and seldom develop normally. While adults seem to be able
to get by in stupefyingly boring circumstances, like your
typical industrial job, it can't be good for them, and I
can't imagine a tribe which inflicted such torture on its
constituents enduring for very long.
I wouldn't worry about television, though. If there's one
thing the American poor have, it's television.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
-----------------------------------------------
NOTE: if your ISP permits junkmailing, you will
probably not be able to reach me by email.
John Boston
On Fri, 1 Aug 1997 14:01:06 -0500, reid jeffrey alan
<jar...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
:|
:|
:|On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Gav. McNett wrote:
:|
:|> reid jeffrey alan wrote:
:|> >
:|> > Autombiles, eh? Look, I don't own a car, haven't had one for 3 yrs now. I
:|> > also make less than the poverty line. But who cares? I do fine without a
:|> > car. I don't bitch and moan about having to ride the bus--it's a hell of a
:|> > lot cheaper, albeit less convenient than paying for a car, but so what? I
:|> > have to work--I cannot sit on my ass and make excuses like: Well, the mass
:|> > transit system is so bad that it takes an hour for me to get to work when
:|> > a car would get me there in 15 mins. I have way too much dignity to accept
:|> > welfare, food stamps, and the like because I am perfectly capable of
:|> > working.
:|> > I would be one of those people the socialists and Democrats would
:|> > like to call the "opressed" or the "unfortunate." This is crap. No one
:|> > oppresses me. With my meager wages over the years, and by doing without
:|> > some luxuries, such as a car--yes it is a luxury not a necessity--I have
:|> > been able so far to put myself through 3 yrs of college while working
:|> > full-time. Anybody willing to work hard and sacrifice temporarily can do
:|> > this--but I can see the allure of not doing it because the govt is willing
:|> > to subsidize everything from purchasing a home, to food, to cable TV.
:|>
:|>
:|> Which government is this? Somebody sign me up. (Do I get M2 with my
:|> cable?
:|Sure, you can. The US govt recognizes television as necessity. They
:|obviously consider those without TV as barren of anything. Since when is
:|entertainment a right?
:|
:|
:|>
:|>
:|> > In my opinion, if you can't afford something, you don't get it. It has been
:|> > difficult these last three years, but in one year I will have a degree and
:|> > will hopefully be able to improve my position. THEN I will buy a car, eat
:|> > well, and get cable TV, but until then I must continue to live as my
:|> > income permits.
:|> >
:|>
:|> What about your student loans, Reid?
:|>
:|>
:|What student loans?
If you need any money...feel free to ask the Federal Gov.
They have enough of my money to send you to your school plus Havard or Yale.
You have my permission. :-)
-------------------------------------------
John Boston
maxx at exis net
Atheist #202
To Man be all the glory!!!
The amount of spam received from juno.com has
caused me to automatically delete any e-mail
from this address.
Giovanni 8
> Loren Petrich wrote:
>> reid jeffrey alan wrote:
>> misery and poverty. It's been tried, never done, and where it
>> did succeed partially it collapsed.
> I don't know what you have in mind here, but Communism has
> produced enough social inequality to make you drool.
If that were the sort of thing to make or not make one drool.
>> Libertarian capitalism does not promise that everyone will
>> be rich and happy, but it does promise that everyone will have
>> the opporutinity to be rich and happy.
> So it is possible for *everybody* to be the head of some great
> corporate empire? In that case, who will be the employees???
Having the opportunity to be rich and happy does not require
that a corporation exist and it doesn't require that they not
exist. Nor does it require the existence of employees. Perhaps
we'd each be independent contractors. Those things are irrelevant.
"Peace is not the absence of conflict. Peace is the presence of justice."
--- James Matthews (?) (Harrison Ford) in "Air Force 1"
screen-play by Andrew W. Malone & others
"Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to
deal with one another must deal by trade & give value for value."
--- Ayn Rand 1957 "The Meaning of Money" in _Atlas Shrugged_
"Capitalism does not tell men to suffer, but to pursue enjoyment
and achievement, here, on earth - capitalism does not tell men
to serve and sacrifice, but to produce and profit - capitalism
does not preach passivity, humility, resignation, but independence,
self-confidence, self-reliance - and, above all, capitalism does
not permit anyone... to take the unearned." --- Ayn Rand
--
copyright 1997 jgo all rights reserved
Permission to down-load solely for purposes of reading
once and responding via usenet news is hereby granted.
Licenses available at reasonable rates.
FORTRAN C++ UNIX Macintosh
ga...@mcnett.org
reid jeffrey alan wrote:
>
> On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Gav. McNett wrote:
>
> > reid jeffrey alan wrote:
> > >
Gosh; you got the first version of my post -- the one that was up for
about twelve minutes before I revised and cancelled it.
I'll stop arguing because I admire that you're putting yourself through
school on your own steam. I had to take out a stunning amount of
Stafford loans myself, and I still ate beans much of the time.
But if the government were giving out free cable, then... Oh, never
mind.
Victor Levis
reid jeffrey alan <jar...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.A41.3.95.970801...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>...
> Autombiles, eh? Look, I don't own a car, haven't had one for 3 yrs now. I
> also make less than the poverty line. But who cares? I do fine without a
> car. I don't bitch and moan about having to ride the bus--it's a hell of a
> lot cheaper, albeit less convenient than paying for a car, but so what? I
> have to work--I cannot sit on my ass and make excuses like: Well, the mass
> transit system is so bad that it takes an hour for me to get to work when
> a car would get me there in 15 mins. I have way too much dignity to accept
> welfare, food stamps, and the like because I am perfectly capable of
> working. I would be one of those people the socialists and Democrats would
> like to call the "opressed" or the "unfortunate." This is crap. No one
> oppresses me. With my meager wages over the years, and by doing without
> some luxuries, such as a car--yes it is a luxury not a necessity--I have
> been able so far to put myself through 3 yrs of college while working
> full-time. Anybody willing to work hard and sacrifice temporarily can do
> this--but I can see the allure of not doing it because the govt is willing
> my opinion, if you can't afford something, you don't get it. It has been
> difficult these last three years, but in one year I will have a degree and
> will hopefully be able to improve my position. THEN I will buy a car, eat
> well, and get cable TV, but until then I must continue to live as my
> income permits.
This is very bad, Jeffrey.
You are setting a bad example. Just as union shops are known to
pressure new recruits to slow down the pace of production to head off
the bosses getting the idea that output could be higher from the rest of
the group, the welfare-advocates will want you to stop feeling so
successful,
thus giving the legislators the idea that some subsidies could be cut.
--
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
James A. donald
James A. Donald wrote:
> > But according The Stanley Danko survey, quoted on page 68, US News and
> > World Report, April 14, 1997.
> >
> > Nearly half of the millionaires in their survey paid their own
> > way through college with no help from relatives or friends.
> >
> > This was of course a survey of American millionaires. Social mobility
> > in Europe is reputedly much lower.
On Wed, 30 Jul 1997 18:30:42 GMT, ma...@osr.com (Mark Roddy) wrote:
> And this is the kind of self serving survey that makes a mockery of
> legitimate social sciences.
>
> What does this mean: " paid their own
> way through college with no help from relatives or friends."?
> Does it have anything at all to do with their socio-economic status?
>
> The answer of course is "it depends."
>
> For example the subject might simply have had $30K a year in income
> from investments.
Another item of the Stanley Danko survey was that inherited wealth was
insignificant among millionaires.
And here is a figure, quoted by "The economist" without source or
explanation, page 17, column 3, August 2nd
"Some 35% of the stock market is held by blue collar workers,
and 50% of shareholders have no college degree."
I presume that the 35% figure includes pension funds, and the 50%
figure is by numbers of people, not numbers of shares.
Back to the Stanley Danko survey: According to the Stanley Danko
survey, fewer than one fifth of American millionaires inherited ten
percent or more of their wealth and most did not inherit any.
Shannon Mitchell
Henry Blaskowski <jhb...@bigpapa.nothinbut.net> wrote:
>Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> Those who whine about how (supposedly) rich
>> America's poor people are ought to live like some of them and join this
>> new aristocracy.
>Been there, done that. It's not as bad as the power-hungry politicians
>like to portray, and certainly nothing like the mud huts of socialist/
>communist states. Oh, and it's not whining, it's explaining. If
>people have lost their perspective, sometimes it helps to remind them
>of how good they really have it. I know you like to dismiss
>everyone who disagrees with you with claims of whining, but only
>very small minds fall for it. And those people already agree with
>you ;-)
>> > Libertarian capitalism does not promise that everyone will
>> >>be rich and happy, but it does promise that everyone will have the
>> >>opporutinity to be rich and happy.
>> > So it is possible for *everybody* to be the head of some great
>> >corporate empire? In that case, who will be the employees???
>I'm pretty sure you're not dense enough to actually believe the
>point you are trying to make with these questions, but I'll explain
>anyway: opportunity is not the same as result. Those who are
>obsessed with becoming a corporate leader have a very good chance
>of achieving that goal. After all, Clinton, with no skills or ability
>except a goofy smile and a will to be president, actually became
>president. People who show that level of dedication to becoming
>a CEO can do it. I could've by now, but have chosen other
>things, like spending time with my family, taking vacations, going
>home at 5:00, etc. Since there are not many people willing to go
>the distance to become a CEO, those who really want it can probably
>succeed at it -- if they will make the sacrifices to do so.
>hblask
You mean the "sacrifices" that Clinton made? You said yourself that he has
no aptitude for being CEO of the country, just an overwhelming lust for
power.
The lack of empathy, conscience, or moral responsibilty seems to be a great
asset in the climb up the corporate ladder. I think we are in agreement
here.
Shannon Mitchell
SSSSSSSSS
SSS SS
SSS
SSSSSS
SSSSSSSSSSS
SSSS
SSS
S SSS
SSS SSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
"The two greatest fools in life are the one who
believes in everything and the one who believes
in nothing."
"The enemy of your enemy is not
necessarily your friend. (Moral of
the Horse, the Man, and the Stag,
by Aesop)"
G*rd*n
| ...
pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich):
| > What a poor, exploited worker he is!!!!! [sarcasm]
brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears):
| No Loren, he has worked until he has the capital to hire someone less
| provident. He is a worker, though, you got that right.
| ...
There's no such requirement in capitalism. Capitalism
doesn't know or care how the capitalist got the capital.
Harold Brashears
On 4 Aug 1997 08:00:48 -0400, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| ...
>
>pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich):
>| > What a poor, exploited worker he is!!!!! [sarcasm]
>
>brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears):
>| No Loren, he has worked until he has the capital to hire someone less
>| provident. He is a worker, though, you got that right.
>| ...
>
>There's no such requirement in capitalism. Capitalism
>doesn't know or care how the capitalist got the capital.
You cut out the sentence I was replying to. I don't mind you trying
to comment, but I would request that you not cut out the context,
which is as follows:
Deleted by gfc:
"And if you don't like the fact that your ancestors have been less
than thrifty for three generations, that gives you the right to take
wealth away from a man who worked HIMSELF from door-to-door-salesman
to multi-millionaire?"
So as people can now see, the discussion was *about* a worker.
In addition, I wish to point out that capitalism does not *know*
anything. I will try to break this gently, but to speak of an
economic system as if it had the ability to *know* something is, at
best, very anthropomorphic.
Regards, Harold
----
"A society that puts equality - in the sense of equality of
outcome - ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality
or freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy
freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will
end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own
interests."
--- Milton Friedman
G*rd*n
| >| ...
| >pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich):
| >| > What a poor, exploited worker he is!!!!! [sarcasm]
brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears):
| >| No Loren, he has worked until he has the capital to hire someone less
| >| provident. He is a worker, though, you got that right.
| >| ...
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >There's no such requirement in capitalism. Capitalism
| >doesn't know or care how the capitalist got the capital.
brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears):
| You cut out the sentence I was replying to. I don't mind you trying
| to comment, but I would request that you not cut out the context,
| which is as follows:
|
| Deleted by gfc:
| "And if you don't like the fact that your ancestors have been less
| than thrifty for three generations, that gives you the right to take
| wealth away from a man who worked HIMSELF from door-to-door-salesman
| to multi-millionaire?"
|
| So as people can now see, the discussion was *about* a worker.
|
| In addition, I wish to point out that capitalism does not *know*
| anything. I will try to break this gently, but to speak of an
| economic system as if it had the ability to *know* something is, at
| best, very anthropomorphic.
In regard to your last paragraph, capitalism as an abstract
idea doesn't know anything, but as an institution, which it
also is -- a world-wide on at that -- it certainly stores
and uses information -- I'd call that knowing things. And
some things are important to the institution, as well as
the idea, so it may be said to "care about" them. But how
you got your capital isn't one of them (unless you broke
the rules, which are not about working in any case).
Harold Brashears
On 22 Jul 1997 20:14:36 -0600, anon...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Proudhon)
wrote:
>In article <33D4F3...@wse.com>, Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> wrote:
>>G*rd*n wrote:
>>> I guess I have to remind everybody, once again, that force
>>> and fraud have _already_ been initiated. For example, a
>>> person who has no capital _must_, is compelled, to find
>>> employment.
What kind of alternative would you suggest?
If you suggest that everyone has a right to food and shelter and other
necessary items, are you not contending that everyone has a right to
the resources produced by others, without respect to their
contribution?
>> And I must continually remind Mr. Gordon Fitch that the compulsion
>> to find employment is not the initiation of force or fraud. It's
>> the price the Universe extracts in exchange for your existence. If
>> this bargain doesn't sit right with you, then take it up with the
>> Universe. In any case, your desire to live at the expense of others
>> should in no way cause those others any sense of obligation to
>> accomodate your desire.
>
>But it is the worker who supports the parasitical capitalist
>in our Universe...
"parasitical capitalist"? An interesting phrase. I work for a
living, yet I have saved and invested some of that money. Am I then a
parasite?
If I save more money, and buy a business, and build up that business
to a multimillion dollar affair, employing hundreds, am I the a
parasite?
>and the only thing keeping the worker from
>shrugging off the exploiter is their own fear, lack of organization,
>and lack of soliderity.
Well, assuming you mean solidarity, recall that the majority of
workers in the US are capitalists, having significant sums invested in
their pension plans. Do you think they are stupid enough to rebel
against themselves?
Does it strike you as a moral thing to do, to demand the resources
that someone else may have earned?
G*rd*n
G*rd*n wrote:
| >>> I guess I have to remind everybody, once again, that force
| >>> and fraud have _already_ been initiated. For example, a
| >>> person who has no capital _must_, is compelled, to find
| >>> employment.
brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears):
| What kind of alternative would you suggest?
|
| If you suggest that everyone has a right to food and shelter and other
| necessary items, are you not contending that everyone has a right to
| the resources produced by others, without respect to their
| contribution?
It depends on what kind of society people want to have.
Those who want freedom will voluntarily set up some
arrangement where people are not starved or exposed to the
elements in order to force them to "work." It's not a
matter of rights -- rights are in the realm of liberal
property relations, and can be manipulated to dominate and
subjugate people, as witness a lot of capitalism.
Our powers of production are already such that we can feed
and clothe those who won't or can't work, and weren't born
rich, without much trouble; and in fact there are groups
already giving food and clothes to anyone who comes along.
Housing is a problem because real-estate costs are greatly
inflated by land speculation, interest, zoning, insurance,
and conspicuous consumption by the well-off. At the moment
I don't have a handy solution for this problem; I doubt if
it can be solved by small minorities the way the food and
clothing issues can. So the task here is one of raising
consciousness.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
NOTE: All junkmail received by this id is automatically
forwarded to the administrators of the originating and
intermediate systems, as determined from the headers.
Harold Brashears
On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:34:06 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
wrote:
>In article <petrichE...@netcom.com>,
>Loren Petrich <pet...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>In article <Pine.A41.3.95.970728...@green.weeg.uiowa.edu>,
>>reid jeffrey alan <jar...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
>>>The alternative, of course, is to make everyone equal in their misery and
>>>poverty. It's been tried, never done, and where it did succeed partially
>>>it collapsed.
>
>> I don't know what you have in mind here, but Communism has
>>produced enough social inequality to make you drool.
>
> Furthermore, when you think of Communism, think of yourself the
>same way you think of capitalism -- think of yourself as a Party boss.
A Communist Party boss in the USSR had the power to deny the citizen a
job, to have them arrested and placed in a prison camp remarkable only
for its extreme cruelty, and even to have them killed. While you may
find that an attractive thing to "think of yourself as a Party boss",
I think it is repulsive.
>Think of it this way -- Communist Party bosses were generally not born
>into their position, so how did they get there???
Many of them got there by being born there. Contrary to your
assertions, almost the entire lower cadre of Communist party bosses
were the children of loyal and committed party members. The children
of the bosses had many advantages not available to the citizen. They
had special schooling, even special stores to shop in.
[deleted]
Loren Petrich
In article <33e8110c...@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
Harold Brashears <brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:34:06 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
>wrote:
>> Furthermore, when you think of Communism, think of yourself the
>>same way you think of capitalism -- think of yourself as a Party boss.
>A Communist Party boss in the USSR had the power to deny the citizen a
>job, to have them arrested and placed in a prison camp remarkable only
>for its extreme cruelty, and even to have them killed. While you may
>find that an attractive thing to "think of yourself as a Party boss",
>I think it is repulsive.
Are you *sure* you wouldn't want that power over those you might
consider the enemies of the American people?
>Many of them got there by being born there. Contrary to your
>assertions, almost the entire lower cadre of Communist party bosses
>were the children of loyal and committed party members. The children
>of the bosses had many advantages not available to the citizen. They
>had special schooling, even special stores to shop in.
Despite the numerous protestations of ignoble birth, many
business leaders have gotten a similar head start.
Scott Erb
In article <5s4g9g$q...@panix2.panix.com>, g...@panix.com says...
>brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears):
>| No Loren, he has worked until he has the capital to hire someone less
>| provident. He is a worker, though, you got that right.
>| ...
>There's no such requirement in capitalism. Capitalism
>doesn't know or care how the capitalist got the capital.
In fact, I suspect that there are three "classes" of capitalists -- 1) those
small business owners who indeed work long and hard...making more money than
their employees, but who still get rightly rewarded for their creativity and
effort; 2) those who were born into money or a position and simply walk into
management or ownership without much work or effort; and 3) those who worked
but made some lucky investments and now find themselves with money, earning
more without really working that hard. This last batch is likey to be the
most defensive (and hence make the loudest pro-capitalist arguments) since
they deep down recognize they didn't work all that hard for their money but
feel a need to justify it somehow. The first batch tends to be more
sympathetic to the concerns of the poor and middle class because they have
been there and indeed are often still not earning all that great an income.
They disagree strongly with government regulations which, while perhaps
necessary for big businesses, puts a burden on the small ones. The second
batch are usually snobs :)
cheers, scott
G*rd*n
| > | ...
pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich):
| > | > What a poor, exploited worker he is!!!!! [sarcasm]
brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears):
| > | No Loren, he has worked until he has the capital to hire someone less
| > | provident. He is a worker, though, you got that right.
| > | ...
G*rd*n wrote:
| > There's no such requirement in capitalism. Capitalism
| > doesn't know or care how the capitalist got the capital.
jmh...@erols.com:
| That's certainly true in the trivial sense that -isms
| never know or care about anything.
Surely you know what I meant.
| It does seem that, at leasing in it's US manifestation,
| there's something more appealing to the capitalistic mind-set
| of a self-made man as opposed to the old-money man.
I call it "Calvinism." Not a strictly accurate term,
but it's probably descended spiritually from the real
thing.
| It seems more
| the aristicratic mindset that thinks the new money is somehow
| inferior or uncultured.
Could be. I know some old-money people whose lack of
culture exceeds anything I have seen in new-money and
no-money people.
My point, though, was that contrary to what was said above,
capitalism -- the liberal bourgeois capitalist system
in America, for example -- is indifferent to how its
constituent capitalists acquired their capital. Hard work
is just one way, and not a very likely way, to get it.
More apt methods are inheritance, gambling, dumb luck, and
hornswoggling, among others.
You know what the Prophet Bob saith: "Twenty years of
schoolin' and they put you on the _day_ shift." Not twenty
years of schoolin' and they put you on the stock exchange.
G*rd*n
G*rd*n wrote:
| > | >>> I guess I have to remind everybody, once again, that force
| > | >>> and fraud have _already_ been initiated. For example, a
| > | >>> person who has no capital _must_, is compelled, to find
| > | >>> employment.
brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears):
| > | What kind of alternative would you suggest?
| > |
| > | If you suggest that everyone has a right to food and shelter and other
| > | necessary items, are you not contending that everyone has a right to
| > | the resources produced by others, without respect to their
| > | contribution?
G*rd*n wrote:
| > It depends on what kind of society people want to have.
| > Those who want freedom will voluntarily set up some
| > arrangement where people are not starved or exposed to the
| > elements in order to force them to "work."
Roger Dapson <rda...@gte.net>:
| Gordan, you're trying to perpetrate a fraud. Under communism the citizens are required
| to "work". They just can't produce more than what their maintenance and procreation
| demands require. Marx never said the citizens would not be required to "work", just
| that they must live at a subsistence level so there would be no exploitation of labor.
So _you_ say. Well, if you decide to have a Communist
Party, forget to invite me -- I don't think I like your
choice of games.
JMH
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> | ...
>
> pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich):
> | > What a poor, exploited worker he is!!!!! [sarcasm]
>
> brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears):
> | No Loren, he has worked until he has the capital to hire someone less
> | provident. He is a worker, though, you got that right.
> | ...
>
> doesn't know or care how the capitalist got the capital.
That's certainly true in the trivial sense that -isms
never know or care about anything.
It does seem that, at leasing in it's US manifestation,
there's something more appealing to the capitalistic mind-set
of a self-made man as opposed to the old-money man. It seems more
the aristicratic mindset that thinks the new money is somehow
inferior or uncultured.
JMH
--
"Once conform, once do what others do because they do it, and
a kind of lethargy steals over all the finer senses of the soul."
Montaigne
Scott Erb
In article <33e70e9a...@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu says...
>
>On 22 Jul 1997 20:14:36 -0600, anon...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Proudhon)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <33D4F3...@wse.com>, Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I guess I have to remind everybody, once again, that force
>>>> and fraud have _already_ been initiated. For example, a
>>>> person who has no capital _must_, is compelled, to find
>>>> employment.
>What kind of alternative would you suggest?
Do you grant him his point -- that force and fraud have already been
initiated?
>If you suggest that everyone has a right to food and shelter and other
>necessary items, are you not contending that everyone has a right to
>the resources produced by others, without respect to their
>contribution?
I think we can certainly choose to create a society which is based on such
a conception of rights, though making it work practically would require
incentives and market mechanisms. That's why I think a "social market
economy" (or capitalism with a human face) is the best route to go. And,
I agree that many social welfare programs aren't working well, and some
are adding to the problem. Luckily, our choices aren't either scrap the
system or just maintain the current system. We can work to reform and
create new options.
>>> And I must continually remind Mr. Gordon Fitch that the compulsion
>>> to find employment is not the initiation of force or fraud. It's
>>> the price the Universe extracts in exchange for your existence.
Yikes, the universe is now an indivdual who extracts a price? Sorry,
doesn't watch. There is compulsion, and it is very much the initiation of
force or fraud. The reason: it is a social system, not a state of nature.
>"parasitical capitalist"? An interesting phrase. I work for a
>living, yet I have saved and invested some of that money. Am I then a
>parasite?
Nah, parasitic capitalists are those who make money by investment income,
perhaps having inhereted their starting wealth, and never really work.
They do some good, but nothing to warrant their extraction of wealth from
people who do most of the work. Others make much more than their work is
worth, living off the labor of others, that is parasitic as well. But
that's OK -- we need some of that in order to create incentives and
provide dynamism. But we don't need to let it go unchecked and
unregulated.
>If I save more money, and buy a business, and build up that business
>to a multimillion dollar affair, employing hundreds, am I the a
>parasite?
I don't think so. But I'll let the poster who used the phrase clarify
himself.
>>and the only thing keeping the worker from
>>shrugging off the exploiter is their own fear, lack of organization,
>>and lack of soliderity.
Gramsci came up with an interesting theory, since he noted that workers
were supporting Mussolini, even if it was against their interest. The
reason is that politics is not just determined by economics, but also
ideological beliefs. Also, social welfare programs and the rise of
democracy has convinced many workers that this is a better route to higher
pay and more justice. The Left needs to better consider the democratic
aspect of socialism. I think it's possible, but only by giving up the
decentralized statism of traditional socialism.
>Does it strike you as a moral thing to do, to demand the resources
>that someone else may have earned?
No, but it is moral to demand resources that someone else has gotten due
to the way the system is structured, but which that person didn't really
earn.
cheers, scott
Roger Dapson
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> G*rd*n wrote:
> | >>> I guess I have to remind everybody, once again, that force
> | >>> and fraud have _already_ been initiated. For example, a
> | >>> person who has no capital _must_, is compelled, to find
> | >>> employment.
>
> | What kind of alternative would you suggest?
> |
> | necessary items, are you not contending that everyone has a right to
> | the resources produced by others, without respect to their
> | contribution?
>
> Those who want freedom will voluntarily set up some
> arrangement where people are not starved or exposed to the
> elements in order to force them to "work."
Gordan, you're trying to perpetrate a fraud. Under communism the citizens are required
john konopak
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> jam...@echeque.com (James A. donald):
> | ...
> | But most poor people in America *do* have cars, and the proportion is
> | increasing, as is demonstrated by the fact that Greyhound is closing
> | down most of its few remaining bus stations.
> | ...
>
> This may be because the poor are getting poorer, a widely-
> noted phenomenon. Woolworth's is closing, too.
> --
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
As usual, this is gonna be way too subtle for this lot, G*rd*n.
(That could be "garden" couldn't it?)
To equate the decline of greyhound with the demise of woolworth's is of
course quite accurate. If the ppor no longer have money to shop at the
five'n'dime, then presumably they also no longer have money tfor inter
city travel.
Except that all the "buy" recommendations lately ahve been for stocks
that cater to the poor? But that's not a paradox either, really, is it?
Because they (we, but for fortune) still ahve to purchase stuff, and
they are vulnerable to be gouged for their necessities. Invest in
Mickie-Dee's, you betcha!
Cheerfully despondently
konopak
Loren Petrich
In article <33E8F2...@wse.com>, Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> wrote:
>Harold Brashears wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:34:06 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
>> wrote:
>> > Furthermore, when you think of Communism, think of yourself the
>> >same way you think of capitalism -- think of yourself as a Party boss.
>> A Communist Party boss in the USSR had the power to deny the citizen a
>> job, to have them arrested and placed in a prison camp remarkable only
>> for its extreme cruelty, and even to have them killed. While you may
>> find that an attractive thing to "think of yourself as a Party boss",
>> I think it is repulsive.
Are you saying you wouldn't want that sort of power over others?
> Deny a citizen a job and then arrest them for not working!
Which differs only in degree from some ultracapitalist ideologies
and policies taken as a whole. Consider Alan Greenspan's worries about
too many people getting employed, and consider that ultracapitalists tend
to believe that people who cannot find jobs are just plain lazy.
G*rd*n
pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
| > wrote:
| > > Furthermore, when you think of Communism, think of yourself the
| > >same way you think of capitalism -- think of yourself as a Party boss.
Harold Brashears wrote:
| > A Communist Party boss in the USSR had the power to deny the citizen a
| > job, to have them arrested and placed in a prison camp remarkable only
| > for its extreme cruelty, and even to have them killed. While you may
| > find that an attractive thing to "think of yourself as a Party boss",
| > I think it is repulsive.
Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com>:
| Deny a citizen a job and then arrest them for not working!
Curiously, this was also true in 18th- and 19th-century
England -- persons of certain classes could be arrested for
not having a master or job.
G*rd*n
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| > This may be because the poor are getting poorer, a widely-
| > noted phenomenon.
jam...@echeque.com (James A. donald):
| How very strange that though the poor supposedly have been getting
| poorer steadily for several hundred years, the poor today seem to be
| one hell of a lot richer than the rich of a few centuries ago.
Just think: with all his wealth, King Louis XIV could not
sleep in the New York City subway.
Harold Brashears
On Wed, 6 Aug 1997 22:56:13 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
wrote:
Loren, didn't you reply to this once before?
>In article <33E8F2...@wse.com>, Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> wrote:
>>Harold Brashears wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:34:06 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
>>> wrote:
>>> > Furthermore, when you think of Communism, think of yourself the
>>> >same way you think of capitalism -- think of yourself as a Party boss.
>
>>> A Communist Party boss in the USSR had the power to deny the citizen a
>>> job, to have them arrested and placed in a prison camp remarkable only
>>> for its extreme cruelty, and even to have them killed. While you may
>>> find that an attractive thing to "think of yourself as a Party boss",
>>> I think it is repulsive.
>
> Are you saying you wouldn't want that sort of power over others?
Now you say the same thing here, implying that I would enjoy the power
of a Communist Party boss. I will be equally insulting, and ask if
you are not saying that only because it sounds attractive to *you*?
>> Deny a citizen a job and then arrest them for not working!
>
> Which differs only in degree from some ultracapitalist ideologies
>and policies taken as a whole. Consider Alan Greenspan's worries about
>too many people getting employed
You consider Greenspan an *ultracapitalist*. Is this correct? What
is an *ultracapitalist*? Do you mean a libertarian?
You misrepresent Greenspan, anyway. I have noted this for you before,
and now am forced to conclude that it is simply too complicated for
you to understand.
For any other readers, Greenspan, like many other economists, believes
that extremely low unemployment contributes to an increase in
inflation, which destroys economic progress. If economists believed
that 100% employment would not contribute to inflation, then they
would encourage that situation. Unemployment then, is used as an
indicator of something else.
I hope that other readers will understand this, I know that you do
not.
>, and consider that ultracapitalists tend
>to believe that people who cannot find jobs are just plain lazy.
It depends, does it not? Do you think that all people who cannot find
jobs are upstanding citizens, and the boss is standing at the door
threatening them if they think about working? An unusual view.
Regards, Harold
-----
"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody
endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
-Frederic Bastiat, (1801-1850), Essays on Political Economy
Mike Wooding
Loren Petrich wrote:
> In article <33E8F2...@wse.com>, Mike Wooding <mi...@wse.com> wrote:
> >Harold Brashears wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 15:34:06 GMT, pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
> >> wrote:
> >> > Furthermore, when you think of Communism, think of yourself the
> >> >same way you think of capitalism -- think of yourself as a Party boss.
>
> >> A Communist Party boss in the USSR had the power to deny the citizen a
> >> job, to have them arrested and placed in a prison camp remarkable only
> >> for its extreme cruelty, and even to have them killed. While you may
> >> find that an attractive thing to "think of yourself as a Party boss",
> >> I think it is repulsive.
>
> Are you saying you wouldn't want that sort of power over others?
I doubt Mr.Harold Brashears would want such power, and I KNOW I do not.
> > Deny a citizen a job and then arrest them for not working!
>
> Which differs only in degree from some ultracapitalist ideologies
> and policies taken as a whole. Consider Alan Greenspan's worries about
> too many people getting employed, and consider that ultracapitalists tend
> to believe that people who cannot find jobs are just plain lazy.
Nonsense. Alan Greenspan doesn't have the power or the inclination
to deny anyone a job or to arrest anyone for not working. I know
people who work off and on and certainly there's a significant
portion of the population which chooses not to work and lives at
public expense. Worrying about too many people being employed
(which I find ludicrous BTW) is substantially different from
denying a person a work permit and then arresting them for not
working. Perhaps the subtelty is lost on the looney-left? This
inability to make such profound distinctions ought to give great
pause to anyone tempted to take the looney-left seriously.
--
mi...@wse.com (Mike Wooding)
James A. Donald
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| > Curiously, this was also true in 18th- and 19th-century
>| > England -- persons of certain classes could be arrested for
>| > not having a master or job.
jam...@echeque.com (James A. donald):
>| The difference however, is that in a communist country the party had
>| an exclusive monopoly of jobs. To take a job with someone else, or to
>| create your own job, was a criminal act. Thus there is a vast
>| difference between the vagrancy laws in 18th century england, and the
>| parasitism laws in twentieth century communist countries.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> I think they had a similar purpose.
Doubtless they did. But the difference in power is enormous.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
G*rd*n wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>| >pet...@netcom.com (Loren Petrich):
>| >| > What a poor, exploited worker he is!!!!! [sarcasm]
>
>brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears):
>| >| No Loren, he has worked until he has the capital to hire someone less
>| >| provident. He is a worker, though, you got that right.
>| >| ...
>
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >There's no such requirement in capitalism. Capitalism
>| >doesn't know or care how the capitalist got the capital.
>
>brshears@^SNIP^whale.st.usm.edu (Harold Brashears):
>| You cut out the sentence I was replying to. I don't mind you trying
>| to comment, but I would request that you not cut out the context,
>| which is as follows:
>|
>| Deleted by gfc:
>| "And if you don't like the fact that your ancestors have been less
>| than thrifty for three generations, that gives you the right to take
>| wealth away from a man who worked HIMSELF from door-to-door-salesman
>| to multi-millionaire?"
>|
>| So as people can now see, the discussion was *about* a worker.
>|
>| In addition, I wish to point out that capitalism does not *know*
>| anything. I will try to break this gently, but to speak of an
>| economic system as if it had the ability to *know* something is, at
>| best, very anthropomorphic.
>
>In regard to your last paragraph, capitalism as an abstract
>idea doesn't know anything, but as an institution, which it
>also is -- a world-wide on at that -- it certainly stores
>and uses information -- I'd call that knowing things.
Capitalism is not an institution. It is voluntary cooperation -- the
sort of thing socialists and other anti-capitalists claim to want --
among a large number of institutions and individuals.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
G*rd*n wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| > Curiously, this was also true in 18th- and 19th-century
>| > England -- persons of certain classes could be arrested for
>| > not having a master or job.
>
>jam...@echeque.com (James A. donald):
>| The difference however, is that in a communist country the party had
>| an exclusive monopoly of jobs. To take a job with someone else, or to
>| create your own job, was a criminal act. Thus there is a vast
>| difference between the vagrancy laws in 18th century england, and the
>| parasitism laws in twentieth century communist countries.
>
>I think they had a similar purpose. And in England, the
>employers or masters were often the same people who served
>as magistrates.
You mean a typical small village with a population of 2 dozen
households would have 1 dozen magistrates?