What exactly is a Libertarian?
ericbl
The libertarian spectrum is bounded by two assertions: Thomas Jefferson's
statement that government is best which governs least and Henry David
Thoreau's statement that government is best which governs not at all.
Libertarianism is a philosophy of minimal government. Most libertarians
would reduce government to it's Constitutional duties. Some would reduce it
even further. Libertarians are complete in their belief in individual
liberty. Most libertarians would support the following policies:
Radically reduced government spending
Radically lower and simplify taxes (or eliminate them altogether)
Property Rights
Deregulation
Privatization of government services
The right to keep and bear arms
Educational Choice
Freedom of Speech
Market-based health care
Term limits for politicians
And the ever popular legalization of Drugs, prostitution, etc.
You can be a libertarian and not be a Libertarian Party member. Milton
Friedman who is a Nobel Prize winning economist and advisor to the Reagan
Administration calls himself a libertarian. William Buckley says that he's
about 80% libertarian. There's an organization which is tries to organize
libertarians within the GOP -- the Republican Liberty Caucus. There are
also a number of libertarian think tanks, the most important of which is the
CATO Institute.
Here are some web sites to get you started:
The Libertarian Party http://www.lp.org
The Republican Liberty Caucus http://www.rlc.org
The CATA Institute http://www.cato.org
C. Hawkins wrote in message
<01bd6ccf$1b86efa0$7a11...@Hawkins.monroe.lib.mi.us>...
>Hello
>
>Last April 15th I dropped my taxes off at the post office. A man handed me
>a pamphlet that advised me to contact the local Libertarian group about how
>to abolish the current tax code.
>
>As of now I am a Republican and damned proud, but I am also looking to
>reform America. Can anyone tell me what the basic views are of
>Libertarians?
>
>
>thanks
>
>
>--
>Charles Hawkins
>Madison, WI
>
>chaw...@midplains.net
Mitchell Holman
In article <KLV_.623$ne6.6...@news.internetMCI.com>, "ericbl" <eric.bla...@MCI2000.com> wrote:
}The libertarian spectrum is bounded by two assertions: Thomas Jefferson's
}statement that government is best which governs least and Henry David
}Thoreau's statement that government is best which governs not at all.
}
}Libertarianism is a philosophy of minimal government. Most libertarians
}would reduce government to it's Constitutional duties. Some would reduce it
}even further. Libertarians are complete in their belief in individual
}liberty. Most libertarians would support the following policies:
}
}Radically reduced government spending
}Radically lower and simplify taxes (or eliminate them altogether)
}Property Rights
}Deregulation
}Privatization of government services
}The right to keep and bear arms
}Educational Choice
}Freedom of Speech
}Market-based health care
}Term limits for politicians
This last one is new to me. Why would libertarians be in
favor of a government regulation on political offices? That
sounds like less freedom, not more.
Mitchell Holman
"I'm not a libertarian. I am not for greed as the ultimate cultural value."
Newt Gingrich, USN&World Report, 1982
Ward Donald Griffiths III
Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> In article <KLV_.623$ne6.6...@news.internetMCI.com>, "ericbl" <eric.bla...@MCI2000.com> wrote:
> }The libertarian spectrum is bounded by two assertions: Thomas Jefferson's
> }statement that government is best which governs least and Henry David
> }Thoreau's statement that government is best which governs not at all.
> }Term limits for politicians
>
> This last one is new to me. Why would libertarians be in
> favor of a government regulation on political offices? That
> sounds like less freedom, not more.
I can't speak for other libertarians (by definition), but I've long
been in favor of limiting the number of terms a politician can "serve"
to _zero_. Well, maybe some fraction of _one_ at local level, since
lynchings are great entertainment and help to thin the herd.
--
Ward Griffiths
They say that politics makes strange bedfellows.
Of course, the main reason they cuddle up is to screw somebody else.
Michael Flynn, _Rogue Star_
do...@stone-soup.com
>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> In article <KLV_.623$ne6.6...@news.internetMCI.com>, "ericbl" <eric.bla...@MCI2000.com> wrote:
>> }The libertarian spectrum is bounded by two assertions: Thomas Jefferson's
>> }statement that government is best which governs least and Henry David
>> }Thoreau's statement that government is best which governs not at all.
>
>> }Term limits for politicians
>>
>> This last one is new to me. Why would libertarians be in
>> favor of a government regulation on political offices? That
>> sounds like less freedom, not more.
>
>I can't speak for other libertarians (by definition), but I've long
>been in favor of limiting the number of terms a politician can "serve"
>to _zero_. Well, maybe some fraction of _one_ at local level, since
>lynchings are great entertainment and help to thin the herd.
>--
While the lynchings do sound like great entertainment. I think that
we already have in place the laws to limit terms. When a politiction
is campaigning he is not doing what he was paid to do. We pay them to
work for us when they are not working for us but are getting a check
from us that is theft by fraud.
Bottom line, Incumbunts can not campaign in anyway (make the
interpitation so strict of what campaigning is that no one will try)
untill after 6:00 or on weekends.
S. Douglas Heard do...@stone-soup.com
Stone Soup Canine http://www.stone-soup.com
It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.
"liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others."
William Allen White
ericbl
Term limit go back to the Jeffersonian principal of rotation in office. The
LP platform also calls for the abolition of the permanent civil service so
that this principal can be applied to the bureaucrats as well.
do...@stone-soup.com wrote in message
<353f1592...@news.atlantic.net>...
dg...@hdo.net
The following is my idea of libertinism though I am a registered Libertarian
my beliefs are my own:
. I believe the constitution was designed for everyone regardless of race,
color, ethnicity, or social standing.
2. I believe our government is operating outside the constitution and should
return to a constitutional government.
3. I believe the 2nd Amendment should be enforced as vigorously as all of
the other constitutional Amendments.
4. I believe the Federal Government should maintain a military, negotiate
treaties and develop foreign policy on behalf of the states and common
wealths of the republic.
5. I don’t believe the Federal Government should legislate a woman’s uterus.
These decisions should be left up the families and doctors (this does not
mean that I personally believe in abortions). Everyone has a right to
personal responsibility if a person makes an immoral decision then God will
make that judgement not man.
6. I believe rather than enacting new law, congress should repeal the law
that caused the problem in the first place.
7. I believe in property rights, if the government must intervene and stop
someone’s lawful use of their land the government must reimburse the
landowner.
8. I believe if the government is unwilling to allow public access and use
to public lands then the government must rename those lands to government
property.
9. I believe in human rights not animal rights however, I do not believe in
being mean or cruel to animals.
10. I believe people are basically good, kind, and caring toward other
people and the government should stop trying to legislate how people feel
towards each other.
11. I believe people can not be pigeonholed and centralizing governments can
only work by centralizing people and pigeonholing them.
12. I believe our government has turned against God and has become
anti-religion so people will turn to the government for guidance.
13. I believe our government should stop lying to us and should be held
responsible for what it tells its citizens.
14. I believe our government will not change nor care to without extreme
public pressure.
15. I do not believe in government seizures without due process (IRS, DEA,
ect).
16. I believe that today’s civil rights laws are designed to keep races
apart rather help the races to get along.
Now with that said, here's the country as I see it. Todays Americans
complain about the federal government interfering with their everyday life.
However what I have noticed is John Q. Public is in reality asking the
federal government come in, and take our constitutional rights away from us,
which the Feds are more than willing to do!
David G. Lawler
dgl...@hdo.net
FU
Good post. Here's the synopsis of my beliefs regarding government:
I believe that humans are born with inherent, unassailable rights. The
greatest of these is the right to be left alone by government. I believe in
the right of people to assemble or not assemble; to communicate or not
communicate; to worship or not worship; to live their lives as they please
so long as they do not interfere with another’s right to do the same. I
also believe in the right of people to associate, or not associate, with
whomever they choose, for whatever reason, in whatever setting.
I believe in the right of people to defend themselves, their families, and
property from criminals and from criminal government.
I believe in the rule of law. I believe that has any function at all, it is
to discover, codify, and enforce laws that have evolved with society. I
believe that is it simplistic and dangerous for government to use the law in
a utopian way to mandate behaviors that are inconsistent with the natural
evolution of society.
I believe in the right of people to try to improve their lives and the lives
of their families. I believe in the right to fail. I believe in the
inherent ability of people to learn and be strengthened from their failures.
I believe that if God wanted us to have equal outcomes, he would not have
created us all so different.
I believe that the free market, which evolved as an intricate part of human
society, is the best way to ensure prosperity and the fair and broad
distribution of that prosperity within society.
I believe that the overwhelming majority of decisions in society should be
left to individuals and to the voluntary associations to which they belong.
I believe that voluntary associations such as family, neighborhood, church,
business, charities, and various community and social organizations are the
foundation of a civil society and therefore are also the greatest bulwarks
against government tyranny. I believe that the government has no right,
obligation, or moral imperative to regulate voluntary associations in any
way.
I believe that the current trend to politicize virtually every aspect of our
existence is the greatest threat we’ve faced as a people. I believe that
the rights, property, and lives of the politically unconnected should not be
placed at the disposal of politicians to sell to the politically connected,
regardless of whether the process for doing so is democratic or autocratic.
I believe that consolidated political power is the greatest threat to
individual liberty. I believe that political power, where it exists at all,
should be distributed in the broadest way, among separate, unassociated,
government entities at the level closest to the people that it effects.
dgl...@hdo.net wrote in message <6htjbr$p4f$1...@tco2.tco.net>...
Hokey Wolf
In article <_Ds01.1783$ub.25...@news.internetMCI.com>, "FU"
<f...@anarchy.org> wrote:
?Good post. Here's the synopsis of my beliefs regarding government:
?
?I believe that humans are born with inherent, unassailable rights.
Based on what???
?I believe that the free market, which evolved as an intricate part of human
?society, is the best way to ensure prosperity and the fair and broad
?distribution of that prosperity within society.
Hahhahahhoooo!!!! My God!
?I believe that consolidated political power is the greatest threat to
?individual liberty.
You mean like free markets?
I believe that political power, where it exists at all,
?should be distributed in the broadest way, among separate, unassociated,
?government entities at the level closest to the people that it effects.
So Libertarians are like communists?
Hokey Wolf
In article <6htjbr$p4f$1...@tco2.tco.net>, "dgl...@hdo.net" <dg...@hdo.net> wrote:
?7. I believe in property rights,
Based on what?
Hokey Wolf
Libertarians (as opposed to libertarians) are just another in a long line
of power-mongering authoritarians who've always made the world a very sad
place.
Ask one if they'd advocate say, the leveling of the playing field in the
US, since so much of its economic ancestry consists of slavery and
genocide (they consider this "force" which is against their stated
principles). Every one I've talked to weasels out of it. I think this
selectivity (among lots of other things) reveals their true motives.
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
What are the true motives then? How would you redistribute the wealth?
If the past thirty owners of my property aquired it through just
means(don't argue that point, it's just foolishness and you know it),
where do you get the right to take it? Who would you give it to? In
any economy someone is going to end up on top(remember Nozick's argument
against pattern theory fo justice), do you really believe that it's
unfair?
Now it's your turn to answer questions...
j.a.sommerville
Dennis I's=
> So Libertarians are like communists?
communist........community, they act for the best for the body of
community( or actually they should :o) )
libertarian...........liberty, they act out of selfintrest,
induvidualism.
--
=freeŠankhorŽO+-3~.xs2all.I's=
Michael Zarlenga
Dennis I's= (ankhor@*REMOVE*cybercomm.nl) wrote:
: > So Libertarians are like communists?
: No they are not.
: communist........community, they act for the best for the body of
: community( or actually they should :o) )
: libertarian...........liberty, they act out of self interest,
: individualism.
Everyone does, to some extent.
But don't make the common mistake of ASSUming that Libertarians
act ONLY out of self-interest.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
finger zarl...@conan.ids.net for PGP public key
Is *your* religion Janet Reno approved ...
"A cultist is one who has a strong belief in the Bible and the Second
Coming of Christ; who frequently attends Bible studies; who has a high
level of financial giving to a Christian cause; who home schools for
their children; who has accumulated survival foods and has a strong
belief in the Second Amendment; and who distrusts big government.
Any of these may qualify [a person as a cultist] but certainly more
than one [of these] would cause us to look at this person as a threat,
and his family as being in a risk situation that qualified for
government interference."
--Attorney General Janet Reno, Interview on 60 Minutes, June 26, 1994
Hokey Wolf
In article <3542AE...@matrix.newpaltz.edu>, ??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu
wrote:
?Hokey Wolf wrote:
?>
?> Libertarians (as opposed to libertarians) are just another in a long line
?> of power-mongering authoritarians who've always made the world a very sad
?> place.
?>
?> Ask one if they'd advocate say, the leveling of the playing field in the
?> US, since so much of its economic ancestry consists of slavery and
?> genocide (they consider this "force" which is against their stated
?> principles). Every one I've talked to weasels out of it. I think this
?> selectivity (among lots of other things) reveals their true motives.
?
?What are the true motives then?
Libertarians see (erroneously or not) free-market capitalism as their best
chance to enhance and maintain the current social hierarchy.
?How would you redistribute the wealth?
Fairly?
?If the past thirty owners of my property aquired it through just
?means(don't argue that point, it's just foolishness and you know it),
?where do you get the right to take it?
The question was, where did *they* get the right to take it. And why do
you have the right to own it currently?
? Who would you give it to?
How about distributing it equally?
In
?any economy someone is going to end up on top(remember Nozick's argument
?against pattern theory fo justice), do you really believe that it's
?unfair?
The inability to achieve perfect justice doesn't mean we shouldn't strive
for the best we can do. I doubt you would advocate total lawlessness;
after all then there'd be no property rights.
Hokey Wolf
In article <35433123.MD-0.196.ankhor@*REMOVE*cybercomm.nl>, "Dennis I's="
<ankhor@*REMOVE*cybercomm.nl> wrote:
? > So Libertarians are like communists?
?No they are not.
?communist........community, they act for the best for the body of
?community( or actually they should :o) )
?
?libertarian...........liberty, they act out of selfintrest,
?induvidualism.
And very, very often the two enhance eachother.
But you're talking about the capital L version, Libertarian. The word
libertarian is defined as something along the lines of the belief in
freedom of action and thought. And communism is defined as public
ownership and classlessness, isn't it? Again, not mutually exclusive
concepts.
FU
Let's see...
Libertarian: "freedom of action" like owning and business and employing
people
Communism: "public ownership" of business
Sorry, they are incompatible from the word go.
Hokey Wolf wrote in message ...
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
Hokey Wolf wrote:
>
> In article <3542AE...@matrix.newpaltz.edu>, ??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu
> wrote:
>
> ?Hokey Wolf wrote:
> ?>
> ?> Libertarians (as opposed to libertarians) are just another in a long line
> ?> of power-mongering authoritarians who've always made the world a very sad
> ?> place.
> ?>
> ?> Ask one if they'd advocate say, the leveling of the playing field in the
> ?> US, since so much of its economic ancestry consists of slavery and
> ?> genocide (they consider this "force" which is against their stated
> ?> principles). Every one I've talked to weasels out of it. I think this
> ?> selectivity (among lots of other things) reveals their true motives.
> ?
> ?What are the true motives then?
>
> Libertarians see (erroneously or not) free-market capitalism as their best
> chance to enhance and maintain the current social hierarchy.
>
> ?How would you redistribute the wealth?
>
> Fairly?
>
for how long? What do you do to stop the wealth from again flowing into
in-equality? If you were to redistribute the wealth, giving everyone
exactly the same amount, it wouldn't take long for certain individuals
to again have dispraportionate ammounts of wealth. Let's say I give a
really good backrub- people come to me from all over to give backrubs I
do them so well. Now giving backrubs is something I do above and beyond
the state-mandated job that I take must be part of your system. I get
home from work, doing whatever it is you are forcing me to do, and I
find three people standing in front of my door, exhausted and sore after
a day working at THEIR state-mandated job. Now I really don't feel like
giving any of these people a backrub, and I tell them that. They offer
to reimburse me. This sounds good to me, so I give them all backrubs.
I'm giving backrubs in a very free market sort of way- I'm offering a
service that people are willing to pay for- we agree on a price and then
I complete my task- Sounds fair to me. How is that not fair? It is
under your system, because I'm going to end up with ammounts of
money/goods/services-in-return that are "unfair." Please tell me how
you'll solve this problem in a way that doesn't turn your own stomach-
and don't tell me that putting huge taxes on my backrubs is somehow
fair-
> ?If the past thirty owners of my property aquired it through just
> ?means(don't argue that point, it's just foolishness and you know it),
> ?where do you get the right to take it?
>
> The question was, where did *they* get the right to take it. And why do
> you have the right to own it currently?
>
Is this the question that all socialists are now forced to fall back
on? "Alright, fine, our system doesn't work: your capitalism does
create wealth where ours can't; your system is actually better for the
poor; your system is the least tyranical and the most truly fair, as it
gives equality of opportunity; BUT I don't see where you get the right
to do all of these things in the first place... <whine whine, sniffle
sniffle>"
I'll answer you though-
Where did they get the right to take it in the first place? hmmm... it
is a tough question... designed to stump the rational... hmmm...
I guess you don't believe in natural law, eh? Read Bastiat's "The Law"
all my answers are in the first two pages- if you don't agree with what
he's saying(you can ignore the God parts if you wish, they aren't
necessary as a part of his argument) then I'm not sure we can find
common ground to continue this with- read it and tell me where you have
problems with his basic premise- maybe you can take a look at Locke's
"Second Treatise" as well
> ? Who would you give it to?
>
> How about distributing it equally?
>
look back a couple of questions to my back-rub example- you can't come
in every couple of years and redistribute the wealth- it would kill
ambition and nothing would get accomplished-
Rational Self-Interest
think about it, it's really all I'm interested it
> In
> ?any economy someone is going to end up on top(remember Nozick's argument
> ?against pattern theory fo justice), do you really believe that it's
> ?unfair?
>
> The inability to achieve perfect justice doesn't mean we shouldn't strive
> for the best we can do. I doubt you would advocate total lawlessness;
> after all then there'd be no property rights.
I don't advocate total lawlessness- I want you to respect my individual
and material rights- I want you to recognize the value of my work, just
as I recognize the value of yours. I want to live in a place where I am
judged as an individual on my own merits, and rewarded as I deserve. I
don't anticipate ever being rich, but I don't expect to ever go hungry
either- I'm not arguing here to protect the rich, but to protect my own
right to rise to the level I deserve.
j.a.sommerville
Mike Connell
Hi,
"> I believe that humans are born with inherent, unassailable
"> rights. The greatest of these is the right to be left alone
"> by government. I believe in the right of people to assemble
"> or not assemble; to communicate or not communicate; to worship
"> or not worship; to live their lives as they please so long as
"> they do not interfere with anotherAs right to do the same. I
"> also believe in the right of people to associate, or not
"> associate, with whomever they choose, for whatever reason, in
"> whatever setting.
And who will enforce these rights? Not that they can because that will mean
they will fringe the rights of the person who is breaking rights anyway!
"> I believe in the right of people to defend themselves, their
"> families, and property from criminals and from criminal
"> government.
But government is the stability of the nation, without it we would be in a very
negative form of anarchy.
"> I believe in the rule of law. I believe that has any function
"> at all, it is to discover, codify, and enforce laws that have
"> evolved with society. I believe that is it simplistic and
"> dangerous for government to use the law in a utopian way to
"> mandate behaviors that are inconsistent with the natural
"> evolution of society.
Is life really so bad now that we need to go through some kind of revolution
that, chances are, will lead to a return to the stone age.
"> I believe that the free market, which evolved as an intricate
"> part of human society, is the best way to ensure prosperity
"> and the fair and broad distribution of that prosperity within
"> society.
And what happens to those who oppose the free market for a planned economy?
Cya - MikeC
Fidonet : 2:254/211.18
Internet: m...@imperial.craybbs.co.uk
-=-=-Connect to MOAN_UK today!-=-=-
--
Djarum
>Good post. Here's the synopsis of my beliefs regarding government:
>
>I believe that humans are born with inherent, unassailable rights. The
>greatest of these is the right to be left alone by government.
The problem with a statement like this is there is no way to prove you
aren't just pulling it out of thin air. And why is the greatest right to
be left alone by the government? This right is more important than, say,
the right to be alive? Which is worse: I come over to your house and
shoot you, or the government taxes you and meddles in your affairs? "Give
me liberty or give me death" must be your personal motto! :)
>I believe in
>the right of people to assemble or not assemble; to communicate or not
>communicate; to worship or not worship; to live their lives as they please
>so long as they do not interfere with another’s right to do the same. I
>also believe in the right of people to associate, or not associate, with
>whomever they choose, for whatever reason, in whatever setting.
>
>I believe in the right of people to defend themselves, their families, and
>property from criminals and from criminal government.
I agree with all that.
>I believe in the rule of law. I believe that has any function at all, it is
>to discover, codify, and enforce laws that have evolved with society. I
>believe that is it simplistic and dangerous for government to use the law in
>a utopian way to mandate behaviors that are inconsistent with the natural
>evolution of society.
If you believe in the "natural evolution of society" why do you believe in
innate rights? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that 'rights' are a
product of this social evolution?
>I believe in the right of people to try to improve their lives and the lives
>of their families. I believe in the right to fail. I believe in the
>inherent ability of people to learn and be strengthened from their failures.
>I believe that if God wanted us to have equal outcomes, he would not have
>created us all so different.
I don't believe any gods exist but I still agree with you. If we are to
survive people must be able to succeed but also to fail. What
differentiates me from state-socialists and people like the Democrats in
the US is that I can't accept that you can *make* people equal and happy-
its something you have to do for yourself.
>I believe that the free market, which evolved as an intricate part of human
>society, is the best way to ensure prosperity and the fair and broad
>distribution of that prosperity within society.
Hmmm...you're somewhat delusional. Capitalism is not known for evenly
distributing wealth in a society. In fact it's known for doing the
opposite. I've never even heard any other capitalists make a claim like
that...
>I believe that the overwhelming majority of decisions in society should be
>left to individuals and to the voluntary associations to which they belong.
>I believe that voluntary associations such as family, neighborhood, church,
>business, charities, and various community and social organizations are the
>foundation of a civil society and therefore are also the greatest bulwarks
>against government tyranny. I believe that the government has no right,
>obligation, or moral imperative to regulate voluntary associations in any
>way.
Makes sense. Why should we even give the government a right to exist in
the first place?
>I believe that the current trend to politicize virtually every aspect of our
>existence is the greatest threat we’ve faced as a people. I believe that
>the rights, property, and lives of the politically unconnected should not be
>placed at the disposal of politicians to sell to the politically connected,
>regardless of whether the process for doing so is democratic or autocratic.
>
>I believe that consolidated political power is the greatest threat to
>individual liberty. I believe that political power, where it exists at all,
>should be distributed in the broadest way, among separate, unassociated,
>government entities at the level closest to the people that it effects.
That last statement sounded vaguely...socialist, if you replaced
'political' with, say, 'economic.'
Power is power, no matter what form it takes. Power is just control over
people and resources. It could be political (by controlling and enforcing
law), religious (controlling 'souls') etc. *Any* kind of consolidated
power, not just political, has the potential to threaten individual
liberty. Thus, would you go as far as saying power in general should be
distributed in the broadest way?
I think you are a confused libertarian socialist. You recognize the
importance of individual rights, and you protest intrusion of those rights
by government. But you need to see that corporate power can be just as
dangerous as government. In capitalist countries wealth is not
distributed evenly at all, rather, only a small fraction of the population
controls most of the resources. This rich minority ruthlessly exploits the
poor, sometimes forcing them to work at practically slave wages. In the
past this system dominated the US, now, as conditions improve here
cooperations exploit workers in non-developed countries because they are
not protected by the same laws.
You protest domination of society by the elite (the "politically
connected")- thus you see the conflict between political-haves and
political-have-nots. Now you need to broaden your understanding to
realize that it is not just political power that creates the division.
Don't look at it so one-dimensionally.
=========================================
Matt
djar...@usa.net
http://acs3.bu.edu:8001/~mfhill/
Djarum
In article <yeah-26049...@pm10-125.orf.infi.net>, ye...@yeah.net
(Hokey Wolf ) wrote:
>In article <35433123.MD-0.196.ankhor@*REMOVE*cybercomm.nl>, "Dennis I's="
><ankhor@*REMOVE*cybercomm.nl> wrote:
>
>And very, very often the two enhance eachother.
>
>But you're talking about the capital L version, Libertarian. The word
>libertarian is defined as something along the lines of the belief in
>freedom of action and thought. And communism is defined as public
>ownership and classlessness, isn't it? Again, not mutually exclusive
>concepts.
Doesn't that depend on what you mean by 'public ownership'? If public
ownership is a state controlling resources, telling people what to produce
then it is in conflict with liberty. If it's people living in voluntary
organizations, willingly sharing what they produce it isn't.
I guess it all depends on how you want to define liberty. I think liberty
is just the freedom to do what you want, but of course there have to be
some limitations imposed by the society. Others think liberty includes
the freedom to hoard capital to yourself and your class, to the detriment
of everyone else. So what it comes down to is- are you an asshole, or are
you not an asshole? Do you want a system that's cool for everyone, or do
you only care about yourself?
Lepore
Maybe YOUR wealth was acquired through peronal work.
But it's easy to find names of some people for whom this
isn't true. Go to the Fortune Magazine website,
search on source of wealth = inheritance, and list
the names in descending order of billions of dollars,
down through the hundreds of millions of dollars.
You are looking at modern society's ruling class,
the modern equivalent of the family of Augustus
and Tiberius in ancient Rome.
--
M. Lepore
* * Click me if you like socialism:
* * * http://www.netizen.org/mal/soc.htm
FU
Poor, poor envious baby. Your idiotic theories about the so-called "ruling
class" demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of the world around you.
Are you a school teacher or college professor? Just curious. A lot of
uninformed people on this board seem to be one or the other. Who gives a
shit about inherited wealth? Not me. Most people who inherit great wealth
wind up as basket cases. You need to look no further than the Kennedy clan
for a demonstration of this. The vast majority of wealthy Americans earned
their money through the extremely hard work of a building and running a
business. Please, by all means. Go back to your 19th century books on
Marxism and revel in your little fantasy world. Leave the discussion on
public affairs to people who actually have a clue.
Lepore wrote in message <354481...@mhxv.net>...
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
Mike Connell wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> "> I believe that humans are born with inherent, unassailable
> "> rights. The greatest of these is the right to be left alone
> "> or not assemble; to communicate or not communicate; to worship
> "> or not worship; to live their lives as they please so long as
> "> also believe in the right of people to associate, or not
> "> associate, with whomever they choose, for whatever reason, in
> "> whatever setting.
>
> they will fringe the rights of the person who is breaking rights anyway!
>
> "> I believe in the right of people to defend themselves, their
> "> families, and property from criminals and from criminal
> "> government.
>
> But government is the stability of the nation, without it we would be in a very
> negative form of anarchy.
>
no one here is calling for a complete repeal of govt. (Are you in
alt.anarchism? this string is much MUCH broader)
just for the removal of unnecessary and intrusive govt.
> "> I believe in the rule of law. I believe that has any function
> "> at all, it is to discover, codify, and enforce laws that have
> "> evolved with society. I believe that is it simplistic and
> "> dangerous for government to use the law in a utopian way to
> "> mandate behaviors that are inconsistent with the natural
> "> evolution of society.
>
> Is life really so bad now that we need to go through some kind of revolution
> that, chances are, will lead to a return to the stone age.
>
you ARE coming from alt.anarchism, aren't you?
take a look at the other newsgroups listed in the thread before you
start making general comments that are better adressed to a specific
group-
> "> I believe that the free market, which evolved as an intricate
> "> part of human society, is the best way to ensure prosperity
> "> and the fair and broad distribution of that prosperity within
> "> society.
>
> And what happens to those who oppose the free market for a planned economy?
>
what about them? Since this is a Libertarian thread(looking at the
subject), I'll give you a Libertarian answer-
Federalism- Govt. at different levels, each level holding different
responsibilities- Rights extend outwards- the smallest groups rights
superseding any claim a larger group *tries* to make against them- while
the larger groups laws, which do not inhibit these rights, supersede the
laws beneath them- the law you wish to make calling for a collectivist
economy is blocked by the right of the individual to his property-
That's why it those who would prefer a planned economy over the free
market can't do anything about it without the use of force against
honest, Rights bearing, citizens-
j.a.sommerville
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
FU wrote:
>
> Poor, poor envious baby. Your idiotic theories about the so-called "ruling
> class" demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of the world around you.
> Are you a school teacher or college professor? Just curious. A lot of
> uninformed people on this board seem to be one or the other. Who gives a
> shit about inherited wealth? Not me. Most people who inherit great wealth
> wind up as basket cases. You need to look no further than the Kennedy clan
> for a demonstration of this. The vast majority of wealthy Americans earned
> their money through the extremely hard work of a building and running a
> business. Please, by all means. Go back to your 19th century books on
> Marxism and revel in your little fantasy world. Leave the discussion on
> public affairs to people who actually have a clue.
>
How True!!! Inheritence may not seem very fair(it isn't), but it can't
be helped in a just society. However there is a leveling mechanism
built into capitalism when it comes to Inheritence- if they can't handle
the money they loose it quickly enough- you can hire as many advisors as
you want, if you don't have the first clue about how money works, and
how to make it grow, you're going to loose it-
j.a.sommerville
> Lepore wrote in message <354481...@mhxv.net>...
> >Maybe YOUR wealth was acquired through peronal work.
> >But it's easy to find names of some people for whom this
> >isn't true. Go to the Fortune Magazine website,
> >search on source of wealth = inheritance, and list
> >the names in descending order of billions of dollars,
> >down through the hundreds of millions of dollars.
> >You are looking at modern society's ruling class,
> >the modern equivalent of the family of Augustus
> >and Tiberius in ancient Rome.
> >
> >
> >--
> >
> >M. Lepore
> >
> >
> >
> > * * Click me if you are a nut case:
FU
The libertarian movement contains more than it's share of
anarcho-capitalists -- people who believe in no government. The posting on
the libertarian board as well as the anarchist board is proper.
??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu wrote in message
<3544E7...@matrix.newpaltz.edu>...
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
Yes, but it appeared that the poster was assuming that the comments were
concerning a total lack of government- the anarchy of Hobbes "life is
nasty, brutish, and short", rather than the state of affairs in a
anarcho-capitilist society, which would be libertarian. The subject
line is "What exactly is a Libertarian?" Not- "let's bash anarchy." I
merely reminded the poster of the way that usenet opperates, and to be
more careful about shooting at his ng, rather than the thread.
Was I justified?
Djarum
In article <3544E8...@matrix.newpaltz.edu>, ??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu
wrote:
>How True!!! Inheritence may not seem very fair(it isn't), but it can't
>be helped in a just society.
What the hell kind of sense does that make? It's not fair, but it's just??
Inheritance is a way for people of one class to keep their wealth in the
same class and prevent it from being evenly distributed. In a just
society there would be a roughly even distribution of wealth, hence there
could be no inheritance as we know it today.
>However there is a leveling mechanism
>built into capitalism when it comes to Inheritence- if they can't handle
>the money they loose it quickly enough- you can hire as many advisors as
>you want, if you don't have the first clue about how money works, and
>how to make it grow, you're going to loose it-
This leveling mechanism doesn't work as well as you might hope. Some
people might be retards and burn their inheritance like you said, but what
happens more often then not is that they are smart enough to hang on to
it. Just because someone isn't a good investor doesn't mean they are
necessarily going to loose their money...all they have to do is put it in
a trustworthy bank and they'll be fine. The result of this is a class of
people that have money they haven't worked for, while others work their
asses off to get nowhere. I don't get this from 19th century Marxist
writings...I get it from looking at the fucked up world around me.
Andrew M Glasgow
note: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh removed from posting.
Djarum wrote:
>
> In article <_Ds01.1783$ub.25...@news.internetMCI.com>, "FU"
> <f...@anarchy.org> wrote:
>
> >Good post. Here's the synopsis of my beliefs regarding government:
> >
> >I believe that humans are born with inherent, unassailable rights. The
> >greatest of these is the right to be left alone by government.
>
> The problem with a statement like this is there is no way to prove you
> aren't just pulling it out of thin air. And why is the greatest right to
> be left alone by the government? This right is more important than, say,
> the right to be alive? Which is worse: I come over to your house and
> shoot you, or the government taxes you and meddles in your affairs? "Give
> me liberty or give me death" must be your personal motto! :)
It is ridiculous to say which natural rights are more natural or less right
than others. The only thing you can say is which are more important to YOU AT
THIS MOMENT. In Stalinist USSR, the right to be left alone by the government
was, for some, equivalent to the right to life.
> >I believe in
> >the right of people to assemble or not assemble; to communicate or not
> >communicate; to worship or not worship; to live their lives as they please
> >so long as they do not interfere with another’s right to do the same. I
> >also believe in the right of people to associate, or not associate, with
> >whomever they choose, for whatever reason, in whatever setting.
> >
> >I believe in the right of people to defend themselves, their families, and
> >property from criminals and from criminal government.
>
> I agree with all that.
Very few would not.
> >I believe in the rule of law. I believe that has any function at all, it is
> >to discover, codify, and enforce laws that have evolved with society. I
> >believe that is it simplistic and dangerous for government to use the law in
> >a utopian way to mandate behaviors that are inconsistent with the natural
> >evolution of society.
>
> If you believe in the "natural evolution of society" why do you believe in
> innate rights? Wouldn't it make more sense to say that 'rights' are a
> product of this social evolution?
The existence and non-existence of rights is a subject worthy of a much
longer, much better thought out post. I'm working on one, actually. I'll post
it once I'm done.
> >I believe in the right of people to try to improve their lives and the lives
> >of their families. I believe in the right to fail. I believe in the
> >inherent ability of people to learn and be strengthened from their failures.
> >I believe that if God wanted us to have equal outcomes, he would not have
> >created us all so different.
>
> I don't believe any gods exist but I still agree with you. If we are to
> survive people must be able to succeed but also to fail.
In the evolution of society, just as in biological evolution, there must be
those who fall by the wayside -- or so this idea suggests. But in cultural
evolution, unlike biological evolution, the individual is not always the unit
of selection. Communities can be as well, as can ideas within individuals (Memes).
It is possible for a idea -- a corner store, for example -- to fail, without
the people who carried that idea falling into utter poverty.
What
> differentiates me from state-socialists and people like the Democrats in
> the US is that I can't accept that you can *make* people equal and happy-
> its something you have to do for yourself.
Agreed. In _We_ Ziamatin (sp?) suggested that it might be that happiness is
inversely proportional to freedom.
> >I believe that the free market, which evolved as an intricate part of human
> >society, is the best way to ensure prosperity and the fair and broad
> >distribution of that prosperity within society.
>
> Hmmm...you're somewhat delusional. Capitalism is not known for evenly
> distributing wealth in a society. In fact it's known for doing the
> opposite. I've never even heard any other capitalists make a claim like
> that...
Well, capitalism is not a true free market.
> >I believe that the overwhelming majority of decisions in society should be
> >left to individuals and to the voluntary associations to which they belong.
> >I believe that voluntary associations such as family, neighborhood, church,
> >business, charities, and various community and social organizations are the
> >foundation of a civil society and therefore are also the greatest bulwarks
> >against government tyranny. I believe that the government has no right,
> >obligation, or moral imperative to regulate voluntary associations in any
> >way.
>
> Makes sense. Why should we even give the government a right to exist in
> the first place?
The state is a figment of its own imagination. As such, it has no rights,
because it does not exist in the same way that a person exists (although it
nonetheless exists in a different way). It makes as much sense to ask whether
governments have rights as to ask whether Mr. Spock on Star Trek has rights.
In other words, governments have "rights" in situations where they are dealing
with other governments, but not when they are dealing with people, just as Mr.
Spock has rights within the Star Trek universe, where he is a person, but not
in our universe, where he is a fiction.
> >I believe that the current trend to politicize virtually every aspect of our
> >existence is the greatest threat we’ve faced as a people. I believe that
> >the rights, property, and lives of the politically unconnected should not be
> >placed at the disposal of politicians to sell to the politically connected,
> >regardless of whether the process for doing so is democratic or autocratic.
> >
> >I believe that consolidated political power is the greatest threat to
> >individual liberty. I believe that political power, where it exists at all,
> >should be distributed in the broadest way, among separate, unassociated,
> >government entities at the level closest to the people that it effects.
>
> That last statement sounded vaguely...socialist, if you replaced
> 'political' with, say, 'economic.'
There's a difference?
> Power is power, no matter what form it takes. Power is just control over
> people and resources.
I believe that anarchism (my political philosophy) should be dedicated
towards eliminating people's power over others and increasing people's power
over themselves.
It could be political (by controlling and enforcing
> law), religious (controlling 'souls') etc. *Any* kind of consolidated
> power, not just political, has the potential to threaten individual
> liberty. Thus, would you go as far as saying power in general should be
> distributed in the broadest way?
Yes.
> I think you are a confused libertarian socialist. You recognize the
> importance of individual rights, and you protest intrusion of those rights
> by government. But you need to see that corporate power can be just as
> dangerous as government. In capitalist countries wealth is not
> distributed evenly at all, rather, only a small fraction of the population
> controls most of the resources. This rich minority ruthlessly exploits the
> poor, sometimes forcing them to work at practically slave wages. In the
> past this system dominated the US, now, as conditions improve here
> cooperations exploit workers in non-developed countries because they are
> not protected by the same laws.
Capitalism is not the same as free market anarcho-libertarianism, just as
socialist anarcho-libertarianism is not the same as Marxism.
> You protest domination of society by the elite (the "politically
> connected")- thus you see the conflict between political-haves and
> political-have-nots. Now you need to broaden your understanding to
> realize that it is not just political power that creates the division.
> Don't look at it so one-dimensionally.
Right, try to see all 16 space-time dimensions at once, like I did one day
after eating too many jalapeño peppers at once. ;-)
--
/-------------------------------------------------------------\
| A little learning is a dangerous thing; | Hemlock? |
| Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring;| Never touch |
| There, shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, | the stuff |
| And drinking largely sobers us again. | myself! |
| - Alexander Pope | - Mal-2 |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|
| Andrew Glasgow <gla...@acsu.buffalo.edu> |
| http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/3474/ |
\-------------------------------------------------------------/
FU
Another dimwitted college professor (from Boston University) chimes in.
The "fucked up" world around you is a direct result of ever present
government.
Djarum wrote in message ...
Dennis I's=
> Let's see...
>
> Libertarian: "freedom of action" like owning and business and employing
> people
why own and enslave yourself.
> Communism: "public ownership" of business
Thats more freedom to me , my friend.
Whats this owning thing and freedom????
They mean the opposite to me.
>
> Sorry, they are incompatible from the word go.
>
>
> Hokey Wolf wrote in message ...
> >
> >But you're talking about the capital L version, Libertarian. The word
> >libertarian is defined as something along the lines of the belief in
> >freedom of action and thought. And communism is defined as public
> >ownership and classlessness, isn't it? Again, not mutually exclusive
> >concepts.
> >
>
>
--
=free奄nkhor奚+-3~.xs2all.I's=
Dennis I's=
> Doesn't that depend on what you mean by 'public ownership'? If public
> ownership is a state controlling resources, telling people what to produce
> then it is in conflict with liberty. If it's people living in voluntary
> organizations, willingly sharing what they produce it isn't.
Not if the government IS the people , like it was intended.
Now business intrest are the community intrests because
when the factory goes bad , the community goes bad.
Money gives you freedom when you have enough of it.
otherwise , it are invisible chains. the less money the tighter the
chain. You can't reach things and you can't go places.
Don't tell me about hard work that these people did to get there
money.
A lot of people worked harder and gotten duddly squad.
Are we free? no we live by the rules of capitalism and as long
as you stick by the rules you can feel free.
--
=free奄nkhor奚+-3~.xs2all.I's=
Dennis I's=
> Poor, poor envious baby. Your idiotic theories about the so-called "ruling
> class" demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of the world around you.
> Are you a school teacher or college professor? Just curious. A lot of
> uninformed people on this board seem to be one or the other. Who gives a
> shit about inherited wealth? Not me. Most people who inherit great wealth
> wind up as basket cases. You need to look no further than the Kennedy clan
> for a demonstration of this. The vast majority of wealthy Americans earned
> their money through the extremely hard work of a building and running a
> business. Please, by all means. Go back to your 19th century books on
> Marxism and revel in your little fantasy world. Leave the discussion on
> public affairs to people who actually have a clue.
And you haven't a clue either, ever heard of mafia?
railway tycoons???
Some people did get their wealth through hard work
but a lot didn't.
And why don't you apply for the job of GOD when
you are allknowing :o)
Get
real S hole
--
=free奄nkhor奚+-3~.xs2all.I's=
Dennis I's=
> But don't make the common mistake of ASSUming that Libertarians
> act ONLY out of self-interest.
I only act out of selfintrest, and caring for others is In my self
intrest.
If this competativeness continues, it will lead to war and we
don't have time to defuse the vast amount of toxic waste
thats hangs above us as the sword of damocles.
In competition , we don't have time or resources to act,
because we are to involved in the economic warfare.
Only if we defuse this system , we can defuse danger,
else , mankind has proven itself,....<fill in the blank>
--
=free奄nkhor奚+-3~.xs2all.I's=
FU
Rights, as well as our most important laws and societal institutions are
most certainly the result of societal evolution.
No one planned language, money, the nuclear family, or the market. No one
planned that murder or theft should be illegal. No one planned that I
should have the right to associate, worship, or speak my mind. All of these
things evolved through the countless interactions of countless people over
thousands of years. That's why they are ingrained as basis of our
perceptions of reality. The evolutionary nature of society is part of us
and we are part of it. Government actions which enact laws that mandate new
behaviors, implement forced institutions, and disrupt the evolutionary order
of things are unjust, immoral, and counter productive.
Andrew M Glasgow wrote in message <3544F068...@acsu.buffalo.edu>...
FU
Where did I use the term "evenly"? I did not say that. I said "broad"
which is indisputable. I also said "fair" which is my opinion. I say
"fair" because under capitalism, people usually get what they deserve. I
believe that to be "fair". An "even" distribution of wealth would be rather
unfair.
>Djarum wrote:
> <f...@anarchy.org> wrote:
>
> >Good post. Here's the synopsis of my beliefs regarding government:
>>
G*rd*n
"FU" <f...@anarchy.org>:
| Where did I use the term "evenly"? I did not say that. I said "broad"
| which is indisputable. I also said "fair" which is my opinion. I say
| "fair" because under capitalism, people usually get what they deserve.
As determined by what?
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
FU
As determined by the market.
For example, the market has determined that Michael Jordan should get paid
millions of dollars to dunk a ball in a hoop. I think this is dumb. I have
never purchased a ticket to a basketball game myself. However, millions of
people apparently love basketball enough to buy enough tickets to pay these
guys huge salaries. This is completely fair.
Another example. When I got out of high school, drafting was a good "trade"
to get into. Then along came the microprocessor and CAD. Drafting skills
were no longer in much demand. People with those skills were no longer
rewarded with above average wages. Many could not find jobs at all. They
had learn new skills and find other work. This is also completely fair.
The market is driven by personal preferences (the first example) and
technology change (the second example). It is completely fair that people
who hone highly demanded skills are rewarded more than people who let their
skills lag.
G*rd*n wrote in message <6i30du$q...@panix2.panix.com>...
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
Dennis I's= wrote:
>
> > Poor, poor envious baby. Your idiotic theories about the so-called "ruling
> > class" demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of the world around you.
> > Are you a school teacher or college professor? Just curious. A lot of
> > uninformed people on this board seem to be one or the other. Who gives a
> > shit about inherited wealth? Not me. Most people who inherit great wealth
> > wind up as basket cases. You need to look no further than the Kennedy clan
> > for a demonstration of this. The vast majority of wealthy Americans earned
> > their money through the extremely hard work of a building and running a
> > business. Please, by all means. Go back to your 19th century books on
> > Marxism and revel in your little fantasy world. Leave the discussion on
> > public affairs to people who actually have a clue.
>
> And you haven't a clue either, ever heard of mafia?
what??? Please say this is a joke...
How can you compare those that get ahead by non-violent means to the
mafia???
> railway tycoons???
again: What???
if you are going to attack someone, please, please, please tell me why
you do it- attacking the mafia because it is some how a capitalist
organization is a joke- Crime Thrives Anywhere it gets a chance(which it
wouldn't in a Libertarian society- not when the police have nothing to
do except chase after real criminals-) do you claim that you won't find
organized crime in a socialist state? Wait, I think I'm setting you up
for a fall in a post or two with that statement, don't you? now, What
problems do you have with railway tycoons? perhaps in the days when
they held a natural monopoly over transportation, but those days are
long gone- In fact, it's time to privatize the railways again in this
country-
> Some people did get their wealth through hard work
> but a lot didn't.
and the saying goes
TOUGH SHIT
> And why don't you apply for the job of GOD when
> you are allknowing :o)
and why don't you apply for the job of G-d when you are ready to tell me
that a new morality has developed that makes taking my justly earned
property just.
> Get
> real S hole
>
> --
>
I did. Your turn.
j.a.sommerville
=free奄nkhor奚+-3~.xs2all.I's=
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
Dennis I's= wrote:
>
> > Doesn't that depend on what you mean by 'public ownership'? If public
> > ownership is a state controlling resources, telling people what to produce
> > then it is in conflict with liberty. If it's people living in voluntary
> > organizations, willingly sharing what they produce it isn't.
>
> Not if the government IS the people , like it was intended.
Are you really willing to start the as "it was intended" debate about
govt? especially american govt. You're not going to score any points
in that department-
> Now business intrest are the community intrests because
> when the factory goes bad , the community goes bad.
very true- which is why you need such a market as would place the very
best in positions of authority. the capitalist system of rewarding
excellence seems to work just fine- it's when something perverts that
system that things begin to fall apart-
> Money gives you freedom when you have enough of it.
that's part of the reward system inherent to capitalism- more money,
greater freedom to do the things you want-
> otherwise , it are invisible chains.
are they? the rules of capitalism will propel anyone who has the
"oomph" and _ingenuity_ to get ahead- these invisible chains can be
broken by anyone who is willing to stand up-
> the less money the tighter the
> chain.
the less money, the harder the uphill struggle to excellence- not the
tighter the chain- Does anybody have the figures on how many NEW
millionaires America has gained in the last ten years? how many people
who were millionaires ten years ago aren't? I'm not even sure if those
numbers will work in my favour, but I think it's a safe bet-
> You can't reach things and you can't go places.
>
yes you can- if you work hard and invest well-
> Don't tell me about hard work that these people did to get there
> money.
many of them did. I won't claim that all of them did, but many did.
> A lot of people worked harder and gotten duddly squad.
they didn't get duddly squad- they got whatever it was they deserved- in
order to get rich in this country though, it does take a little more- it
helps if you are smarter and more ingenious than the next guy- if you
are smarter than average, work hard, maybe have several unique ideas,
you will do well- it's the way the system works- I don't see how it
isn't fair.
> Are we free?
I am. "we" aren't anything
> no we live by the rules of capitalism and as long
> as you stick by the rules you can feel free.
the rules of capitalism are inescapable if you want to live in a JUST
and FAIR society- those are the words you choose to value, yes? JUST
and FAIR are at the root of capitalism and libertarianism-
The question that started this thread was "What exactly is a
Libertarian?"
Here is my answer-
A libertarian is a Non-Agressive, Fair and Just individual.
everything you can say about a Libertarian is in that statement.
please feel free to attack me.
I'm sure you will.
j.a.sommerville
>
>
> --
> =free奄nkhor奚+-3~.xs2all.I's=
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
Dennis I's= wrote:
>
> > Let's see...
> >
> > Libertarian: "freedom of action" like owning and business and employing
> > people
>
> why own and enslave yourself.
are you aware of what slavery means? You *can't* enslave yourself- it's
a contradiction in terms-
>
> > Communism: "public ownership" of business
>
> Thats more freedom to me , my friend.
>
no, it isn't.
> Whats this owning thing and freedom????
> They mean the opposite to me.
then you need to reavaluate your position-
freedom is the ability to do anything you wish, up to the point where
you interfere with anothers freedom- Hence, the libertarian creed of
non-agression/non-invasion.
> >
> > Sorry, they are incompatible from the word go.
> >
> >
> > Hokey Wolf wrote in message ...
> > >
> > >But you're talking about the capital L version, Libertarian. The word
> > >libertarian is defined as something along the lines of the belief in
> > >freedom of action and thought. And communism is defined as public
> > >ownership and classlessness, isn't it? Again, not mutually exclusive
> > >concepts.
yes they are. I don't understand your logic abouve- you make two
contradictory statements, and then say they can co-exist. One voids the
other. You can be free, or you can't. It doesn't work any other way-
Libertarianism is defined by freedom of action and thought- Yes, you're
right- Communism is defined by collective ownership and classlessness-
that conflicts. Collective ownership is not freedom of action. Freedom
of thought is not allowed in communism- a dissenting voice brings the
entire system crashing down- Have me start yelling, "But it's NOT Fair,
it's NOT Just!!!" it can't be stood for in a socialist/communist state-
take a look at the writings of your own intellectual leaders and see
what they say- they are in full agreement. Freedom of Expression is not
to be allowed-
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
> =free奄nkhor奚+-3~.xs2all.I's=
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
FU wrote:
>
> Another dimwitted college professor (from Boston University) chimes in.
>
> The "fucked up" world around you is a direct result of ever present
> government.
it's only fair that we give him responses to each of his arguments-
sorry if it looks like I'm hogging this thread- but I'm a student
with time on my hands-
>
> Djarum wrote in message ...
> >In article <3544E8...@matrix.newpaltz.edu>, ??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu
> >wrote:
> >
> >>How True!!! Inheritence may not seem very fair(it isn't), but it can't
> >>be helped in a just society.
> >
> >What the hell kind of sense does that make? It's not fair, but it's just??
Sorry, you're right. I almost made a concession to you- It is Fair, and
it is Just. It may not seem fair, but don't look at the recipient,
which I did when I accidently conceded that it might be un-fair- look at
it from the perspective of the benefactor. How is it not fair and not
just that you distribute your money as you wish?
> >
> >Inheritance is a way for people of one class to keep their wealth in the
> >same class and prevent it from being evenly distributed.
That's a very strong statement. Almost worthy of alt.conspiracy
>>In a just
> >society there would be a roughly even distribution of wealth, hence there
> >could be no inheritance as we know it today.
No. I refuse to pervert the term Just in such a way. It is not just to
take someones money- it is not just- it is not just- I'm repeating
myself for your benefit here-
> >
> >
> >>However there is a leveling mechanism
> >>built into capitalism when it comes to Inheritence- if they can't handle
> >>the money they loose it quickly enough- you can hire as many advisors as
> >>you want, if you don't have the first clue about how money works, and
> >>how to make it grow, you're going to loose it-
> >
> >This leveling mechanism doesn't work as well as you might hope. Some
> >people might be retards and burn their inheritance like you said, but what
> >happens more often then not is that they are smart enough to hang on to
> >it.
I don't know about "more often than not," but if they can hold on to it-
than more power to them- and also more power to those men that they had
to hire to hold onto their wealth- those that now have more money than
they did prieviously-
>> Just because someone isn't a good investor doesn't mean they are
> >necessarily going to loose their money...all they have to do is put it in
> >a trustworthy bank and they'll be fine. The result of this is a class of
> >people that have money they haven't worked for, while others work their
> >asses off to get nowhere. I don't get this from 19th century Marxist
> >writings...I get it from looking at the fucked up world around me.
> >
keep looking-
Read "What it means to be a Libertarian" by Charles Murray- I know,
I know, we all have problems with his other book, but this one is fine-
judge the work on it's own merits-
Julian Sanchez
Mike Connell wrote in message <183_980...@craybbs.co.uk>...
>Hi,
>
> "> I believe that humans are born with inherent, unassailable
> "> rights. The greatest of these is the right to be left alone
> "> by government. I believe in the right of people to assemble
> "> or not assemble; to communicate or not communicate; to worship
> "> or not worship; to live their lives as they please so long as
> "> they do not interfere with anotherAs right to do the same. I
> "> also believe in the right of people to associate, or not
> "> associate, with whomever they choose, for whatever reason, in
> "> whatever setting.
>
>And who will enforce these rights? Not that they can because that will mean
>they will fringe the rights of the person who is breaking rights anyway!
I will assume you mean "infringe" there- and just about every theory of
rights agrees that a just punishment for a rights violation is not in itself
a violation. Nor do most libertarians oppose all functions of government
(even those who do advocate private protection services). Do you know
anything about the opinions of the people you attack?
> "> I believe in the right of people to defend themselves, their
> "> families, and property from criminals and from criminal
> "> government.
>
>But government is the stability of the nation, without it we would be in a
very
>negative form of anarchy.
This is facile and naive beyond the need of a response... but I'll offer one
anyway: First, if you mean "stability" in the form of police protection,
that exists in a libertarian state, or even an anarcho-capitalist non-state.
In any case, this belief that without a state playing watchful daddy,
society would collapse betrays a rather pessimistic view of human nature-
social cooperation is always more efficient than chaos; civil society will
persist so long as basic rights are protected.
> "> I believe in the rule of law. I believe that has any function
> "> at all, it is to discover, codify, and enforce laws that have
> "> evolved with society. I believe that is it simplistic and
> "> dangerous for government to use the law in a utopian way to
> "> mandate behaviors that are inconsistent with the natural
> "> evolution of society.
>
>Is life really so bad now that we need to go through some kind of
revolution
>that, chances are, will lead to a return to the stone age.
Again, an embarassing ignorance of the position attacked: where has he
advocated a violent revolution, anywhere? [And, incidentally, history has
seen plenty of revolutions without returning to a stone age- but that's not
really relevant, since revolution hasn't been called for]
> "> I believe that the free market, which evolved as an intricate
> "> part of human society, is the best way to ensure prosperity
> "> and the fair and broad distribution of that prosperity within
> "> society.
>
>And what happens to those who oppose the free market for a planned economy?
>
They can plan their own economy. Nothing "happens" to them; they can write
letters to Z Magazine, they just can't sieze anyone else's wealth to "plan"
with.
-JS
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Sanchez "Everyone may seek his
own happiness in the way
js...@is7.nyu.edu that seems good to himself,
provided thet he infringe
http://pages.nyu.edu/~js456/ not the freedom of others
to strive after a similar end
consistent with the freedom of all."
-Immanuel Kant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Djarum
In article <Nz611.1546$Lb1.3...@news.internetMCI.com>, "FU"
<f...@anarchy.org> wrote:
>Another dimwitted college professor (from Boston University) chimes in.
Way to jump to conclusions- I'm a student, not a professor. What exactly
do you have against college professors, anyway? Some are smart, some are
stupid, just like anyone else. You seem to be keen on making sweeping
generalizations, perhaps that is why you fail to make any rational
arguments, instead opting to throw petty insults at me. Ha! I fart in
your general direction.
Someone else from Binghampton University (probably another Marxist
professor) disagreed with me, but actually had the brains to write
something instead of name-calling. So now I will go respond to him.
>The "fucked up" world around you is a direct result of ever present
>government.
Exactly, and once it falls your precious capitalism will fall with it.
and just to prove I haven't really grown up... you're a dimwit yourself!
Jack Hanebach
Cool! I can't wait for your "just society." You see I happened to be a very
lazy bum, still I have to drag my lazy ass to work every morning to make a
livin'. As soon as you get your plans working I'm gonna stay home and collect
my even share of goodies. Where do I cast a vote for you?
Just one question: since all my buddies are as lazy as I am, where do you plan
to get the suckers from, to actually produce all the goodies?
Jack
Djarum
In article <35455A...@matrix.newpaltz.edu>, ??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu
wrote:
>FU wrote:
>>
>> Another dimwitted college professor (from Boston University) chimes in.
>>
>> The "fucked up" world around you is a direct result of ever present
>> government.
>
>it's only fair that we give him responses to each of his arguments-
Thank you! :)
> sorry if it looks like I'm hogging this thread- but I'm a student
>with time on my hands-
me too.
>> Djarum wrote in message ...
>> >In article <3544E8...@matrix.newpaltz.edu>, ??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>How True!!! Inheritence may not seem very fair(it isn't), but it can't
>> >>be helped in a just society.
>> >
>> >What the hell kind of sense does that make? It's not fair, but it's just??
>
>Sorry, you're right. I almost made a concession to you- It is Fair, and
>it is Just. It may not seem fair, but don't look at the recipient,
>which I did when I accidently conceded that it might be un-fair- look at
>it from the perspective of the benefactor. How is it not fair and not
>just that you distribute your money as you wish?
Looking at it from a capitalist perspective, that makes sense. Your money
is your property, and you can do what you like with it. However I don't
believe your concept of property is particuarly advantageous to people in
general. It is only advantageous to the people who have accumulated it,
while everyone else is stuck trying to play catch up.
You will have to explain to me why I shouldn't look at the recipient. I
might even say the recipient is the most important person to look at,
since he or she represents the younger generation, and thus the future
direction the society will take.
>> >Inheritance is a way for people of one class to keep their wealth in the
>> >same class and prevent it from being evenly distributed.
>
>That's a very strong statement. Almost worthy of alt.conspiracy
But it's true, unfortunately. I'm not saying it's true now on an
individual level. If you decide leave your children your money that is
certainly not an act of class warfare, but on a cumulative level the
effect is that the children of the wealthy elite stay in the same class as
their parents. I imagine this would be very hard to do, at least in
present times in the US, without inheritance.
In older times when aristocracies ruled, it probably was true on an
individual level. People thought in terms of Us-and-Them. Elite noble
families schemed to marry their children into the same class and religion.
They viewed peasants as disdainful and certainly would give them no
economic opporitunity to improve themselves.
Nowdays that sense of noble prestige seems to have faded, but distinct
class divisions still exist, and they continue to cause problems. Thus we
should fight them. (or at least pointlessly bicker about it on usenet!)
>>>In a just
>> >society there would be a roughly even distribution of wealth, hence there
>> >could be no inheritance as we know it today.
>
>
>No. I refuse to pervert the term Just in such a way. It is not just to
>take someones money- it is not just- it is not just- I'm repeating
>myself for your benefit here-
Ohhhh...it's not *just*. Sorry, my Usenet hearing aid wasn't turned
up...thanks for repeating yourself ;)
Well, I'm not arguing people should take your money- that sounds like a
job for the state. Instead I would advocate a system of voluntary
cooperation in which individuals organize themselves and produce what is
needed, not just for the sake of production. I'd like to see a kind of
technological subsistence economy...if that makes any sense.
Perhaps we could live peacefully alongside you Libertarians. I really
wouldn't have any problem with capitalism if its advocates weren't so
hell-bent on world domination.
>> >>However there is a leveling mechanism
>> >>built into capitalism when it comes to Inheritence- if they can't handle
>> >>the money they loose it quickly enough- you can hire as many advisors as
>> >>you want, if you don't have the first clue about how money works, and
>> >>how to make it grow, you're going to loose it-
>> >
>> >This leveling mechanism doesn't work as well as you might hope. Some
>> >people might be retards and burn their inheritance like you said, but what
>> >happens more often then not is that they are smart enough to hang on to
>> >it.
>
>I don't know about "more often than not," but if they can hold on to it-
>than more power to them- and also more power to those men that they had
>to hire to hold onto their wealth- those that now have more money than
>they did prieviously-
They never really earned it in the first place, though. Kind of
contradicts with the idea that we're all born equals.
>>> Just because someone isn't a good investor doesn't mean they are
>> >necessarily going to loose their money...all they have to do is put it in
>> >a trustworthy bank and they'll be fine. The result of this is a class of
>> >people that have money they haven't worked for, while others work their
>> >asses off to get nowhere. I don't get this from 19th century Marxist
>> >writings...I get it from looking at the fucked up world around me.
>> >
>
>keep looking-
I do- and all I see is rich college kids with their own BMWs and cell
phones that fit in the palm of your hand. Bastards!
> Read "What it means to be a Libertarian" by Charles Murray- I know,
>I know, we all have problems with his other book, but this one is fine-
>judge the work on it's own merits-
I'l think about it...Thanks for your comments; they were more interesting
than "FU's"...
First Speaker Schol-R-LEA;2
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 21:05:43 -0700, ??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu wrote:
>Dennis I's= wrote:
>> > >But you're talking about the capital L version, Libertarian. The word
>> > >libertarian is defined as something along the lines of the belief in
>> > >freedom of action and thought. And communism is defined as public
>> > >ownership and classlessness, isn't it? Again, not mutually exclusive
>> > >concepts.
>
>yes they are. I don't understand your logic abouve- you make two
>contradictory statements, and then say they can co-exist. One voids the
>other. You can be free, or you can't. It doesn't work any other way-
>Libertarianism is defined by freedom of action and thought- Yes, you're
>right- Communism is defined by collective ownership and classlessness-
>that conflicts. Collective ownership is not freedom of action. Freedom
>of thought is not allowed in communism- a dissenting voice brings the
>entire system crashing down- Have me start yelling, "But it's NOT Fair,
>it's NOT Just!!!" it can't be stood for in a socialist/communist state-
>take a look at the writings of your own intellectual leaders and see
>what they say- they are in full agreement. Freedom of Expression is not
>to be allowed-
If you don't mind me taking a rather different tack on this, It can be
argued that posession takes away freedom - you have an obligation, if
only to yourself, to use and maintain your property, assuming you are
a sane and responsible individual. This is why the argument - key to
both capitalist and communist ideologies - about control of the means
of production is so pointless; once you're at the point of mass
production, *you* don't own capital, IT OWNS YOU. You *have* to act in
certain ways, or else lose what you're fighting over - the fields,
factories and stores by which you produce and distribute.
Once Economics is accepted as the basis of society, regardless of the
type of economy, freedom of action is impossible and irrelevant - the
options available to you at any given point dwindle to only one or
two, at best. I can think of nothing more likely to destroy liberty
than the need to produce beyond ones own immediate needs, despite the
fact that such production, when done willingly, is the *source* of
many freedoms.
"I personally am far too abundantly endowed with the three cardinal
virtues of programming, to wit, laziness, impatience, and hubris,
to undertake any such project." - Gregg Reynolds, on comp.lang.sather
Schol-R-LEA;2 *** Now 'scholr' at 'slip.net'
Djarum
In article <35456D3F...@idirect.com>, Jack Hanebach
<jh...@idirect.com> wrote:
>Cool! I can't wait for your "just society." You see I happened to be a very
>lazy bum, still I have to drag my lazy ass to work every morning to make a
>livin'. As soon as you get your plans working I'm gonna stay home and collect
>my even share of goodies. Where do I cast a vote for you?
I said 'roughly even.' People that work harder will earn more. If you
don't want to participate you don't have to, but people will notice and
won't share as much with you. Keep in mind I believe in *local*
organization, not some faceless welfare-state. The people that live and
work around you would notice, and probably would exclude you from society,
throwing you scraps now and then so you don't starve.
>Just one question: since all my buddies are as lazy as I am, where do you plan
>to get the suckers from, to actually produce all the goodies?
Are you friends with everybody else in the world? I have serious doubts
about that. Most people do in fact like to work, although they may want
to work less, and doing different things. Obviously no system would work
in which everyone just sits on there ass and does nothing.
And why do you refer to goods as 'goodies?' Are you like a 5 year old or
something?
>Jack
>
>Djarum wrote:
>
>> In a just society there would be a roughly even distribution of wealth,
>> hence there
>> could be no inheritance as we know it today.
=========================================
baby_ifritah
Djarum:
> >>In a just
> > >society there would be a roughly even distribution of wealth, hence
there
> > >could be no inheritance as we know it today.
??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu >
> No. I refuse to pervert the term Just in such a way. It is not just to
> take someones money- it is not just- it is not just- I'm repeating
> myself for your benefit here-
let me run this by you then sommerville: i'll agree with that it's not
just for someone to steal someone else's "hard-earned" billions (which i
promise not to do anyway, because i'm a real *l*ibertarian) but only if you
agree that the one with the billions is a selfish, immoral bastard, who, by
having the power to feed a starving continent and not doing it, is as
effective a murderer as stalin/pol pot/hitler....
xx baby
John Merrall
FU (f...@anarchy.org) wrote:
: I believe that humans are born with inherent, unassailable rights. The
: greatest of these is the right to be left alone by government.
So, for example, you would feel a desire to fight on behalf of the people
in Chiapas, or East Timor?
: I believe in the right of people to assemble or not assemble; to
: communicate or not communicate;
So I guess you wouldn't be in favour of the American-sponsored Fascist
regimes in countries like Indonesia or South Korea, right?
: also believe in the right of people to associate, or not associate, with
: whomever they choose, for whatever reason, in whatever setting.
: I believe in the right of people to defend themselves, their families, and
: property from criminals and from criminal government.
So you have nothing against the rebels in Chiapas bearing arms against
their oppressive government, and if you had the resources you'd even want
to help arm them, right?
: I believe that the free market, which evolved as an intricate part of human
: society, is the best way to ensure prosperity and the fair and broad
: distribution of that prosperity within society.
So you'd be against latter-day robber-barons who pervert the free-market
system, right?
: I believe that
: the rights, property, and lives of the politically unconnected should not be
: placed at the disposal of politicians to sell to the politically connected,
: regardless of whether the process for doing so is democratic or autocratic.
So again, you're in favour of the freedom-fighers in Chiapas and East
Timor, right? And you're against the robber-barons and bandit-lords that
control Indonesia (with American government help), right?
The true test of a man's beliefs is NOT what he believes, but what he
does.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-= http://www.hwcn.org/~ac096/Profile.html =-=-=-
* "the modern State is but a committee for managing the *
* common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." *
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
John Merrall
??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu wrote:
: Hokey Wolf wrote:
: > Ask one if they'd advocate say, the leveling of the playing field in the
: > US, since so much of its economic ancestry consists of slavery and
: > genocide (they consider this "force" which is against their stated
: > principles). Every one I've talked to weasels out of it. I think this
: > selectivity (among lots of other things) reveals their true motives.
: In
: any economy someone is going to end up on top(remember Nozick's argument
: against pattern theory fo justice), do you really believe that it's
: unfair?
But "someone ending up on top" is just consolidation of economic power,
right?
So why is "consolidation of economic power" good, while "consolidation of
political power" is bad? What are the evil results of consolidated
political power, and are they any different than the evil results of
consolidated economic power? How, for example, is political censorship
more evil than economic censorship?
do...@stone-soup.com
On 28 Apr 1998 03:44:54 GMT, ac...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (John
Merrall) wrote:
>FU (f...@anarchy.org) wrote:
>
>: I believe that humans are born with inherent, unassailable rights. The
>: greatest of these is the right to be left alone by government.
>
>So, for example, you would feel a desire to fight on behalf of the people
>in Chiapas, or East Timor?
>
No, I don't feel that I should fight on their behalf. But I am in
favor of sending them more guns where they can fight for themselves.
>: I believe in the right of people to assemble or not assemble; to
>: communicate or not communicate;
>
>So I guess you wouldn't be in favour of the American-sponsored Fascist
>regimes in countries like Indonesia or South Korea, right?
>
I favor America always supporting the revolutionary against the state.
Do do anything else would be hypocritical from a nation born of
revolution.
Support not participation.
>: also believe in the right of people to associate, or not associate, with
>: whomever they choose, for whatever reason, in whatever setting.
>
>: I believe in the right of people to defend themselves, their families, and
>: property from criminals and from criminal government.
>
>So you have nothing against the rebels in Chiapas bearing arms against
>their oppressive government, and if you had the resources you'd even want
>to help arm them, right?
>
Hell, if they knock on my door I even have a rifle that I can lend
them. I want it back if they win.
>: I believe that the free market, which evolved as an intricate part of human
>: society, is the best way to ensure prosperity and the fair and broad
>: distribution of that prosperity within society.
>
>So you'd be against latter-day robber-barons who pervert the free-market
>system, right?
>
If you mean like gov. supported business. Yes.
>: I believe that
>: the rights, property, and lives of the politically unconnected should not be
>: placed at the disposal of politicians to sell to the politically connected,
>: regardless of whether the process for doing so is democratic or autocratic.
>
>So again, you're in favour of the freedom-fighers in Chiapas and East
>Timor, right? And you're against the robber-barons and bandit-lords that
>control Indonesia (with American government help), right?
>
>The true test of a man's beliefs is NOT what he believes, but what he
>does.
>
>
Well I'm a little old to be running off to fight in someone elses war.
But if I were young and single then I might go help.
S. Douglas Heard do...@stone-soup.com
Stone Soup Canine http://www.stone-soup.com
It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.
"liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others."
William Allen White
G*rd*n
"FU" <f...@anarchy.org>:
| As determined by the market.
|
| For example, the market has determined that Michael Jordan should get paid
| millions of dollars to dunk a ball in a hoop. I think this is dumb. I have
| never purchased a ticket to a basketball game myself. However, millions of
| people apparently love basketball enough to buy enough tickets to pay these
| guys huge salaries. This is completely fair.
|
| Another example. When I got out of high school, drafting was a good "trade"
| to get into. Then along came the microprocessor and CAD. Drafting skills
| were no longer in much demand. People with those skills were no longer
| rewarded with above average wages. Many could not find jobs at all. They
| had learn new skills and find other work. This is also completely fair.
|
| The market is driven by personal preferences (the first example) and
| technology change (the second example). It is completely fair that people
| who hone highly demanded skills are rewarded more than people who let their
| skills lag.
However, what actually happens in a real-live free market,
insofar as there is such a thing, is not a Calvinist play
of hard workers reaping the rewards and slackers going
hungry. On the contrary, precisely because the market is
supposed to be a free play of voluntary relationships and
events, many who work hard come up with nothing, and many
who slack are rewarded. Hence we so often hear the proverb
"Life is unfair", especially from those who have benefited
from inequalities and don't want to be troubled about it.
It seems to me, in fact, that one of the better qualities
of capitalism is that it _is_ unfair or unjust, that is,
that it doesn't use up a lot of energy attempting to
regulate everyone's rewards, which would require a
tyrannical oversight of everyone's activities by some
kind of justice police (and who would _they_ be)? So I
would think you would want to separate notions of
fairness and justice from the free market, except, of
course, to the extent that people are willing to produce
or pay for them.
G*rd*n
"FU" <f...@anarchy.org> wrote:
| >Another dimwitted college professor (from Boston University) chimes in.
djar...@usa.net (Djarum):
| Way to jump to conclusions- I'm a student, not a professor. What exactly
| do you have against college professors, anyway? Some are smart, some are
| stupid, just like anyone else. ...
In any case, _ad hominem_ is pretty useless on the Net,
since any writer could portray him- or herself as anything,
with the very small exception of the few public figures who
appear here.
FU
First, humans are imperfect. Any activities they engage in are imperfect.
I never said that the market perfectly rewards people. I said that people
USUALLY get what they deserve in the market. There are always exceptions to
the rule.
Second, people who complain that they are being treated unfairly more often
than not have tainted perspectives on the value of their work as compared to
others. An extreme example of this are Marxists who childishly believe that
only physical labor should be rewarded. In the United States today, only
17% of the value of a typical manufactured product involved the physical
transformation and distribution of materials. 83% of the value is
elsewhere, for example in design, engineering, marketing, sales, and
support. It takes more talent, creativity, and hard work to design,
engineer, and market a product than it does to work on an assembly line
screwing lug nuts into wheels. It is only fair and right that the rewards
be split in favor of people who take the time to learn valuable skills.
Third, there's a huge myth still being perpetuated that the "poor" work hard
while the "rich" live a life of leisure. The reality is the opposite. Most
people become wealthy in America by opening businesses and working long hard
hours, year after year, to build businesses in the face of grueling
competition. Sure. There are a a few poor people who work hard and never
get a head. Yes, there are a few people who inherited money and live a life
of leisure. These are the exceptions not the rule. I guarantee you that
Bill Gates, in spite of being the richest man in the word, still works
longer and harder than any factory worker in the world. Bill Gates is
always working. No matter where he's at, no matter what he's doing, he is
always working at building Microsoft. The same goes for mom and pop grocer.
You NEVER hear a successful business owner state that they "have a life too"
in reference to suggestions that they work more than 8 hours a day. To an
entrepreneur, their business is their life.
G*rd*n wrote in message <6i4fkt$p...@panix2.panix.com>...
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
I know I'm getting to get jumped for this one, but here goes...
No, it's not the same. The classic example is that of a drunk man who
stumbles out of a bar at 2 a.m. He staggers about ten feet, turns a
corner, and falls face first into a puddle. I walk by. I see the man,
face first, unable to move because of his own drunkeness, to lift his
own head so that he won't drown. All it takes is for me to move his
head about three inches to the left or the right, out of the middle of
the puddle, to save his life. By not doing it, am I killing him? What
if he were able to move his own head? What if I were to lightly place
my foot on his head so that he couldn't lift himself up? Is that
killing him?
The first scenerio is a sticky one.
The second is out-right murder.
Don't compare the two.
But what of the first scenerio? Would I lift his head? I probably
would, but it doesn't mean I have to. The same with your exceptionally
wealthy man- he probably would donate money, but he doesn't have to-
j.a.sommerville
Victor Levis
Mitchell Holman <ta2...@aimail.net> wrote in article
<E232FCCAC39CB02B.9AC15B07...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
..
> In article <KLV_.623$ne6.6...@news.internetMCI.com>, "ericbl"
<eric.bla...@MCI2000.com> wrote:
> }The libertarian spectrum is bounded by two assertions: Thomas Jefferson's
> }statement that government is best which governs least and Henry David
> }Thoreau's statement that government is best which governs not at all.
> }
> }Libertarianism is a philosophy of minimal government. Most libertarians
> }would reduce government to it's Constitutional duties. Some would reduce
it
> }even further. Libertarians are complete in their belief in individual
> }liberty. Most libertarians would support the following policies:
> }
> }Radically reduced government spending
> }Radically lower and simplify taxes (or eliminate them altogether)
> }Property Rights
> }Deregulation
> }Privatization of government services
> }The right to keep and bear arms
> }Educational Choice
> }Freedom of Speech
> }Market-based health care
> }Term limits for politicians
>
> This last one is new to me. Why would libertarians be in
> favor of a government regulation on political offices? That
> sounds like less freedom, not more.
Apparently a poll was recently done of some subset of Americans.
They were asked if they support term limits and 66% said yes.
They were asked if they support the right to re-elect a Congressman
as many times as they want if he is doing a good job, and 54% said yes.
Hmmm.
--
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
Djarum wrote:
>
> In article <35455A...@matrix.newpaltz.edu>, ??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu
> wrote:
>
> >FU wrote:
> >>
> >> Another dimwitted college professor (from Boston University) chimes in.
> >>
> >> The "fucked up" world around you is a direct result of ever present
> >> government.
> >
> >it's only fair that we give him responses to each of his arguments-
>
> Thank you! :)
>
> > sorry if it looks like I'm hogging this thread- but I'm a student
> >with time on my hands-
>
> me too.
>
> >> Djarum wrote in message ...
> >> >In article <3544E8...@matrix.newpaltz.edu>, ??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>How True!!! Inheritence may not seem very fair(it isn't), but it can't
> >> >>be helped in a just society.
> >> >
> >> >What the hell kind of sense does that make? It's not fair, but it's just??
> >
> >Sorry, you're right. I almost made a concession to you- It is Fair, and
> >it is Just. It may not seem fair, but don't look at the recipient,
> >which I did when I accidently conceded that it might be un-fair- look at
> >it from the perspective of the benefactor. How is it not fair and not
> >just that you distribute your money as you wish?
>
> Looking at it from a capitalist perspective, that makes sense. Your money
> is your property, and you can do what you like with it.
Good, so we at least share that perspective.
> However I don't
> believe your concept of property is particuarly advantageous to people in
> general. It is only advantageous to the people who have accumulated it,
> while everyone else is stuck trying to play catch up.
>
Wait, are you talking about the recipient here? We had decided that the
original earner had the right to the money, yeah? Anyone who has to
play Catch Up to him just has to deal with it. Anything else would be
unfair to him-
> You will have to explain to me why I shouldn't look at the recipient. I
> might even say the recipient is the most important person to look at,
> since he or she represents the younger generation, and thus the future
> direction the society will take.
>
A society that would block the original earner from doing as he pleased
with his money isn't much of a future- I know that it's dificult to
ignore the reciever and focus on the donor here, but to do otherwise is
not fair to the Original earner. You agreed that the Original earner
had right to his own money- that is definitely a step towards
libertarianism- try and keep your thoughts alligned with the idea that
you get to do with what you earn as you will- some times you get lucky.
The inheritor got lucky. His benifactor, however, was given Just rights
over his own money-
> >> >Inheritance is a way for people of one class to keep their wealth in the
> >> >same class and prevent it from being evenly distributed.
> >
> >That's a very strong statement. Almost worthy of alt.conspiracy
>
> But it's true, unfortunately. I'm not saying it's true now on an
> individual level. If you decide leave your children your money that is
> certainly not an act of class warfare, but on a cumulative level the
> effect is that the children of the wealthy elite stay in the same class as
> their parents. I imagine this would be very hard to do, at least in
> present times in the US, without inheritance.
>
> In older times when aristocracies ruled, it probably was true on an
> individual level. People thought in terms of Us-and-Them. Elite noble
> families schemed to marry their children into the same class and religion.
> They viewed peasants as disdainful and certainly would give them no
> economic opporitunity to improve themselves.
>
> Nowdays that sense of noble prestige seems to have faded, but distinct
> class divisions still exist, and they continue to cause problems. Thus we
> should fight them. (or at least pointlessly bicker about it on usenet!)
>
class divisions aren't as strong as we are led to imagine- We see
images on television of the rich acting snooty and saying horrible
things about the poor, or bungling up there attempts to help the poor-
whatever- it isn't as sharply devided as that. There is always the
possibility for upward mobility. There is an equal possibility for
downward mobility. Class lines will be around forever, there isn't
anything you can really do about it. But who's where in relation to
those lines changes dramatically.
> >>>In a just
> >> >society there would be a roughly even distribution of wealth, hence there
> >> >could be no inheritance as we know it today.
> >
> >
> >No. I refuse to pervert the term Just in such a way. It is not just to
> >take someones money- it is not just- it is not just- I'm repeating
> >myself for your benefit here-
>
> Ohhhh...it's not *just*. Sorry, my Usenet hearing aid wasn't turned
> up...thanks for repeating yourself ;)
>
> Well, I'm not arguing people should take your money- that sounds like a
> job for the state.
from what right? we just agreed that one has the right to do with his
money as he wills- did't we? The state can't jump in and claim a right
to money it has not earned.
> Instead I would advocate a system of voluntary
> cooperation in which individuals organize themselves and produce what is
> needed, not just for the sake of production.
capitilism works by providing what is needed- govt. wouldn't be as able
to handle production as privately concerned individuals would be- your
voluntary cooperation is fine- just as long as it is not coerced-
> I'd like to see a kind of
> technological subsistence economy...if that makes any sense.
>
not really- Please expound
> Perhaps we could live peacefully alongside you Libertarians. I really
> wouldn't have any problem with capitalism if its advocates weren't so
> hell-bent on world domination.
>
and libertarians would love to find a place where they could exist
peacefully, rather than being constantly prodded by the government into
doing things that we find distateful and not in allignment with our own
will-
> >> >>However there is a leveling mechanism
> >> >>built into capitalism when it comes to Inheritence- if they can't handle
> >> >>the money they loose it quickly enough- you can hire as many advisors as
> >> >>you want, if you don't have the first clue about how money works, and
> >> >>how to make it grow, you're going to loose it-
> >> >
> >> >This leveling mechanism doesn't work as well as you might hope. Some
> >> >people might be retards and burn their inheritance like you said, but what
> >> >happens more often then not is that they are smart enough to hang on to
> >> >it.
> >
> >I don't know about "more often than not," but if they can hold on to it-
> >than more power to them- and also more power to those men that they had
> >to hire to hold onto their wealth- those that now have more money than
> >they did prieviously-
>
> They never really earned it in the first place, though. Kind of
> contradicts with the idea that we're all born equals.
>
No one ever claimed that we are all born equals. That's a grade school
fallacy- "All men are created equal" doesn't mean that we all look and
think exactly alike- it means that we are given a equal opportunity to
sink or swim- somethings may not seem fair in this system some of us are
given a headstart, some of us may seem to start impossibly behind- but
we are all given a chance to rise or fall.
> >>> Just because someone isn't a good investor doesn't mean they are
> >> >necessarily going to loose their money...all they have to do is put it in
> >> >a trustworthy bank and they'll be fine. The result of this is a class of
> >> >people that have money they haven't worked for, while others work their
> >> >asses off to get nowhere. I don't get this from 19th century Marxist
> >> >writings...I get it from looking at the fucked up world around me.
> >> >
> >
> >keep looking-
>
> I do- and all I see is rich college kids with their own BMWs and cell
> phones that fit in the palm of your hand. Bastards!
>
I agree. It pisses me off to, especially since I've gone most of this
semester with three bucks in my pocket. Haven't had a chance to do very
little outside of my accademics(USENET is about it!) - but we don't have
a right, we don't have just cause, we don't have any way to claim it
would be fair, to take away there BMW's and micro-cell phones-
> > Read "What it means to be a Libertarian" by Charles Murray- I know,
> >I know, we all have problems with his other book, but this one is fine-
> >judge the work on it's own merits-
>
> I'l think about it...Thanks for your comments; they were more interesting
> than "FU's"...
>
I really enjoyed the book. He offers very good arguments for
libertarianism(small *l*) and really goes into the problem areas with
libertarianism- such as how to reform modern society-
oh, and I like many of FU's comments- sometimes he does just laugh, but
when he get's an argument going, he does more than a good job of holding
his own-
j.a.sommeville
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
Djarum wrote:
>
> In article <35456D3F...@idirect.com>, Jack Hanebach
> <jh...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
> >Cool! I can't wait for your "just society." You see I happened to be a very
> >lazy bum, still I have to drag my lazy ass to work every morning to make a
> >livin'. As soon as you get your plans working I'm gonna stay home and collect
> >my even share of goodies. Where do I cast a vote for you?
>
> I said 'roughly even.' People that work harder will earn more. If you
> don't want to participate you don't have to, but people will notice and
> won't share as much with you. Keep in mind I believe in *local*
> organization, not some faceless welfare-state. The people that live and
> work around you would notice, and probably would exclude you from society,
> throwing you scraps now and then so you don't starve.
>
oh, you mean like capitalism?
> >Just one question: since all my buddies are as lazy as I am, where do you plan
> >to get the suckers from, to actually produce all the goodies?
>
> Are you friends with everybody else in the world? I have serious doubts
> about that. Most people do in fact like to work, although they may want
> to work less, and doing different things. Obviously no system would work
> in which everyone just sits on there ass and does nothing.
>
no kidding? where did you here that one from? but who works for others
expence?
people do like to work- remeber what Charles Reich said? that work,
love, and knowledge were the wellsprings of human happiness? I love
that- it's beautiful.
People do like to work. but some people will always try to get away
with doing as little as possible- some will work as hard as possible-
try and tell them that they won't personally get rewarded for whatever
work they do anyways- see how long they guy who doesn't like to work
will work- see how long it takes the guy who does like to work to give
up in disgust-
> And why do you refer to goods as 'goodies?' Are you like a 5 year old or
> something?
>
And are you 15? you have the altruism and naivety of such a person-
please, these name calling games can go on forever- please don't-
j.a.sommerville
> >Jack
> >
> >Djarum wrote:
> >
> >> In a just society there would be a roughly even distribution of wealth,
> >> hence there
> >> could be no inheritance as we know it today.
>
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
>
> >Another dimwitted college professor (from Boston University) chimes in.
>
> do you have against college professors, anyway? Some are smart, some are
> generalizations, perhaps that is why you fail to make any rational
> arguments, instead opting to throw petty insults at me. Ha! I fart in
> your general direction.
>
> Someone else from Binghampton University (probably another Marxist
> professor) disagreed with me, but actually had the brains to write
> something instead of name-calling. So now I will go respond to him.
>
> >government.
>
>
Wait. Once governments fall- and I take it you mean fall away
completely- you claim that capitalism won't survive on it's own? I
don't see how you can make that claim. Socialism will fall, Communism
will fall, but capitalism can do just fine on its own-
Do you mean corprate America wouldn't survive? That is believeable, but
capitalism in general is the only economic system that has a hope of
surviving without government- and if you remember what virtually(I say
virtually, but all that I have read claim this, I'm just leaving room
for disagreement-) all of the political philosophers have claimed- that
it is through non-coercive agreements that governments arrive-
non-coercive agreements... Sounds like capitalism to me!
> and just to prove I haven't really grown up... you're a dimwit >yourself!
no one asked you to prove that you haven't grown up
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
John Merrall wrote:
>
> ??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu wrote:
> : Hokey Wolf wrote:
>
> : > Ask one if they'd advocate say, the leveling of the playing field in the
> : > US, since so much of its economic ancestry consists of slavery and
> : > genocide (they consider this "force" which is against their stated
> : > principles). Every one I've talked to weasels out of it. I think this
> : > selectivity (among lots of other things) reveals their true motives.
>
> : In
> : any economy someone is going to end up on top(remember Nozick's argument
> : against pattern theory fo justice), do you really believe that it's
> : unfair?
>
> But "someone ending up on top" is just consolidation of economic power,
> right?
>
it is a consolidiation of capital- consolidation of political power
somehow justifies violent behavior- consolidation of capital, unless
accompianied by political power, never justifies agressive or intrusive
behavior
> So why is "consolidation of economic power" good, while "consolidation of
> political power" is bad?
just covered that-
>What are the evil results of consolidated
> political power, and are they any different than the evil results of
> consolidated economic power?
Evil results of consolidated political power:
war: internal and ex-
Evil results of consolidated economic power(I'll take that to mean
wealthy):
uhhh...
Can you lend me a hand here?
> How, for example, is political censorship
> more evil than economic censorship?
what do you mean by economic censorship? As far as I can see you're
making up terms and asking me to deal with them- I refuse to recognize
these straw men-
j.a.sommerville
Dennis I's=
> Dennis I's= wrote:
> >
> > > Poor, poor envious baby. Your idiotic theories about the so-called "ruling
> > > class" demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of the world around you.
> > > Are you a school teacher or college professor? Just curious. A lot of
> > > uninformed people on this board seem to be one or the other. Who gives a
> > > shit about inherited wealth? Not me. Most people who inherit great wealth
> > > wind up as basket cases. You need to look no further than the Kennedy clan
> > > for a demonstration of this. The vast majority of wealthy Americans earned
> > > their money through the extremely hard work of a building and running a
> > > business. Please, by all means. Go back to your 19th century books on
> > > Marxism and revel in your little fantasy world. Leave the discussion on
> > > public affairs to people who actually have a clue.
> >
> > And you haven't a clue either, ever heard of mafia?
>
> what??? Please say this is a joke...
No it isn't.
> How can you compare those that get ahead by non-violent means to the
> mafia???
No I didn't compare them to the mafia this were just some examples
of organisations that didn't get their money though hard work.
(hmmm could be argued, It miust be hard looking over your shoulder
all day)
> > railway tycoons???
>
> again: What???
> if you are going to attack someone, please, please, please tell me why
Charge !!!!! attack ? what are you talking about.
> you do it- attacking the mafia because it is some how a capitalist
> organization is a joke- Crime Thrives Anywhere it gets a chance(which it
> wouldn't in a Libertarian society- not when the police have nothing to
> do except chase after real criminals-) do you claim that you won't find
> organized crime in a socialist state? Wait, I think I'm setting you up
> for a fall in a post or two with that statement, don't you? now, What
> problems do you have with railway tycoons? perhaps in the days when
> they held a natural monopoly over transportation, but those days are
> long gone- In fact, it's time to privatize the railways again in this
> country-
If I wanted to set you up , you wouldn't know. :o)
they started in the early years with not so nice
practises they accumulated money which they invested.
So the money that made the money was dirty.
Besides , what is this socialist capitalist remark?
Getting a bit paranoid , I want to set you up ???
hahaha privitisation IS the selling out of
democracy , are you a libertarian??
I don't think so
Give me the 19 centurie libertarians
any time, over you .
Maybe you need to read them again.
> > Some people did get their wealth through hard work
> > but a lot didn't.
>
> and the saying goes
>
> TOUGH SHIT
Or I get my gun and start leveling.
>
> > And why don't you apply for the job of GOD when
> > you are allknowing :o)
>
> and why don't you apply for the job of G-d when you are ready to tell me
> that a new morality has developed that makes taking my justly earned
> property just.
I already have applied, I am.
O+-> 2000 zero zero party over oops outta time.
O+-3~ O+- +- -3 3~.
there can be only one
for there is only one.
:o)
justly???? Well when believing in god , you should know that he only
owns we only borrow.but that is when you believe.
I am god and I 've come to collect the rent.
extra charges for the pollution you made
with your little party :o)
(Is this a joke? who knows)
mad man and children tell the truth
Okay enough madness for today
where is my prozac >=o)
> > Get
> > real S hole
> >
> > --
> >
>
> I did. Your turn.
I tell you when it is my turn , and you won't like it :o)
> j.a.sommerville
>
> =free奄nkhor奚+-3~.xs2all.I's=
--
=free奄nkhor奚+-3~.xs2all.I's=
Dennis I's=
> Cool! I can't wait for your "just society." You see I happened to be a very
> lazy bum, still I have to drag my lazy ass to work every morning to make a
> livin'. As soon as you get your plans working I'm gonna stay home and collect
> my even share of goodies. Where do I cast a vote for you?
You don't
> Just one question: since all my buddies are as lazy as I am, where do you plan
> to get the suckers from, to actually produce all the goodies?
Nobody will, so you get hungry and have to get of your lazy ass
to get some food. Just like it has always been.
> Jack
--
=free奄nkhor奚+-3~.xs2all.I's=
Dennis I's=
> Dennis I's= wrote:
> >
> > > Doesn't that depend on what you mean by 'public ownership'? If public
> > > ownership is a state controlling resources, telling people what to produce
> > > then it is in conflict with liberty. If it's people living in voluntary
> > > organizations, willingly sharing what they produce it isn't.
> >
> > Not if the government IS the people , like it was intended.
>
> Are you really willing to start the as "it was intended" debate about
> govt? especially american govt. You're not going to score any points
> in that department-
Look Imhate competitiveness , so I am not here to score points
or something or to get someones approval, what are these reply's?
They starting to bore me to shit.
(hmmmm from shit i came to shit I will go :o))
>
> > Now business intrest are the community intrests because
> > when the factory goes bad , the community goes bad.
>
> very true- which is why you need such a market as would place the very
> best in positions of authority. the capitalist system of rewarding
> excellence seems to work just fine- it's when something perverts that
> system that things begin to fall apart-
In your *ahum* humble opinion.
This system also has competitiveness
as a motivation. cleaning up after yourself
costs money and time and resources so we pollute.
The system is falling apart my friend .
> > Money gives you freedom when you have enough of it.
>
> that's part of the reward system inherent to capitalism- more money,
> greater freedom to do the things you want-
Just how these reward scheme is set up is a bit dodgy.
> > otherwise , it are invisible chains.
>
> are they? the rules of capitalism will propel anyone who has the
> "oomph" and _ingenuity_ to get ahead- these invisible chains can be
> broken by anyone who is willing to stand up-
Yep and do ANYTHING neccesary to get more money.
selling your familie by polluting etc.
And what for the ones who cabn get no jobs?
They start stealing,(well some) get into jail
get a job there at lower wages. I love america
Hmmm or does it look like china???
No can't be 2 different systems.
> > the less money the tighter the
> > chain.
>
> the less money, the harder the uphill struggle to excellence- not the
> tighter the chain- Does anybody have the figures on how many NEW
> millionaires America has gained in the last ten years? how many people
> who were millionaires ten years ago aren't? I'm not even sure if those
> numbers will work in my favour, but I think it's a safe bet-
more millionairs mean more poor people too, how do they get
millionairs else.
> > You can't reach things and you can't go places.
> > >
> yes you can- if you work hard and invest well-
>
> > Don't tellme about hard work that these people did to get there
> > money.
>
>many of them did. I won't claim that all of them did, but many did.
how many???
> > A lot of people worked harder and gotten duddly squad.
>
>they didn't get duddly squad- they got whatever it was they deserved-in
According to you what they deserved.
Mauybe It's time for you to see live from the other side
I welcome you to the other side and it will happen.
> order to get rich in this country though, it does take a littlemore- it
> helps if you are smarter and more ingenious than the nextguy- if you
> are smarter than average, work hard, maybe have severalunique ideas,
> you will do well- it's the way the system works- Idon't see how it
> isn't fair.
Fuck that system. You don't see it yet , but you will
live will take a turn and you will know.
> > Are we free?
>
> I am. "we"aren't anything >
Yep maybe you FEEL free, but others don't
and it's paytime.
> > no we live by the rules of capitalism and aslong
> > as you stick by the rules you can feel free.
>
> the rulesof capitalism are inescapable if you want to live in a JUST
In YOUR vision of a JUST en FAIR society, but like i said
this just and fair society will turn on you.
> and FAIRsociety- those are the words you choose to value, yes? JUST
> andFAIR are at the root of capitalism and libertarianism-
>
> Thequestion that started this thread was "What exactly is a
>Libertarian?"
If this is libertarianism(I know better) What is facism then?
> Here is my answer-
>
> A libertarian is aNon-Agressive, Fair and Just individual.
Yeah in his own minds eye.
another hero in his own mind.
everything you can sayabout a Libertarian is in that statement.
>
> please feel free toattack me.
Paranoid attack mode :o)
No , no fun , the system you choose will :o)
> I'm sure you will.
I am certain I shall
But not as bad as live will turn on you.
> j.a.sommerville > > >
> >
> -- > > =free奄nkhor奚+-3~.xs2all.I's=
(I love to play the phrophet, there have been so
little lately :o) )
(read the bible again , its follow the phrophets not the profits :o) )
--
=free奄nkhor奚+-3~.xs2all.I's=
Dennis I's=
> The libertarian movement contains more than it's share of
> anarcho-capitalists -- people who believe in no government. The posting on
> the libertarian board as well as the anarchist board is proper.
Yep only problem is that they don't want the government because
they want to be the government, lets see how much they will
do about the environment wi5thout the government.
--
=free奄nkhor奚+-3~.xs2all.I's=
Hokey Wolf
In article <35466D7D.MD-0.196.ankhor@*REMOVE*cybercomm.nl>, "Dennis I's="
<ankhor@*REMOVE*cybercomm.nl> wrote:
?> The libertarian movement contains more than it's share of
?> anarcho-capitalists -- people who believe in no government. The posting on
?> the libertarian board as well as the anarchist board is proper.
?
?Yep only problem is that they don't want the government because
?they want to be the government
Exactly. If authoritarian power is the issue, you gotta have all its
forms _out on the table_.
Hokey Wolf
In article <354670...@matrix.newpaltz.edu>, ??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu
wrote:
?John Merrall wrote:
snippage
?>What are the evil results of consolidated
?> political power, and are they any different than the evil results of
?> consolidated economic power?
?
?Evil results of consolidated political power:
?
?war: internal and ex-
?
?Evil results of consolidated economic power(I'll take that to mean
?wealthy):
?
?uhhh...
You meant "duhhhhh."
?Can you lend me a hand here?
Starvation, pollution, lack of medical care, lack of water, lack of clean
water, lack of non-toxic food and water, lack of shelter, lack of
clothing, etc., etc., exploiting all above listed conditions and many
more for fun and profit. These all constitute free choices of the
powerful ($). Those who made the choices are responsible for said
choices. With each measure of freedom to choose (power) comes a like
measure of responsibility for each choice.
The free market tells us hi-def tv's, enough Barbies to sell 2 per second,
and NBA basketball are far higher priorities than food for the millions
who will starve to death this year. If Capitalism advocates' hideously
irresponsible rationalizations for this don't constitute "evil," I don't
know what does.
Non-fallacious responses only, please.
Hokey Wolf
In article <9h111.214$Lb1....@news.internetMCI.com>, "FU"
<f...@anarchy.org> wrote:
?Poor, poor envious baby. Your idiotic theories about the so-called "ruling
?class" demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of the world around you.
?Are you a school teacher or college professor? Just curious. A lot of
?uninformed people on this board seem to be one or the other. Who gives a
?shit about inherited wealth? Not me. Most people who inherit great wealth
?wind up as basket cases. You need to look no further than the Kennedy clan
?for a demonstration of this. The vast majority of wealthy Americans earned
?their money through the extremely hard work of a building and running a
?business. Please, by all means. Go back to your 19th century books on
?Marxism and revel in your little fantasy world. Leave the discussion on
?public affairs to people who actually have a clue.
Obviously school teachers aren't doing their jobs, sheesh.
?Lepore wrote in message <354481...@mhxv.net>...
?>Maybe YOUR wealth was acquired through peronal work.
?>But it's easy to find names of some people for whom this
?>isn't true. Go to the Fortune Magazine website,
?>search on source of wealth = inheritance, and list
?>the names in descending order of billions of dollars,
?>down through the hundreds of millions of dollars.
?>You are looking at modern society's ruling class,
?>the modern equivalent of the family of Augustus
?>and Tiberius in ancient Rome.
Well said, but no one has ever acquired wealth solely through personal
work. The work of others is always a factor.
Hokey Wolf
?Another dimwitted college professor (from Boston University) chimes in.
?
?The "fucked up" world around you is a direct result of ever present
?government.
College professors will generally encourage one to support claims with
evidence, logically arranged. And to avoid lazy, authoritarian,
convergent paradigms.
Hokey Wolf
?Poor, poor envious baby.
Anybody remember Nellie "You're just jealous" Olsen on Little House on the
Prairie?
?Lepore wrote in message <354481...@mhxv.net>...
?>Maybe YOUR wealth was acquired through peronal work.
?>But it's easy to find names of some people for whom this
?>isn't true. Go to the Fortune Magazine website,
?>search on source of wealth = inheritance, and list
?>the names in descending order of billions of dollars,
?>down through the hundreds of millions of dollars.
?>You are looking at modern society's ruling class,
?>the modern equivalent of the family of Augustus
?>and Tiberius in ancient Rome.
?>
?>
?>--
?>
?>M. Lepore
?>
?>
?>
?> * * Click me if you like socialism:
?> * * * http://www.netizen.org/mal/soc.htm
Hokey Wolf
In article <xo511.1505$Lb1.2...@news.internetMCI.com>, "FU"
<f...@anarchy.org> wrote:
?The libertarian movement contains more than it's share of
?anarcho-capitalists -- people who believe in no government. The posting on
?the libertarian board as well as the anarchist board is proper.
My, such authority!
???????@matrix.newpaltz.edu wrote in message
?<3544E7...@matrix.newpaltz.edu>...
?>>
?>you ARE coming from alt.anarchism, aren't you?
?>
?>take a look at the other newsgroups listed in the thread before you
?>start making general comments that are better adressed to a specific
?>group-
Hokey Wolf
?FU wrote:
?>
?> Poor, poor envious baby. Your idiotic theories about the so-called "ruling
?> class" demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of the world around you.
?> Are you a school teacher or college professor? Just curious. A lot of
?> uninformed people on this board seem to be one or the other. Who gives a
?> shit about inherited wealth? Not me. Most people who inherit great wealth
?> wind up as basket cases. You need to look no further than the Kennedy clan
?> for a demonstration of this. The vast majority of wealthy Americans earned
?> their money through the extremely hard work of a building and running a
?> business. Please, by all means. Go back to your 19th century books on
?> Marxism and revel in your little fantasy world. Leave the discussion on
?> public affairs to people who actually have a clue.
?>
?
?How True!!! Inheritence may not seem very fair(it isn't), but it can't
?be helped in a just society.
Must you speak in knots?
However there is a leveling mechanism
?built into capitalism when it comes to Inheritence- if they can't handle
?the money they loose it quickly enough- you can hire as many advisors as
?you want, if you don't have the first clue about how money works, and
?how to make it grow, you're going to loose it-
More than likely Mom can show you how to do that as well. The
aristocratic culture is generally going to come with it.
Hokey Wolf
?Mitchell Holman <ta2...@aimail.net> wrote in article
?
?<E232FCCAC39CB02B.9AC15B07...@library-proxy.airnews.net>
?..
?> In article <KLV_.623$ne6.6...@news.internetMCI.com>, "ericbl"
?<eric.bla...@MCI2000.com> wrote:
?> }The libertarian spectrum is bounded by two assertions: Thomas Jefferson's
?> }statement that government is best which governs least and Henry David
?> }Thoreau's statement that government is best which governs not at all.
?> }
?> }Libertarianism is a philosophy of minimal government. Most libertarians
?> }would reduce government to it's Constitutional duties. Some would reduce
?it
?> }even further. Libertarians are complete in their belief in individual
?> }liberty. Most libertarians would support the following policies:
?> }
?> }Radically reduced government spending
?> }Radically lower and simplify taxes (or eliminate them altogether)
?> }Property Rights
?> }Deregulation
?> }Privatization of government services
?> }The right to keep and bear arms
?> }Educational Choice
?> }Freedom of Speech
?> }Market-based health care
?> }Term limits for politicians
?>
?> This last one is new to me. Why would libertarians be in
?> favor of a government regulation on political offices? That
?> sounds like less freedom, not more.
They ALL represent less freedom for all but the wealthiest.
G*rd*n
"FU" <f...@anarchy.org>:
| First, humans are imperfect. Any activities they engage in are imperfect.
| I never said that the market perfectly rewards people. I said that people
| USUALLY get what they deserve in the market. There are always exceptions to
| the rule.
I think you're missing my point. Whether the market always
gives people what they deserve or usually gives them what
they deserve doesn't matter. The issue is the notion of
merit or justice implicit in the word _deserve_. I'm
arguing that liberalism and therefore its economic system,
capitalism, don't care about deserts. It's just this
abandonment of justice in favor of voluntary associations
and transactions that gives capitalism its power, because
the capitalist system doesn't use up much energy trying to
regulate its constituents (in theory, anyway). Justice is
left up to the gods and the conscience of individuals;
meanwhile you get what you can make, take, find, or
inherit.
Of course, you can _define_ justice as what the market does,
but this would probably have you coming up with some judgments
considerably at variance with most people's idea of justice.
| Second, people who complain that they are being treated unfairly more often
| than not have tainted perspectives on the value of their work as compared to
| others. ...
This is a rather broad sociological assertion. Do you have
some evidence for it?
| Third, there's a huge myth still being perpetuated that the "poor" work hard
| while the "rich" live a life of leisure. The reality is the opposite. ...
The issue I'm concerned with is power, not leisure. The
idle rich are of no interest to me, even as figments of
propaganda.
Hokey Wolf
In article <mqI01.2083$ub.32...@news.internetMCI.com>, "FU"
<f...@anarchy.org> wrote:
?Let's see...
?
?Libertarian: "freedom of action" like owning and business and employing
?people
?Communism: "public ownership" of business
?
?Sorry, they are incompatible from the word go.
Hey, could you read my post, and THEN respond next time?
?Hokey Wolf wrote in message ...
?>
?>But you're talking about the capital L version, Libertarian. The word
?>libertarian is defined as something along the lines of the belief in
?>freedom of action and thought. And communism is defined as public
?>ownership and classlessness, isn't it? Again, not mutually exclusive
?>concepts.
Hokey Wolf
Libertarians (as opposed to libertarians) are just another in a long line
of power-mongering authoritarians who've always made the world a very sad
place.
Hokey Wolf
In article <djarum98-270...@ppp-77-7.bu.edu>, djar...@usa.net
(Djarum) wrote:
?In article <yeah-26049...@pm10-125.orf.infi.net>, ye...@yeah.net
?(Hokey Wolf ) wrote:
?
?>In article <35433123.MD-0.196.ankhor@*REMOVE*cybercomm.nl>, "Dennis I's="
?><ankhor@*REMOVE*cybercomm.nl> wrote:
?>
?>And very, very often the two enhance eachother.
?>
?>But you're talking about the capital L version, Libertarian. The word
?>libertarian is defined as something along the lines of the belief in
?>freedom of action and thought. And communism is defined as public
?>ownership and classlessness, isn't it? Again, not mutually exclusive
?>concepts.
?
?Doesn't that depend on what you mean by 'public ownership'? If public
?ownership is a state controlling resources, telling people what to produce
?then it is in conflict with liberty.
Not if it enhances liberty.
I would imagine people would vote to enhance their liberty, wouldn't they?
? If it's people living in voluntary
?organizations, willingly sharing what they produce it isn't.
?I guess it all depends on how you want to define liberty. I think liberty
?is just the freedom to do what you want, but of course there have to be
?some limitations imposed by the society. Others think liberty includes
?the freedom to hoard capital to yourself and your class, to the detriment
?of everyone else. So what it comes down to is- are you an asshole, or are
?you not an asshole? Do you want a system that's cool for everyone, or do
?you only care about yourself?
Well put imo.
Hokey Wolf
In article <35439B...@matrix.newpaltz.edu>, ??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu
wrote:
?Hokey Wolf wrote:
snippage
?> ?If the past thirty owners of my property aquired it through just
?> ?means(don't argue that point, it's just foolishness and you know it),
?> ?where do you get the right to take it?
?>
?> The question was, where did *they* get the right to take it. And why do
?> you have the right to own it currently?
?>
?
?Is this the question that all socialists are now forced to fall back
?on? "Alright, fine, our system doesn't work: your capitalism does
?create wealth where ours can't;
It's hard to tell whom or what you're responding to, but at any rate
capitalism has never created any wealth. People create and produce
wealth. Capitalism and socialisms just tell you who gets to control what
and how things will be distributed.
your system is actually better for the
?poor; your system is the least tyranical and the most truly fair, as it
?gives equality of opportunity; BUT I don't see where you get the right
?to do all of these things in the first place... <whine whine, sniffle
?sniffle>"
Ayn Rand made a career of whining and sniffling because she had to share
her family's wealth. Such accusations always accompany the maintenance of
power.
?I'll answer you though-
?
?Where did they get the right to take it in the first place? hmmm... it
?is a tough question... designed to stump the rational... hmmm...
I never witness really rational people thinking being rational is
something like carrying a flag.
?I guess you don't believe in natural law, eh? Read Bastiat's "The Law"
?all my answers are in the first two pages- if you don't agree with what
?he's saying(you can ignore the God parts if you wish, they aren't
?necessary as a part of his argument) then I'm not sure we can find
?common ground to continue this with- read it and tell me where you have
?problems with his basic premise- maybe you can take a look at Locke's
?"Second Treatise" as well
There's no justification for property right. It all comes down to
"because (fill in the blank) says so." Utterly authoritarian concept.
But MY original question involved *genocide* and *slavery* as a means to
property. Remember?
Djarum
In article <354627...@matrix.newpaltz.edu>, ??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu
wrote:
>Djarum wrote:
>> Exactly, and once it falls your precious capitalism will fall with it.
>>
>
>Wait. Once governments fall- and I take it you mean fall away
>completely- you claim that capitalism won't survive on it's own?
Right. Property is an artificial right perpetuated by the government, the
rich, and the brainwashed. For capitalism to work people must respect the
right to property. However every capitalist society has some degree of
social stratification, and those that find themselves in the lower stratum
resent the property of the wealthier classes. And what does this lead
to? Disprespect of property rights, i.e. CRIME.
Its not that the poor are lazy or jealous (well, perhaps some of them
are); their resentment is a legitimate expression of the fact that forces
beyond their control put them in an undesirable lifestyle. You can say,
"life is tough, deal with it." But they can say the same to you after they
break into your house and rob you.
So capitalism breeds a large amount of property-related crime, b/c people
are not as 'honest' as you would like them to be. So far I am not
convinced of anarcho-capitalist strategies for dealing with crime. I
don't buy the idea of private security services (pardon the pun)...they
work to some extent within the framwork provided by the state, but left
unregulated they would turn into mercenary armies violently enforcing
class divisions (I mean property rights)...really it would turn into a
nightmare world, not much fun at all. Libertarian philosophy is
non-agressive, but without a state to enforce this, what would?
>I don't see how you can make that claim. Socialism will fall, Communism
>will fall, but capitalism can do just fine on its own-
Can I have some examples? I have never heard of an anarchist, capitalist
society- a large, long lasting society, not some short-lived, sparsely
populated frontierville like the 'wild west.' OTOH, many non-capitalist,
stateless societies have existed, but they seemed primitive and
technologically backward. Since we know they can exist, we just have to
figure out how to bring their egalitarian social structure into Western
society. At least thats my view of how society needs to evolve.
>Do you mean corprate America wouldn't survive? That is believeable, but
>capitalism in general is the only economic system that has a hope of
>surviving without government
What is capitalism without corporations? Can you explain your view of an
anarcho-capitalist system that is not dominated by a corporate culture? I
imagine it would be like feudalism, with wealthly landowners exploiting
masses of destitute serf-types...but large, production/service-oriented
corporations are central to my view of modern capitalism so I admit I
haven't thought about it much...
>- and if you remember what virtually(I say
>virtually, but all that I have read claim this, I'm just leaving room
>for disagreement-) all of the political philosophers have claimed- that
>it is through non-coercive agreements that governments arrive-
>non-coercive agreements... Sounds like capitalism to me!
Non-coercive agreements do not necessarily have anything to do with
capital. But that second to last sentence mystifies me, perhaps you would
do better to write it in grammatically correct English. " it is through
non-coercive agreements that governments arrive-
>non-coercive agreements" huh? I guess the non-coercive agreement part is
important, but otherwise I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
And why follow someone else's political idealogy anyways...
>> and just to prove I haven't really grown up... you're a dimwit >yourself!
>
>no one asked you to prove that you haven't grown up
No one asked you to tell me that no one asked me to prove I haven't grown
up. Usenet posts are spontaneous and voluntary. What's the point to a
comment like that? I said it cos I felt like saying it.
Lepore
Hey, there's another person who agrees with Adolf Hitler's
explanation that those who are against class stratification
are against it because of "envy."
Djarum
>> I said 'roughly even.' People that work harder will earn more. If you
>> don't want to participate you don't have to, but people will notice and
>> won't share as much with you. Keep in mind I believe in *local*
>> organization, not some faceless welfare-state. The people that live and
>> work around you would notice, and probably would exclude you from society,
>> throwing you scraps now and then so you don't starve.
>>
>
>oh, you mean like capitalism?
No.
[snip]
>no kidding? where did you here that one from? but who works for others
>expence?
>people do like to work- remeber what Charles Reich said? that work,
>love, and knowledge were the wellsprings of human happiness? I love
>that- it's beautiful.
> People do like to work. but some people will always try to get away
>with doing as little as possible-
I don't really think this is always true, or if it is the number of people
is negligible. If people have to sell their labor to survive, then clearly
work will not be viewed as a good thing, and some people will resist it.
The people that don't have to work are resented by those who do. But if
working long hours is not necessary to live, it won't be resisted. And
there really isn't much need for people to work as long as they
do...people in the US produce much more than they need...and waste more
than anyone else in the world. What's the point?
Djarum
In article <354620...@matrix.newpaltz.edu>, ??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu
wrote:
>> Looking at it from a capitalist perspective, that makes sense. Your money
>> is your property, and you can do what you like with it.
>
>Good, so we at least share that perspective.
No no no, I said it only makes sense looking at it from your narrow perspective.
>class divisions aren't as strong as we are led to imagine- We see
>images on television of the rich acting snooty and saying horrible
>things about the poor, or bungling up there attempts to help the poor-
>whatever- it isn't as sharply devided as that. There is always the
>possibility for upward mobility. There is an equal possibility for
>downward mobility.
No, it's a lot easier to hold on to a fortune you've inherited than it is
to earn one from the ground up.
>Class lines will be around forever, there isn't
>anything you can really do about it.
Get rid of governments and get rid of capitalism, and probably organized
religion to boot.
[another snip]
>> Well, I'm not arguing people should take your money- that sounds like a
>> job for the state.
>from what right? we just agreed that one has the right to do with his
>money as he wills- did't we? The state can't jump in and claim a right
>to money it has not earned.
Sorry, I wasn't being serious there. I was just making a jab at statism,
particuarly state-socialism. I certainly don't think the state has a
right to- well, to do anything.
[another snip...I'm
kind of low on time tonight...]
>> I'd like to see a kind of
>> technological subsistence economy...if that makes any sense.
>not really- Please expound
The profit-motive drives capitalist economies to produce much much more
than they need. I would rather have people producing what they need and
stop wasting so much...sorry I don't have time to elaborate much more.
[snip]
>> They never really earned it in the first place, though. Kind of
>> contradicts with the idea that we're all born equals.
>No one ever claimed that we are all born equals.
No, but we should all be born with an equal chance to succeed or fail.
>I agree. It pisses me off to, especially since I've gone most of this
>semester with three bucks in my pocket. Haven't had a chance to do very
>little outside of my accademics(USENET is about it!) - but we don't have
>a right, we don't have just cause, we don't have any way to claim it
>would be fair, to take away there BMW's and micro-cell phones-
I'm not saying take it away (although it would be fun!...so so so much
fun!), I'm saying the present situation is less than optimal, and I'm
trying to develop an idea of something that would work better. really I
see myself as more of an individualist than a collectivist-type socialist,
but I don't believe capitalism maximizes the potential of the individual.
BretCahill
A "libertarian" is usually someone who believes anything
he wants, whether it is true or rational or not.
He's LIBERTYTATED from reality, reason, scholarship . . . .
Bret Cahill
All conservatism is based on censorship of
economic information.
-- Bret Cahill
do...@stone-soup.com
On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 22:58:02 -0400, djar...@usa.net (Djarum) wrote:
<snip>
>>Class lines will be around forever, there isn't
>>anything you can really do about it.
>
>Get rid of governments and get rid of capitalism, and probably organized
>religion to boot.
>
Get rid of governments and libertarians believe that capitalism will
florish. But most libertarians would be glad to let you form what
ever economic system you want as long as you don't force people to be
part of it.
S. Douglas Heard do...@stone-soup.com
Stone Soup Canine http://www.stone-soup.com
It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.
"liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others."
William Allen White
Jack Hanebach
Djarum wrote:
> I said 'roughly even.' People that work harder will earn more.
Well, well. So if they save what they earn they can become... rich???
> If you don't want to participate you don't have to, but people will notice and
> won't share as much with you. Keep in mind I believe in *local*
> organization, not some faceless welfare-state. The people that live and
> work around you would notice, and probably would exclude you from society,
> throwing you scraps now and then so you don't starve.
No kiddin'. Are you saying I will be... poor???
> >Just one question: since all my buddies are as lazy as I am, where do you plan
> >to get the suckers from, to actually produce all the goodies?
>
> Are you friends with everybody else in the world? I have serious doubts
> about that.
Ouch! That hurts.
> Most people do in fact like to work, although they may want
> to work less, and doing different things.
OK. So you will end up with a society of painters, sculptors, doll-makers, etc. And
who will end up doing the less appealing jobs?
> Obviously no system would work in which everyone just sits on there ass and does
> nothing.
Hey, there's still hope for you.
Jack Hanebach
Dennis I's= wrote:
> > Cool! I can't wait for your "just society." You see I happened to be a very
> > lazy bum, still I have to drag my lazy ass to work every morning to make a
> > livin'. As soon as you get your plans working I'm gonna stay home and collect
> > my even share of goodies. Where do I cast a vote for you?
>
> You don't
Oh, you mean you're not gonna ask dumb masses what they want, you know better what's
good for them, don't you.
> > Just one question: since all my buddies are as lazy as I am, where do you plan
> > to get the suckers from, to actually produce all the goodies?
>
> Nobody will, so you get hungry and have to get of your lazy ass
> to get some food. Just like it has always been.
I see, it's not about a "better society", it's just about YOU calling the shots,
isn't it.
root
And I guess free market "anarchist" capitalism will solve this. How
about reading about free marketeers and their actions, such as Pinochet
and people like the capitalists of 1873-1937? All butchers, all
capitalists. Stalin/Lenin too: state capitalists. I could go on, but I
am about to puke.
FU wrote:
>
> Another dimwitted college professor (from Boston University) chimes in.
>
> The "fucked up" world around you is a direct result of ever present
> government.
--
++++ stop de execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal ++++
++++ if you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig ++++
++++ more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm ++++
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
Hokey Wolf wrote:
>
> In article <35439B...@matrix.newpaltz.edu>, ??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu
> wrote:
>
> ?Hokey Wolf wrote:
>
> snippage
>
> ?> ?If the past thirty owners of my property aquired it through just
> ?> ?means(don't argue that point, it's just foolishness and you know it),
> ?> ?where do you get the right to take it?
> ?>
> ?> The question was, where did *they* get the right to take it. And why do
> ?> you have the right to own it currently?
> ?>
> ?
> ?Is this the question that all socialists are now forced to fall back
> ?on? "Alright, fine, our system doesn't work: your capitalism does
> ?create wealth where ours can't;
>
> It's hard to tell whom or what you're responding to,
I believe it was you when you fell back on the "But where do you get the
right to property in the first place?" question that boggles my mind-
Where does one get the right to property in the first place? It's
inherent to any human society. You only have a few options, shall we go
through them? The libertarian train of thought begins with the notion
of self-ownership. Any disagreement here? Let's see the other options
here are One Class owning Another as Slaves; or everyone owning a little
piece of someone else. The first option os a no go, since in the master
class you have a contradiction of no self-ownership, and it implies a
less than human standing for the slave class. The second option just
isn't feasable. How many people are there alive today? 4 something
billion? I own one/four billionth of everyone else? That just isn't
rational no matter how you think about it. Can you keep tabs on the
goings on of 4 billion people? So we can agree that self-ownership, if
not emotionally evident, is the only rational choice. From
self-ownership we can assume liberty of thought and actions. It is
implied through self-ownership. I own myself, so I can act in certain
ways, as long as they do not inhibit anothers actions or thoughts. This
is where the non-agressive/non-intrusive core of libertarian thought
arrises. Property rights are the next step in this logical journey.
The classical example is that of a potter- If a potter takes a lump of
clay, works it, and makes a pot, who does that pot belong to? Now
ignore where he got the right to the clay from. We'll deal with that
momentarily. Is there any way that one could claim a right to that pot,
beside the potter? I don't see that there is. Could this pot, let's
say that it was made in Arizona, be owned, at least 1/4 billionth of it,
by a computer programmer in Taiwan? This is the socialist/communist
claim. Can you truly believe this? It isn't rational. What of the
statist's claim that those in power can claim this pot as theirs? But
where do they get the right to claim the pot? I can't think of any
possible answers to this question, and am having a hard time refuting it
because of this. If someone can give me an answer to why the state, or
any other group of armed bandits, can make a claim to one's property,
I'll do my best to refute their claim. Please, in the interest of
debate, give me some answer. Now what about the clay? Where did the
potter gain the rights to this clay? He either dug it himself in his
own clay-yard, or he purchased it from someone who had dug it from their
clay-yard. Where do rights to land-property come from? The same place
the right to the pot came from. The potter mixed his labour into the
clay and made a pot. The farmer mixes his labour into the ground and
tills a field. The potter owns the pot, the farmer owns the field. If
I build my house on a piece of preiviously un-owned property, plant a
garden, pave a drive way, dig a well, and whatever else, I've mixed my
labour into the property. Can someone half a world away claim
1/4billionth of my new house? NO, and for the same reasons that that
same person can't claim the potters pot. Now there is a strong argument
that accepts these facts, but looks at all the injustices of history,
and rightfuly asks "But what of all the property that was stolen? Work
unrightfuly gained by force? How can you support property claims that
are based on such a history?" I can't justify it. I am at a loss as to
how to respond to these questions. I suppose the utilitarian answer is
to just accede to the present owners as they are recognized by the
goverment and start from there. But there are inherent dangers in doing
so- allowing the government to decide who is the rightful owner of the
property concedes one of the core beliefs of libertarians and can't be
done. Let us ask then, if the present owner is not the owner, than who
is? The descendent of the last just owner? How do we decide who the
last just owner is? If you claim that a certain Amer-Indian tribe is
the rightful owner of a certain chunk of land, because these are the
people that the Europeans pushed out in there conquest, what of the
tribe that was there previous, and was pushed out, or extinguished, by
the tribe you are now giving the property to? Don't they have a better
claim to the land? We cannot go back in time and correct all the
injustices of history, but we can make sure that they do not happen
again. That is the best way that I can answer that particularly sticky
question. Over all though, these are the reasons that one has a right
to property.
but at any rate
> capitalism has never created any wealth. People create and produce
> wealth. Capitalism and socialisms just tell you who gets to control what
> and how things will be distributed.
>
Exactly. They are the systems under which wealth is created. One calls
for rational, self-interst, to create wealth, and the other doesn't.
Socialism makes the claim that one should work for the group, the
imaginary concept of "society," rather than themselves. Can you justify
this?
> ? your system is actually better for the
> ?poor; your system is the least tyranical and the most truly fair, as it
> ?gives equality of opportunity; BUT I don't see where you get the right
> ?to do all of these things in the first place... <whine whine, sniffle
> ?sniffle>"
>
> Ayn Rand made a career of whining and sniffling because she had to share
> her family's wealth. Such accusations always accompany the maintenance of
> power.
>
I have read and enjoyed the works of Ayn Rand, but I am by no means a
philosophical objectivist. She made too many concessions, and held an
irregular philosophy that held innate contradictions. She sold herself
out to her lust for big business.
> ?I'll answer you though-
> ?
> ?Where did they get the right to take it in the first place? hmmm... it
> ?is a tough question... designed to stump the rational... hmmm...
>
> I never witness really rational people thinking being rational is
> something like carrying a flag.
>
Not a flag, more like a lantern.
> ?I guess you don't believe in natural law, eh? Read Bastiat's "The Law"
> ?all my answers are in the first two pages- if you don't agree with what
> ?he's saying(you can ignore the God parts if you wish, they aren't
> ?necessary as a part of his argument) then I'm not sure we can find
> ?common ground to continue this with- read it and tell me where you have
> ?problems with his basic premise- maybe you can take a look at Locke's
> ?"Second Treatise" as well
>
> There's no justification for property right. It all comes down to
> "because (fill in the blank) says so." Utterly authoritarian concept.
> But MY original question involved *genocide* and *slavery* as a means to
> property. Remember?
Covered that earlier-
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
Can you go through the list and explain how each of them represent less
freedom for all but the wealthiest? If you can make the claim, back it
up. State how each of these claims don't hurt the wealthiest, but do
hurt everyone else. I don't think you can do it.
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
root wrote:
>
> And I guess free market "anarchist" capitalism will solve this. How
> about reading about free marketeers and their actions, such as Pinochet
> and people like the capitalists of 1873-1937? All butchers, all
> capitalists. Stalin/Lenin too: state capitalists.
What's the difference between a "state capitalist" and a socialist?
Socialism is state control of industry and all other forms of
manufacturing. It is, in Marxist terms, the state that is to come right
before communism, an imperfect application of communist principles. If
that is socialism, than what is this "state capitalism," and how does it
differ from socialism?
baby_ifritah
FU <f...@anarchy.org> wrote in article
> I guarantee you that
> Bill Gates, in spite of being the richest man in the word, still works
> longer and harder than any factory worker in the world. Bill Gates is
> always working...
who gives a shit if Bill Gates is working......anyone who has that kind of
money, the kind of money that can feed whole countries and save thousands
upon thousands of lives and doesn't do this is a moral degenerate....he may
have the right to his money, or he may not...i for one don't believe i'm in
a position to judge the ethics of his gain, i also don't claim the right to
take it from him.....but if i ever bump into him at the supermarket, i'll
sure as hell claim the right to spit in his face.
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
you nailed it there at the end- "With each measure to choose comes a
like measure of responsibility for each choice." under a libertarian
system, you are accountble for your actions- if you spill hot coffee on
yourself, it's your own damn fault for holding it between your legs
while you're driving- if you wander, in a drunken stupor, onto someone
else's property, and hurt yourself, it's your own damn fault- if you
polute beyond certain acceptable levels, again, it's your own damn
fault- you deal with the consequences of your own choices- You Are
RESPONSIBLE
> The free market tells us hi-def tv's, enough Barbies to sell 2 per second,
> and NBA basketball are far higher priorities
I personally find the Great American McCulture disgusting- but we have a
leisure culture though that feeds on these things- Bread and Circuses-
capitalism just feeds a need that the people have created- And don't try
the "The capitalists created the need" arguement- I don't buy it- people
are smarter than that- advertising works not be programming people into
believing they need something, but by making them aware of their
options- As it stands, I don't know if I could survive in a primitive
society- which is what you have if you want socialism to survive
> than food for the millions
> who will starve to death this year.
millions who starve to death where? How far and wide do you ask my
compassion to reach? It's a terrible thing when people starve to death
when there is food enough to feed them. It's a terrible thing when
grain is left in silos to rot, or is burnt to maintain an economy. It's
a terrible thing-
> If Capitalism advocates' hideously
> irresponsible rationalizations for this don't constitute "evil," I don't
> know what does.
>
I don't know who supports farm subsidies either... not true capitalists
at least...
> Non-fallacious responses only, please.
Thomas Johan Meyer JNR
??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu wrote:
>What's the difference between a "state capitalist" and a socialist?
>Socialism is state control of industry and all other forms of
>manufacturing. It is, in Marxist terms, the state that is to come right
>before communism, an imperfect application of communist principles. If
> that is socialism, than what is this "state capitalism," and how does it
>differ from socialism?
Firstly, you are confusing (by my definitions) nationalisation with
socialism. By your definition, how do you define anarcho-communism?
I see socialism as an OPPOSITE of capitalism.
Secondly, how are market forces (that have been, are and always will be
in my view screwing things up) supposed to fix things?
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> "FU" <f...@anarchy.org>:
> | First, humans are imperfect. Any activities they engage in are imperfect.
> | I never said that the market perfectly rewards people. I said that people
> | USUALLY get what they deserve in the market. There are always exceptions to
> | the rule.
>
> I think you're missing my point. Whether the market always
> gives people what they deserve or usually gives them what
> they deserve doesn't matter. The issue is the notion of
> merit or justice implicit in the word _deserve_. I'm
> arguing that liberalism and therefore its economic system,
> capitalism, don't care about deserts.
capitalism is all about your just deserts- it's the way the system is
run- what keeps it going is the idea that you recieve what you deserve-
> It's just this
> abandonment of justice
I think the problem here is that you don't have a solid definition of
justice- What do you think justice is? Hobbes defined it as whatever
the law claimed. Do you believe that? No, we all have a more mature,
but often vauger definition of justice. I hold justice to be the state
of affairs that respects property rights- Fairness is a term to use in
reference to an equitable, voluntary, and informed exchange- How do you
define these terms?
> in favor of voluntary associations
> and transactions that gives capitalism its power, because
> the capitalist system doesn't use up much energy trying to
> regulate its constituents (in theory, anyway). Justice is
> left up to the gods and the conscience of individuals;
> meanwhile you get what you can make, take, find, or
> inherit.
>
relace take with EARN
> Of course, you can _define_ justice as what the market does,
> but this would probably have you coming up with some judgments
> considerably at variance with most people's idea of justice.
>
sometimes things are done that appear unfair, or unjust, it happens. In
a libertarian society you will have the right to associate or not
associate with whomever you choose. Justice will still prevail, even if
it doesn't seem to at first.
e.g.- There is a race# firm that has a standing policy of not working
with race*- they just refuse. They have this right in a libertarian
society. Now it may not seem very just to race*, especially those that
want to work for, or, in some other relation, with this company. Let's
say there is another firm that does the same sort of business in the
same town, but they have an open racial policy. This firm highers on
the basis of ability. They higher all of the best people they can. The
first firm may have a hold on the race# community, and, even though they
lost out on several good workers, and a few exceptional ones, because
they were race*, will still struggle on for a few years. After a while
though, members of race# will start to go to the second firm for its'
exceptional service.
Justice prevails in a capitalistic society, even under racist
conditions(as long as people aren't held down by the government, as they
were in America), due to the nature of the system. What, in the nature
of socialism, prevents it from becoming autocratic? nothing
Thomas Johan Meyer JNR
> How can you compare those that get ahead by non-violent means to the
> mafia???
What was non-violent of Henry Clay Frick's methods of strike-braking?
Or to rephrase: what is non-violent of bayonetting ten strikers and a
five year old boy to death to "get ahead"? for more such questions, read
"political repression in modern america:1870 to the present" and then
reply.
Secondly, the mafia makes money at the expence of others, which makes
them fit my definition of a capitalist.
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
just to the left of the Randoids, and just to the right of the
anarcho-capitilists-
corporations aren't necessary to the definition of capitalism anyway-
> I
> imagine it would be like feudalism, with wealthly landowners exploiting
> masses of destitute serf-types...but large, production/service-oriented
> corporations are central to my view of modern capitalism so I admit I
> haven't thought about it much...
>
> >- and if you remember what virtually(I say
> >virtually, but all that I have read claim this, I'm just leaving room
> >for disagreement-) all of the political philosophers have claimed- that
> >it is through non-coercive agreements that governments arrive-
> >non-coercive agreements... Sounds like capitalism to me!
>
> Non-coercive agreements do not necessarily have anything to do with
> capital. But that second to last sentence mystifies me, perhaps you would
> do better to write it in grammatically correct English.
I should have used the word "arrise" rather than "arrive" I apologize.
As it stands though, I do believe it is grammatically correct.
" it is through
> non-coercive agreements that governments arrive-
> >non-coercive agreements" huh? I guess the non-coercive agreement part is
> important, but otherwise I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
No? Agreement: the act of agreeing or of coming to a mutual arangement
Does that help?
> And why follow someone else's political idealogy anyways...
I was just referring to my understanding of the classical, and several
modern, political philosophers- but why not follow someone else's
political idealogy? If you agree with someone, take it and hold it as
your own. There is no shame in that. If you need to develop to meet
your own particular needs, that is also fine- I consider myself a
libertarian- I follow in the tradition of Locke and his Natural Law- I
find that by using his original reasoning I can mold a political
philosophy that suits my needs-
> >> and just to prove I haven't really grown up... you're a dimwit >yourself!
> >
> >no one asked you to prove that you haven't grown up
>
> No one asked you to tell me that no one asked me to prove I haven't grown
> up. Usenet posts are spontaneous and voluntary. What's the point to a
> comment like that? I said it cos I felt like saying it.
>
I never asked you to tell me why I didn't have to tell you that no one
asked you to grow up-
is this really necessary?
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
Dennis I's= wrote:
>
> > Dennis I's= wrote:
> > >
> > > > Poor, poor envious baby. Your idiotic theories about the so-called "ruling
> > >
> >
> > what??? Please say this is a joke...
>
> No it isn't.
>
> > How can you compare those that get ahead by non-violent means to the
> > mafia???
>
> of organisations that didn't get their money though hard work.
> (hmmm could be argued, It miust be hard looking over your shoulder
> all day)
>
this is a joke- the debate up to here has been comparing justly and
un-justly earned wealth- comparing pure capitalism to other forms- you
seem to have changed your position with the mentioning of the mafia-
you're arguing for no one now - no capitalist would claim that there was
anything just about the way the mafia filled their coffers - what was
your point in mentioning the mafia? can you state it again, or would
you rather retract your statement and we'll all pretend you didn't say
it-
> > > railway tycoons???
> >
> > again: What???
> > if you are going to attack someone, please, please, please tell me why
>
> Charge !!!!! attack ? what are you talking about.
>
you- making claims you don't appear you know you are making- you state
taht railway owners earn there money un-justly- you are attacking
railway owners-
what are you talking about?
> > you do it- attacking the mafia because it is some how a capitalist
> > organization is a joke- Crime Thrives Anywhere it gets a chance(which it
> > wouldn't in a Libertarian society- not when the police have nothing to
> > do except chase after real criminals-) do you claim that you won't find
> > organized crime in a socialist state? Wait, I think I'm setting you up
> > for a fall in a post or two with that statement, don't you? now, What
> > problems do you have with railway tycoons? perhaps in the days when
> > they held a natural monopoly over transportation, but those days are
> > long gone- In fact, it's time to privatize the railways again in this
> > country-
>
> If I wanted to set you up , you wouldn't know. :o)
> they started in the early years with not so nice
> practises they accumulated money which they invested.
they should have been stopped then-
> So the money that made the money was dirty.
it was the systems fault for not catching them earlier
> Besides , what is this socialist capitalist remark?
> Getting a bit paranoid , I want to set you up ???
>
no- I was going to make a comment about a socialist state being nothing
more than a glorified mafia- I doubt you could set me up- please, try.
> hahaha privitisation IS the selling out of
> democracy ,
the conection between political systems and economic systems is still
being debated- with the best arguments favouring Capitalist/Democratic
societies as the most able to produce abundantly-
>are you a libertarian??
yes
> I don't think
didn't claim you do
>so Give me the 19 centurie libertarians
> any time, over you .
why? they can't fight back?
> Maybe you need to read them again.
>
I'm in the middle of about four books right now that are, or lean
towards, libertarianism.
one ancient, two from 18-19th centuries, and one modern
> > > Some people did get their wealth through hard work
> > > but a lot didn't.
> >
> > and the saying goes
> >
> > TOUGH SHIT
>
> Or I get my gun and start leveling.
>
the last resort of a just man, one of the earliest of a tyrant
> >
> > > And why don't you apply for the job of GOD when
> > > you are allknowing :o)
> >
> > and why don't you apply for the job of G-d when you are ready to tell me
> > that a new morality has developed that makes taking my justly earned
> > property just.
>
> I already have applied, I am.
> O+-> 2000 zero zero party over oops outta time.
> O+-3~ O+- +- -3 3~.
> there can be only one
> for there is only one.
> :o)
>
> justly???? Well when believing in god , you should know that he only
> owns we only borrow.but that is when you believe.
>
I am a Christian. It is not in the Christian theology that we are only
"renters" of this planet. The term care taker is mentioned. If you
wish to read on how one can expect good treatment for the earth and it's
people in a libertarian society, try reading some of the utilitarian
libertarians.
> I am god and I 've come to collect the rent.
> extra charges for the pollution you made
> with your little party :o)
> (Is this a joke? who knows)
> mad man and children tell the truth
>
> Okay enough madness for today
> where is my prozac >=o)
>
> > > Get
> > > real S hole
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> >
> > I did. Your turn.
>
> I tell you when it is my turn , and you won't like it :o)
> >
sure.
j.a.sommerville
> >
G*rd*n
"FU" <f...@anarchy.org>:
| > | First, humans are imperfect. Any activities they engage in are imperfect.
| > | I never said that the market perfectly rewards people. I said that people
| > | USUALLY get what they deserve in the market. There are always exceptions to
| > | the rule.
G*rd*n wrote:
| > I think you're missing my point. Whether the market always
| > gives people what they deserve or usually gives them what
| > they deserve doesn't matter. The issue is the notion of
| > merit or justice implicit in the word _deserve_. I'm
| > arguing that liberalism and therefore its economic system,
| > capitalism, don't care about deserts.
??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu:
| capitalism is all about your just deserts- it's the way the system is
| run- what keeps it going is the idea that you recieve what you deserve-
I think a lot of people like it because they think it gives
them a better deal than they would otherwise get, regardless
of whether it's just or not -- and then, who knows what
"just" means to another. As you note,
G*rd*n wrote:
| > It's just this
| > abandonment of justice
??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu:
| I think the problem here is that you don't have a solid definition of
| justice- What do you think justice is? Hobbes defined it as whatever
| the law claimed. Do you believe that? No, we all have a more mature,
| but often vauger definition of justice. I hold justice to be the state
| of affairs that respects property rights- Fairness is a term to use in
| reference to an equitable, voluntary, and informed exchange- How do you
| define these terms?
Aesthetically. But what does it matter how _I_ define them?
I'm not the one who's saying capitalism is just or unjust,
and is good or bad based on its justice quotient. By the
way, you're contradicting yourself -- property is what the
law says it is, so you _do_ agree with Hobbes, unless you
want to hold that there's some law of property given by God
or Nature available to all of us which supersedes human laws
and customs. If so, I'd like to see you point it out.
G*rd*n wrote:
| > in favor of voluntary associations
| > and transactions that gives capitalism its power, because
| > the capitalist system doesn't use up much energy trying to
| > regulate its constituents (in theory, anyway). Justice is
| > left up to the gods and the conscience of individuals;
| > meanwhile you get what you can make, take, find, or
| > inherit.
??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu:
| relace take with EARN
Capitalism doesn't say you have to earn anything. If I
give you a thousand dollars, you can buy stock with it (or
hamburgers) just as if you worked for it or found it in the
street or it came to you when your rich uncle died.
G*rd*n wrote:
| > Of course, you can _define_ justice as what the market does,
| > but this would probably have you coming up with some judgments
| > considerably at variance with most people's idea of justice.
??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu:
| sometimes things are done that appear unfair, or unjust, it happens. In
| a libertarian society you will have the right to associate or not
| associate with whomever you choose. Justice will still prevail, even if
| it doesn't seem to at first.
|
| e.g.- There is a race# firm that has a standing policy of not working
| with race*- they just refuse. They have this right in a libertarian
| society. Now it may not seem very just to race*, especially those that
| want to work for, or, in some other relation, with this company. Let's
| say there is another firm that does the same sort of business in the
| same town, but they have an open racial policy. This firm highers on
| the basis of ability. They higher all of the best people they can. The
| first firm may have a hold on the race# community, and, even though they
| lost out on several good workers, and a few exceptional ones, because
| they were race*, will still struggle on for a few years. After a while
| though, members of race# will start to go to the second firm for its'
| exceptional service.
You're forgetting that many consumers and workers
experience racist practice as affording considerable
(positive) utility. Where I live, all real-estate agents
are racially conscious, because if they don't provide this
utility to certain customers and clients, they'll go out of
business. The market ensures that this utility is
distributed, with the results we all observe.
I don't see this as greatly relevant to our discussion,
though.
??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu:
| Justice prevails in a capitalistic society, even under racist
| conditions(as long as people aren't held down by the government, as they
| were in America), due to the nature of the system. What, in the nature
| of socialism, prevents it from becoming autocratic? nothing
Any society could become autocratic.
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
Thomas Johan Meyer JNR wrote:
>
> ??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu wrote:
> >What's the difference between a "state capitalist" and a socialist?
> >Socialism is state control of industry and all other forms of
> >manufacturing. It is, in Marxist terms, the state that is to come right
> >before communism, an imperfect application of communist principles. If
> > that is socialism, than what is this "state capitalism," and how does it
> >differ from socialism?
>
> Firstly, you are confusing (by my definitions) nationalisation with
> socialism. By your definition, how do you define anarcho-communism?
> I see socialism as an OPPOSITE of capitalism.
>
I was becoming a little muddled, with all the back and forth, and people
debating from a dozen different perspectives, so I jumped into the
dictionary on my computer to get everything straight, and yep, sure
enough, what the leftists have been calling state-capitalism to try and
not be grouped with the USSR and other failed communistic(socialist,
whatever) countries. Nationalism is not state-capitalism, socialism is.
by my definition, anarcho-capitalism is what you find at the farthest
left on the libertarian spectrum(on the libertarian spectrum, not the
conventional one- they have nothing in common with socialist-statists at
all). They believe that a society without a government will run
smoothly on a capitalist system, with everything presently provided by
the government being better provided through private means.
> Secondly, how are market forces (that have been, are and always will be
> in my view screwing things up) supposed to fix things?
market forces, reinforced by self-accountability and responsiblity for
your own actions as you would have in a libertarian society, can only
fix things and make them better- it is inherent to the system- this has
been covered before, numerous times- there are a number of books you
should take a look at- I'm in the middle of a good one right now that
you may want to try- "For a New Liberty" by Murray Rothbard- I've been
using him as source for as many as my posts recently as Locke-
> --
???...@matrix.newpaltz.edu
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> "FU" <f...@anarchy.org>:
> | > | First, humans are imperfect. Any activities they engage in are imperfect.
> | > | I never said that the market perfectly rewards people. I said that people
> | > | USUALLY get what they deserve in the market. There are always exceptions to
> | > | the rule.
>
> G*rd*n wrote:
> | > I think you're missing my point. Whether the market always
> | > gives people what they deserve or usually gives them what
> | > they deserve doesn't matter. The issue is the notion of
> | > merit or justice implicit in the word _deserve_. I'm
> | > arguing that liberalism and therefore its economic system,
> | > capitalism, don't care about deserts.
>
> ??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu:
> | capitalism is all about your just deserts- it's the way the system is
> | run- what keeps it going is the idea that you recieve what you deserve-
>
> I think a lot of people like it because they think it gives
> them a better deal than they would otherwise get, regardless
> of whether it's just or not -- and then, who knows what
> "just" means to another. As you note,
>
Shall we avoid the terms Just and Fair then? I can accept that.
> G*rd*n wrote:
> | > It's just this
> | > abandonment of justice
>
> ??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu:
> | I think the problem here is that you don't have a solid definition of
> | justice- What do you think justice is? Hobbes defined it as whatever
> | the law claimed. Do you believe that? No, we all have a more mature,
> | but often vauger definition of justice. I hold justice to be the state
> | of affairs that respects property rights- Fairness is a term to use in
> | reference to an equitable, voluntary, and informed exchange- How do you
> | define these terms?
>
> Aesthetically. But what does it matter how _I_ define them?
not to me, unless you are the one making the rules, or, perhaps just the
most noise-
> I'm not the one who's saying capitalism is just or unjust,
> and is good or bad based on its justice quotient. By the
> way, you're contradicting yourself -- property is what the
> law says it is,
> so you _do_ agree with Hobbes,
'fraid not- I find Hobbes revulsive- his claim that humans are creatures
without reason(you can't call what he calls "reason" reason- I'll grab
my copy of "Leviathan" tomorrow if anyone wants to disagree with me and
bang it out for you) is something I find unacceptable- Property is not
whatever the law defines it as. This is a utilitarian cop-out.
Property does have a more basic meaning. Law may try to co-opt that
meaning, but property is a basic human right. No, I don't mean that all
humans have a basic right to own land, but that the possesion of
property is something that all humans have the potential to have. I
follow in the Natural Law philosophy of Locke. I remember Locke saying
something about it only being just(sorry, had to use it here :) ) to
take property if there was an ample ammount of equally good property
left over for whomever has yet to claim property. I don't believe that
is a possibility in a capitalistic society, where property and wealth is
always being created, but what is one to do when such a point is
reached? Just a thought...
>unless you
> want to hold that there's some law of property given by God
> or Nature available to all of us which supersedes human laws
> and customs. If so, I'd like to see you point it out.
>
Natural Law. I gave a run through of it in another post earlier today-
same subject, but a different line...
> G*rd*n wrote:
> | > in favor of voluntary associations
> | > and transactions that gives capitalism its power, because
> | > the capitalist system doesn't use up much energy trying to
> | > regulate its constituents (in theory, anyway). Justice is
> | > left up to the gods and the conscience of individuals;
> | > meanwhile you get what you can make, take, find, or
> | > inherit.
>
> ??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu:
> | relace take with EARN
>
> Capitalism doesn't say you have to earn anything. If I
> give you a thousand dollars, you can buy stock with it (or
> hamburgers) just as if you worked for it or found it in the
> street or it came to you when your rich uncle died.
>
I didn't say that one couldn't "make," "find" or "inherit" I just
replaced the word "take" which didn't belong, with "earn," one that did-
I don't deny that-
> I don't see this as greatly relevant to our discussion,
> though.
>
it was relevent to the discussion of justice-
> ??????@matrix.newpaltz.edu:
> | Justice prevails in a capitalistic society, even under racist
> | conditions(as long as people aren't held down by the government, as they
> | were in America), due to the nature of the system. What, in the nature
> | of socialism, prevents it from becoming autocratic? nothing
>
> Any society could become autocratic.
>
yes, but some societies are more prone than others-
how many communist, or socialist societies, in this century, haven't
become autocratic? can you think of any?
Ward Donald Griffiths III
> > This last one is new to me. Why would libertarians be in
> > favor of a government regulation on political offices? That
> > sounds like less freedom, not more.
Well, to me "government regulation" on political offices _seems_ to
be a bit of an oxymoron.
>
> Apparently a poll was recently done of some subset of Americans.
We usually call that subset "people who are idle enough to waste
their time responding to polls".
> They were asked if they support term limits and 66% said yes.
>
> They were asked if they support the right to re-elect a Congressman
> as many times as they want if he is doing a good job, and 54% said yes.
>
> Hmmm.
I live in Hudson County NJ, where there seem to be no limits on the
number of terms a politician may serve. It's usually an alternation
between terms in office and terms in prison for mal(or mis)feasance
in office (I've never had the difference made clear to me). Regular
citizens convicted of felonies can't vote in congressional (or local)
elections, but apparently re-elected felons can vote in city hall or
congress. There's a chance I'm an idiot (after all, I've sworn to the
real libertarian non-agression principal, which some of my fellow
anarchists consider suicidal), but something here doesn't make sense.
> --
>
> Victor Levis
>
> Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
--
Ward Griffiths
They say that politics makes strange bedfellows.
Of course, the main reason they cuddle up is to screw somebody else.
Michael Flynn, _Rogue Star_