Repost: Why socialism needs killing fields:
James A. Donald
Since baby_ifritah has once again attempted to argue that one
can have socialism without terror, a position I thought that
socialists had for the most part quietly conceded, I repost my
old article:
Why socialism needs killing fields:
Throughout the twentieth century the introduction of socialism
has always involved killing fields, facilities for the mass
production of murder by specialized labor.
Although this institution has been widely used throughout the
twentieth century, we did not create a word for it until close
to the end of the twentieth century, when Pol Pot organized
approximately 20 000 separate killing fields, a world record,
thanks to his firm commitment to decentralized government.
Though the word is new, the system is as old as socialism.
The basic problem of socialism is the relationship between
production and consumption. It is likely that the number seven
widget collective might want to produce fewer widgets, or a
different kind of widget, to that which certain users of
widgets desire. Furthermore some users of widgets will want
widgets for one purpose, and others for a different purpose,
and there probably will not be as many widgets as they all
desire, or the varieties that each diverse user of widgets
desires.
Now under capitalism, no problem. You want widgets? You pay
for widgets. You get the widgets you want or you refuse to buy
widgets. And if you do not want to pay, then you probably do
not need the widgets as much as the guy who is willing to pay.
And if the price is high, then making widgets must be hard, and
if it is not hard, you go into business making widgets, and you
do not have to ask anyone's permission to do that.
But under socialism, the number seven widget collective is
producing widgets for free, or at a "socially desirable price",
which usually might as well be free, since when goods are
produced at "socially desirable" prices money rapidly becomes
unspendable. So who gets to decide what widgets to produce?
Those who produce them, or those who consume them?
Well obviously "the community" must decide.
And then "the community" must impose its decision on the
producers and consumers of widgets.
Whereas in capitalism, the community can go jump in the lake.
It is nobody's business but that of a willing seller and a
willing buyer.
This means that under socialism, issues of production and
consumption have to be dealt with in the same way that
capitalists deal with issues such as a stolen handbag.
Under capitalism there is a positive incentive to produce,
since if you produce something you own it, until you trade if
for something you want more, and you cannot consume, except you
have produced something that someone else values more than what
you consume.
This of course makes it possible in capitalism for one person
to wind up owning vastly more than another due to the accidents
of luck, opportunity, ability, and ambition.
Under socialism it is necessary to use negative incentives, to
punish people for "parasitism" "hoarding", "black
marketeering", and suchlike "crimes", "crimes" which are
unknown in capitalism, or rather uniformly honored as virtues.
A socialist economy must employ negative incentives, the kind
of incentives that law abiding people apply only to muggers and
the like, in order to get light bulbs in the light sockets and
toilet paper in the toilets. Thus the entire socialist country
must be run as a prison, and all the citizens are lifers, and
the nomenclatura are merely trusties.
Needless to say, when this system is introduced, a great many
people misbehave. You cannot send them to prison, they already
are in prison.
You have to murder them.
Hence the need for efficient methods for the mass production of
murder.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
DghbC2/AFmyWWIuiJ+LhjZ2Jc+Gnq/xEZj7o/RIR
4YhR6KRqn4iia7V9DmHkmtOEY7EAjv4VDr1NnCl0H
baby_ifritah
consider this an appropriate response to? oh, sorry - specific thingS - i
am supposed to have done whatever i did repeatedly.
james, james, james, you tire me.
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:oq4j3v0uk53u5hc5j...@4ax.com...
brian turner
actually existing, which has no similarity with the picture painted
below; nor Fabian socialism under liberal democracy, nor mixed
ownership systems. Since there are very few who advocate Leninist
central planning (which doesn't *always* lead to killing fields
clearly, even if it often does). This critique might be worth
considering regarding a radical associative/anti-market
anarcho-socialism if the argument was that the "community" must be a
very large population. Since few socialists advocate this, this
critique is necessarily directed at tiny elements of the non-Leninist
socialist left.
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message news:<oq4j3v0uk53u5hc5j...@4ax.com>...
Josh Dougherty
news:oq4j3v0uk53u5hc5j...@4ax.com...
> Whereas in capitalism, the community can go jump in the lake.
Hey! James got something right. :)
Josh
Dan Clore
>
> The following does not address market socialism, either theoretical or
> actually existing, which has no similarity with the picture painted
> below; nor Fabian socialism under liberal democracy, nor mixed
> ownership systems. Since there are very few who advocate Leninist
> central planning (which doesn't *always* lead to killing fields
> clearly, even if it often does). This critique might be worth
> considering regarding a radical associative/anti-market
> anarcho-socialism if the argument was that the "community" must be a
> very large population. Since few socialists advocate this, this
> critique is necessarily directed at tiny elements of the non-Leninist
> socialist left.
The problem with the essay, as usual from this sort of
ideologue (ex-Trotskyist, ex-Maoist, current
"anarcho"-capitalist) is that it fails to address any sort
of socialism (where the term refers to what has been
advocated by folks like Godwin, Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon,
Proudhon, Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Benjamin Tucker, William
Morris, Kropotkin, Helen Keller, Rosa Luxemburg, Orwell,
Einstein, Polanyi, Erich Fromm, Guy Debord, Raoul Vaneigem,
Chomsky, etc etc etc), instead addressing Bolshevik state
capitalism and calling that "socialism". It is in fact
simply a weaker form of the typical anarchist/socialist
argument against state capitalism.
--
Dan Clore
Now available: _The Unspeakable and Others_
All my fiction through 2001 and more. Intro by S.T. Joshi.
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe and Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Said Smygo, the iconoclast of Zothique: "Bear a hammer with
thee always, and break down any terminus on which is
written: 'So far shalt thou pass, but no further go.'"
--Clark Ashton Smith
James A. Donald
"baby_ifritah"
> er...do you want to let me know what specific thing i have
> said that you consider this an appropriate response to? oh,
> sorry - specific thingS
You have been arguing one can have socialism without terror.
Here I explained at length why you cannot.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
ORrSUkoCnBZbnXEew07wftqg5hM2/xeqiAAkY5gg
4Qv+2SSc/OwP7I/DsAnyj47X+H8M5EXfShRhXoRdF
idlemuse
> The following does not address market socialism, either theoretical or
> actually existing, which has no similarity with the picture painted
> below; nor Fabian socialism under liberal democracy, nor mixed
> ownership systems. Since there are very few who advocate Leninist
> central planning (which doesn't *always* lead to killing fields
> clearly, even if it often does). This critique might be worth
> considering regarding a radical associative/anti-market
> anarcho-socialism if the argument was that the "community" must be a
> very large population. Since few socialists advocate this, this
> critique is necessarily directed at tiny elements of the non-Leninist
> socialist left.
>
James' case is a tad strongly worded, but I'm not sure you can so
casually dismiss it as irrelevant to other forms of socialism. I will
confess to being confused by the notion of market socialism (as I
can't quite figure out what I own, what I can exchange, what I can ask
in return for exchange), but certainly parliamentary socialism has
many of these problems. The Fabian notion, if memory serves, was to
use institutions of democracy to nationalize private property. Once
that has been accomplished, you can toss pricing signals out the
window. Without pricing, something has to interefere in the economy
to reflect demand. Isn't this just a planned economy with a different
name?
M J Carley
>James' case is a tad strongly worded, but I'm not sure you can so
>casually dismiss it as irrelevant to other forms of socialism. I will
>confess to being confused by the notion of market socialism (as I
>can't quite figure out what I own, what I can exchange, what I can
>ask in return for exchange), but certainly parliamentary socialism
>has many of these problems. The Fabian notion, if memory serves, was
>to use institutions of democracy to nationalize private property.
>Once that has been accomplished, you can toss pricing signals out the
>window. Without pricing, something has to interefere in the economy
>to reflect demand.
It depends on what things you believe can be given a monetary value.
The idea of `market socialism' is that some things cannot be left to a
market because (a) we should not take chances with them and (b) market
systems simply do not work in many cases. Good examples would be
health and education: we can argue that you should not have to depend
on a market for either of these.
As for private companies producing better `products' than public
organizations:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,875379,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardiansociety/story/0,3605,281866,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,526000,00.html
The whole point of operating in a market is to make a profit. Unless
you believe that this will always give the `right' result (measured in
other than financial terms), you have to accept limits to a market.
>Isn't this just a planned economy with a different name?
Yes, but it doesn't involve killing fields.
--
`Al vero filosofo ogni terreno e' patria.'
BHaLC #6
No MS attachments: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Home page: http://staff.bath.ac.uk/ensmjc/
Vladimir Kuznetsov
M J Carley <ens...@bath.ac.uk> wrote:
. . .
>
>It depends on what things you believe can be given a monetary value.
>The idea of `market socialism' is that some things cannot be left to a
>market because (a) we should not take chances with them and (b) market
>systems simply do not work in many cases. Good examples would be
>health and education: we can argue that you should not have to depend
>on a market for either of these.
In all countries where government administer health care
they have:
- runaway cost of health care,
- rationing of health care (you can die waiting for serious
surgery)
- stagnation of medical research.
Public education is usually infested with the time by
brainwashing of different kind. Here in US it is a 'divercity' and
'multi-calturalism'. I don't even mention falsification of history
and total absence of civic education.
>ma
>As for private companies producing better `products' than public
>organizations:
>
>http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,875379,00.html
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardiansociety/story/0,3605,281866,00.html
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,526000,00.html
>
Typical anti-market demagoguery and propaganda.
>The whole point of operating in a market is to make a profit. Unless
>you believe that this will always give the `right' result (measured in
>other than financial terms), you have to accept limits to a market.
As a side effect market controls prices much more efficiently
then commitee of bureaucrats ot 'good willing' citizens.
What is wrong with taking a profit?
What is wrong with controlling prices?
James A. Donald
On 30 Jan 2003 20:50:39 -0800, bk...@hotmail.com (brian turner)
wrote:
> The following does not address market socialism, either
> theoretical or actually existing, which has no similarity
> with the picture painted below;
No such thing as market socialism. Private property rights in
the means of production are the boundaries between one man's
plan and another man's plan. Since every production decision
is connected to every other, without private property rights in
the means of production there can only be one plan, whereupon
terror follows for the reasons explained at the start of this
thread.
> nor Fabian socialism under liberal democracy
The article at the start of the thread explains why socialism,
fabian or otherwise, requires terror, or else economic
collapse.
The idea behind fabian socialism was that the terror was a
result of class warfare ideology, not socialism. In fact of
course, the terror was a result of socialism, and the class
warfare ideology merely a rationalization for the required
terror.
The British and several other countries tried Fabian socialism
at the end of Word War II. Without terror, it soon became
apparent their economies were collapsing, for in socialism you
need terror to get toilet paper in the toilets and light bulbs
in the ceilings. They moved towards increasingly coercive
measures, and eventually backed far enough away from socialism
to render those coercive measures unnecessary.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
eMR6INnMOf/JhlyeSaaHTOVrBUx70ENA5s9+ub6d
4exW5PatJOZ04Ygq+iBB2EdlO7TWBoX5a+dYx7vec
M J Carley
> In all countries where government administer health care
>they have:
> - runaway cost of health care,
> - rationing of health care (you can die waiting for serious
> surgery)
> - stagnation of medical research.
http://www.oecd.org/EN/document/0,,EN-document-0-nodirectorate-no-12-31307-0,00.html
says otherwise: from 1990 to 2000, the US spent a greater proportion
of its GDP on healthcare than any other OECD country (13% in 2000). It
was followed by Switzerland and Germany (10.7% and 10%) respectively.
Unless you are claiming that the US has more government involvement in
healthcare than other OECD countries, private healthcare is not cheap.
As for `rationing', in a purely market system, you could die because
you can't pay for the treatment.
> Public education is usually infested with the time by
>brainwashing of different kind. Here in US it is a 'divercity' and
>'multi-calturalism'. I don't even mention falsification of history
>and total absence of civic education.
`Civic education' is, surely, state indoctrination, no?
> Typical anti-market demagoguery and propaganda.
But accurate. The people writing the reports know what they are
talking about.
> As a side effect market controls prices much more efficiently
>then commitee of bureaucrats ot 'good willing' citizens.
So why does the US (a relatively private system) spend more than
other OECD countries on healthcare?
>What is wrong with taking a profit?
What is wrong with public services?
>What is wrong with controlling prices?
Controlling prices is intervention in the market.
xyz
Thank you for the post James. Your perspective is a logical
progression of facts.
It is interesting to notice how each and every leftist leader
talks about "social justice". Every action they take is justified
in the name of such concept, but not one of them can provide
a definition of justice that people can agree on. (But of course,
anyone that disagrees with their definition becomes the
personification of evil...)
Matt
spark
> >they have:
> > - runaway cost of health care,
> > - rationing of health care (you can die waiting for serious
> > surgery)
this certainly doesn't happen in countries where its purely
private. no-one ever suffers because of lack of access to health care.
-gr
G*rd*n
Not for very long, anyway.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
G*rd*n
| Thank you for the post James. Your perspective is a logical
| progression of facts.
|
| It is interesting to notice how each and every leftist leader
| talks about "social justice".
You must have a lot of time to watch leftist leaders if you
know what each and every one talks about. Or is this just
the top ten thousand or so?
| Every action they take is justified
| in the name of such concept, but not one of them can provide
| a definition of justice that people can agree on. (But of course,
| anyone that disagrees with their definition becomes the
| personification of evil...)
I think it's funny that you accuse some unnamed leftists of
characterizing their opponents as the personification of
evil right after your approbation of James Donald's silly,
venomous article. What's the deal -- it's okay for him to
do it, but not okay for all these unnamed leftists?
brian turner
> The problem with [James'] essay, as usual from this sort of
> ideologue (ex-Trotskyist, ex-Maoist, current
> "anarcho"-capitalist) is that it fails to address any sort
> of socialism (where the term refers to what has been
> advocated by folks like Godwin, Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon,
> Proudhon, Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Benjamin Tucker, William
> Morris, Kropotkin, Helen Keller, Rosa Luxemburg, Orwell,
> Einstein, Polanyi, Erich Fromm, Guy Debord, Raoul Vaneigem,
> Chomsky, etc etc etc), instead addressing Bolshevik state
> capitalism and calling that "socialism". It is in fact
> simply a weaker form of the typical anarchist/socialist
> argument against state capitalism.
I disagree partly. Those like Marx, Chomsky, Kropotkin for instance,
as far as I know, didn't lay out how worker or small community
collectives would interact with each other. Instead, they spoke in
vague terms of non-market association. I think it would be a
reasonable criticism to say if this model were actually pursued, some
sort of state would inevitably arise, and inevitably require coercive
power (as do all states, liberal and authoritarian). For instance,
Chomsky cites approvingly, in 'Notes on Anarchism', and anarchist who
says "Our federal council of economy is not a political power but an
economic and administrative regulating power. It receives its
orientation from below and operates in accordance with the resolutions
of the regional and national assemblies. It is a liaison corps and
nothing else.". One could argue that would eventually take on
state-like behaviors, despite the initial intentions.
James argument, I'd suggest, is a wild exaggeration of this
observation. It *might* conceivably, under a host of not necessarily
likely assumptions, lead to Leninist despotism (and what that entails
itself would vary in intensity of repression), but the idea of a
Marxian-style deterministic march towards Leninism seems ludicrious to
me. My guess is it simply wouldn't work, rather than lead to
despotism.
The reason I favor market socialism is because it addresses the
question of how democratic collectives or cooperatives can interact
with each other in a non-utopian way, i.e. through market competition
with other collectives and small private businesses. But it wouldn't
have to be pure laissez-faire market socialism, a liberal democratic
state could pursue non-market social goals through taxation just like
now.
James A. Donald
Dan Clore:
> The problem with the essay, as usual from this sort of
> ideologue (ex-Trotskyist, ex-Maoist, current
> "anarcho"-capitalist) is that it fails to address any sort of
> socialism (where the term refers to what has been advocated
> by folks like Godwin, Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon, Proudhon,
> Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Benjamin Tucker, William Morris,
> Kropotkin, Helen Keller, Rosa Luxemburg, Orwell, Einstein,
> Polanyi, Erich Fromm, Guy Debord, Raoul Vaneigem, Chomsky,
> etc etc etc), instead addressing Bolshevik state capitalism
> and calling that "socialism".
Private property rights in the means of production are the
boundaries between one man's plan and another man's plan.
Without such private property rights, there can only be one
plan for all. Terror follows.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
GDiLCGn8Imuy2CsrBERAknBoP12YA2aoLOOvy81E
43ngX6X0bIqyiLnd9JEFFjxkIr1hM3ciqlGxd2Nu9
ActualGeek
jasl...@msn.com (idlemuse) wrote:
> James' case is a tad strongly worded, but I'm not sure you can so
> casually dismiss it as irrelevant to other forms of socialism. I will
> confess to being confused by the notion of market socialism (as I
> can't quite figure out what I own, what I can exchange, what I can ask
> in return for exchange), but certainly parliamentary socialism has
> many of these problems. The Fabian notion, if memory serves, was to
> use institutions of democracy to nationalize private property. Once
> that has been accomplished, you can toss pricing signals out the
> window. Without pricing, something has to interefere in the economy
> to reflect demand. Isn't this just a planned economy with a different
> name?
I think James case is strongly worded because he's cutting thru the
bullshit that socialists surround their ideas with.
IT has failed so many times that they keep trying to come up with ways
to suger coat it so that they can exploit the insecure persons desire
for "justice" while not triggering to them that they are swallowing the
ideology that will result in their, and millions of other's, death.
I've spent a fair bit of time around socialists, and I mean the ones who
call themselves socialists or communists. Some of them are really
deluded, but you can tell that what they are swallowing is the same old
socialism under different names.
People like Ron Allen are pushers of this drug of mental escape.
And I find Jame's tonic to be quite refreshing. I often get caught
trying to argue with these people myself, forgetting that at the end of
the road are slaughtering houses for people.
All the talk about "market" and "democracy" and "free" and "libertarian
socialism" is hand waving in front of good oldfashiond jackbooted
communist totalitarianism.
I certainly have fallen for the possibility that they may have a new
idea a couple times, and each time, when you put the question to them,
if they are honest enough to answer, the answer is mass death.
ActualGeek
wrote:
> spark <gros...@luminousvoid.net>:
> | > > In all countries where government administer health care
> | > >they have:
> | > > - runaway cost of health care,
> | > > - rationing of health care (you can die waiting for serious
> | > > surgery)
> |
> | this certainly doesn't happen in countries where its purely
> | private. no-one ever suffers because of lack of access to health care.
>
> Not for very long, anyway.
Yeah, they get treated, unlike that guy in the UK who was stuck on a
gurny recently, for 77 hours-- long enough to get in the guiness book of
world records.
I've actually had the experience of taking a person who lived below the
poverty level to the richest hospital in the area when they needed
emergency care. They were treated. They're now in debt, but they were
treated.
brian turner
--------
> bk...@hotmail.com (brian turner) wrote in message news:<66dc0679.03013...@posting.google.com>...
> > The following does not address market socialism, either theoretical or
> > actually existing, which has no similarity with the picture painted
> > below; nor Fabian socialism under liberal democracy, nor mixed
> > ownership systems. Since there are very few who advocate Leninist
> > central planning (which doesn't *always* lead to killing fields
> > clearly, even if it often does). This critique might be worth
> > considering regarding a radical associative/anti-market
> > anarcho-socialism if the argument was that the "community" must be a
> > very large population. Since few socialists advocate this, this
> > critique is necessarily directed at tiny elements of the non-Leninist
> > socialist left.
---------
> James' case is a tad strongly worded, but I'm not sure you can so
> casually dismiss it as irrelevant to other forms of socialism. I will
> confess to being confused by the notion of market socialism (as I
> can't quite figure out what I own, what I can exchange, what I can ask
> in return for exchange), but certainly parliamentary socialism has
> many of these problems. The Fabian notion, if memory serves, was to
> use institutions of democracy to nationalize private property. Once
> that has been accomplished, you can toss pricing signals out the
> window. Without pricing, something has to interefere in the economy
> to reflect demand. Isn't this just a planned economy with a different
> name?
-------
Under a mostly market socialist system (I think there should be
diversity, definitely private small business, probably elsewhere too)
you would be a member of a cooperative of some sort which owned and
democratically managed the firm. Your co-op would be free, with no
more limits than under traditional liberal-democratic welfare state
capitalism, to sell whatever you produce to willing buyers, and free
to purchase whatever you wish from other co-ops. There are problems
with market socialism, namely, what if the co-op fails or is
failing,--can people get out?--; also how to prevent the Yugoslav
problem of worker owned firms overcapitalizing in order to minimize
hiring (to avoid having to share the proceeds wider). I don't claim
to have all the answers. But I do feel that direct worker ownership
is more likely to produce these problems than other forms of
cooperation like labor union association owned firms (which can
shuffle capital and workers around), small community or local gov't
owned firms, more fluid egalitarian participatory partnerships, etc.
Also, I think the evidence shows that for state owned enterprises,
there are ways of "hardening" the budget constraint (Kornai's well
known critique of market socialism claimed it couldn't be), and making
them act like private firms (thus, no need to junk price signals).
Lastly, even *if* the problems of market socialism I mentioned can't
be solved, one must remember that actually existing capitalism has its
own incentive problems (see Stigliz "Whither Socialism?", book about
such problems, title notwithstanding).
Incidentally, the economist John Roemer has come up with a detailed
and workable (I think) market socialist model in the book "A Future
For Socialism". But it only claims to create a more equitable
distribution of wealth, it abandons the traditional socialist goal of
industrial democracy, even indirectly. Perhaps he's right that it's
impossible, but I'm not ready to say so. Alec Nove's less detailed
model retains this goal, I think.
Publius2k
>
> --
> Since baby_ifritah has once again attempted to argue that one
> can have socialism without terror, a position I thought that
> socialists had for the most part quietly conceded, I repost my
> old article:
>
> Why socialism needs killing fields:
>
> Throughout the twentieth century the introduction of socialism
> has always involved killing fields, facilities for the mass
> production of murder by specialized labor.
'Socialism' has existed for thousands of years. Just because
some tyrants sought to be bullies under the flag of socialism
doesn't disparage the concept.
Love one another as you love yourself.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
>
> Although this institution has been widely used throughout the
> twentieth century, we did not create a word for it until close
> to the end of the twentieth century, when Pol Pot organized
> approximately 20 000 separate killing fields, a world record,
> thanks to his firm commitment to decentralized government.
>
> Though the word is new, the system is as old as socialism.
Poppy cock.
Other world models did and do exist.
Notes Lewis Henry Morgan regarding the Iroquois peoples in
Ancient Society [1877]:
"Everything runs smoothly without soldiers, gendarmes, or
police, without nobles, kings, governors, prefects or judges;
without prisons, without trials. All quarrels and disputes are
settled by the whole body of those concerned...." No killing
fields.
excerpted from:
Iroquois Confederation - Oldest Living Participatory Democracy
on Earth:
http://www.ratical.org/ratitorsCorner/11.24.96.html
http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/6Nations/
"That, on the principle of a communion of property, small
societies may exist in habits of virtue, order, industry, and
peace, and consequently in a state of as much happiness as
Heaven has been pleased to deal out to imperfect humanity, I can
readily conceive, and indeed, have seen its proofs in various
small societies which have been constituted on that principle."
--Thomas Jefferson to Cornelius Camden Blatchly, 1822
Notes the founder of Germantown in 1685 of the "so-called
savages" in the area:
"They strive after a sincere honesty, hold strictly to
their promises, cheat and injure no one. They willingly give
shelter to others, and are both useful and loyal to their
guests. [Isn't that being 'sociable'?]
Their huts are made of young trees, twined, or bent,
together, which they know how to roof over with bark. They use
neither table nor bench, nor any other household stuff, unless
perchance a single pot in which they boil their food.
I once saw four of them take a meal together in hearty
contentment, and eat a pumpkin cooked in clear water, without
butter and spice. Their table and bench was the bare earth,
their spoons were mussle-shells, with which they dipped the warm
water, their plates were the leaves of the nearest tree, which
they did not need to wash with painstaking after a meal, nor to
keep with care for future use. I thought to myself, these
savages have never in their lives heard the teaching of Jesus
concerning temperance and contentment, yet they far excel the
Christians in carrying it out.
They are, furthermore, serious and of few words, and are amazed
when they perceive so much unnecessary chatter, as well as other
foolish behavior on the part of Christians.
***
They are very quiet and thoughtful in our gatherings, so that
I fully believe that in the future, at the great day of
judgment, they will come forth with those of Tyre and Sidon, and
put to shame many thousands of false nominal and canting
Christians.
***
They plant Indian corn and beans round about their huts, but
they take no thought for any more extensive farming and cattle
raising; they are rather astonished that we Christians take so
much trouble and thought concerning eating and drinking and also
for comfortable clothing and dwellings, as if we doubted that
God were able to care for and nourish us."
>
> The basic problem of socialism is the relationship between
> production and consumption. It is likely that the number seven
> widget collective might want to produce fewer widgets, or a
> different kind of widget, to that which certain users of
> widgets desire. Furthermore some users of widgets will want
> widgets for one purpose, and others for a different purpose,
> and there probably will not be as many widgets as they all
> desire, or the varieties that each diverse user of widgets
> desires.
Just problems based on 'wants' and 'desires' as I see it. One
of greed over need.
Such misbehaving didn't seem to be a problem in Iroquois culture
and they had no prisons, just freedoms. The problems you note
have arisen along with capitalism and loss of open lands.
>
> You have to murder them.
>
> Hence the need for efficient methods for the mass production of
> murder.
>
> --digsig
> James A. Donald
> 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
> DghbC2/AFmyWWIuiJ+LhjZ2Jc+Gnq/xEZj7o/RIR
> 4YhR6KRqn4iia7V9DmHkmtOEY7EAjv4VDr1NnCl0H
When all land is privatized and allocated, future generations
are born into bondage.
Only [lower] animals are born free in the USA. People are born
into debt and compulsory servitude.
James A. Donald
On Sat, 01 Feb 2003 00:23:09 GMT, Publius2k <Pub?*@?*li.us>
wrote:
> 'Socialism' has existed for thousands of years. Just because
> some tyrants sought to be bullies under the flag of socialism
> doesn't disparage the concept.
>
> Love one another as you love yourself. Do unto others as you
> would have them do unto you.
Christ said give to the poor. He did not say "You are poor,
take what you need from the rich.
> Other world models did and do exist.
>
> Notes Lewis Henry Morgan regarding the Iroquois peoples in
> Ancient Society [1877]: "Everything runs smoothly without
> soldiers, gendarmes, or police, without nobles, kings,
> governors, prefects or judges; without prisons, without
> trials. All quarrels and disputes are settled by the whole
> body of those concerned...." No killing fields.
Iroquois were not socialist, nor anarchist. They had private
property and money. Contrary to the commie myth, their
constitution was a mixed constitution, aproximately equal parts
democracy, plutocracy, and warrior aristocracy.
The commies have invented a fictitious constitution for the
Iroquois, similar to the fictitious speech they invented for
chief Seattle.
The Iroquois were one of the "five civilized tribes", so called
because of the similarity of their political and economic
institutions to those of white people. Among those
institutions were argiculture, private property in agricultural
land, and slavery. Their constitution was more stable and
peaceful than that of the others, perhaps because it was a
mixed constitution, avoiding the oppressive inequality of many
highly aristocratic Southern tribes, or the dangerously
excessive democracy of some western tribes.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
2kZj3/V+uETytV8kWKoPOK6Q4hzuwfalPi5npmu6
4ZB4Kw2CkyMOU/lcT9W1aYIZ3mN/9kZ1qvuH1C6yM
baby_ifritah
> --
> "baby_ifritah"
> > er...do you want to let me know what specific thing i have
> > said that you consider this an appropriate response to? oh,
> > sorry - specific thingS
>
> You have been arguing one can have socialism without terror.
> Here I explained at length why you cannot.
that's a really great response. i am utterly undone.
except that you are incorrect.
i have been arguing that socialist styles of economic behaviour can occur
between free individuals. you choose to imagine that this can only occur
voluntarily within a family in spite of the fact that it presently occurs
voluntarily between friends and community and charitable groups.
incidentally, how do you actually define a family? the nuclear family?
blood ties only, or do legal family bonds apply? extended families? how
extended? matrilineal or patrilineal? maybe spiritual families? racial
families? hmm. i feel some clarification is required here...
xx la
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > You have been arguing one can have socialism without
> > terror. Here I explained at length why you cannot.
baby_ifritah:
> i have been arguing that socialist styles of economic
> behaviour can occur between free individuals.
Sure sharing can happen between free individuals as every
family and every charity shows, but that is capitalism, not
socialism.
You might well get tomatoes on the table by voluntary sharing
and giving, but to get bread on the table by sharing and
giving, you are going to need compulsory sharing and giving.
Socialism is when you get bread on the table and a tractor in
the fields by sharing and giving, which is going to require
compulsory sharing and giving, which is going to require terror
and mass murder.
The voluntary sharing that occurs in every family is not
socialism. Capitalists do not think of as socialism, and
socialists do not think of it as socialism. It is only
socialism when big important things by sharing, such as bread
and tractors, things that necessarily require compulsory
sharing -- it is only socialism when baby_ifritah applies the
red hot irons to those wreckers who dare plan their own plans
inconsistent with baby_ifritah's plans, to those parasites who
fail to meet baby_ifritah's quotas, to hoarders and black
marketeers who are dissatisfied with baby_ifritah's
determination of their true needs.
I do not suggest that you visualize this with eager excitement,
though I suspect Chomsky and G*rd*n do, rather I think you
visualize a world in which everyone somehow agrees on what is
to be produced, how it is to be produced, who shall do the
work, and who may consume it, while avoiding thinking too much
about how such remarkable unanimity is to be attained.
> you choose to imagine that this can only occur voluntarily
> within a family in spite of the fact that it presently occurs
> voluntarily between friends and community and charitable
> groups.
The scale declines with distance and time. The further away,
the less well known the beneficiaries, the less inclination to
share. Friends might well provide each other with tomatoes
communally by giving and sharing. But bread will require a
mill, and fields large enough to serve the mill, etc. On that
scale, voluntary giving and sharing is not going to work. Been
tried.
In addition to the problem of people just not caring, as
manifested by massive goofing off in the Harmony and Pilgrim
experiments, coordination becomes an even more serious problem
than goofing off, as people who actually attempt to do
something disagree on what is to be done, and how it is to be
done -- disagree on the utilization of resources that are to be
used for production, which resulted in endless quarreling and
disruptive behavior in Harmony, and a harsh theocratic
dictatorship among the pilgrims.
Analogously, the Soviet Union found itself executing far more
people for "wrecking" (having conflicting interpretations of
the general plan) than it did for "parasitism" (goofing off) or
"black marketeering and hoarding" (unauthorized consumption).
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
3u/XEQgaqtwKUq5xKWWiHURfXqUucCebUL9MwXi5
4vAC/1Sx4HjWwmziQm/KplY93iAnPxWBXBdlTqNlQ
Michael Moser
> ideologue (ex-Trotskyist, ex-Maoist, current
> "anarcho"-capitalist) is that it fails to address any sort
> of socialism (where the term refers to what has been
> advocated by folks like Godwin, Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon,
> Proudhon, Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Benjamin Tucker, William
> Morris, Kropotkin, Helen Keller, Rosa Luxemburg, Orwell,
> Einstein, Polanyi, Erich Fromm, Guy Debord, Raoul Vaneigem,
> Chomsky, etc etc etc), instead addressing Bolshevik state
> capitalism and calling that "socialism". It is in fact
> simply a weaker form of the typical anarchist/socialist
> argument against state capitalism.
>
these thinkers did not have to address practical questions of
distribution.
- that's a luxury of dreaming up theories about the just society, you
don't have to address down to earth issues.
So what is happening in practice, when the community has to divide up
a limited amount of resources?
People argue, somebody is left out.
So you have to build a fence around your paradise, otherwise those who
were left out would escape.
so you have to repress them somehow.
First it is a minority, but in the end they are repressing everybody.
Any counterexamples?
Publius2k
>
> --
> On Sat, 01 Feb 2003 00:23:09 GMT, Publius2k <Pub?*@?*li.us>
> wrote:
> > 'Socialism' has existed for thousands of years. Just because
> > some tyrants sought to be bullies under the flag of socialism
> > doesn't disparage the concept.
> >
> > Love one another as you love yourself. Do unto others as you
> > would have them do unto you.
>
> Christ said give to the poor. He did not say "You are poor,
> take what you need from the rich.
"And they will certainly build houses and have occupancy; and
they will certainly plant vineyards and eat their fruitage.
They will not build and someone else have occupancy; they will
not plant and someone else do the eating." No capitalist
exploitation by landlords and such. That is the promise.
>
> > Other world models did and do exist.
> >
> > Notes Lewis Henry Morgan regarding the Iroquois peoples in
> > Ancient Society [1877]: "Everything runs smoothly without
> > soldiers, gendarmes, or police, without nobles, kings,
> > governors, prefects or judges; without prisons, without
> > trials. All quarrels and disputes are settled by the whole
> > body of those concerned...." No killing fields.
>
> Iroquois were not socialist, nor anarchist. They had private
> property and money. Contrary to the commie myth, their
> constitution was a mixed constitution, aproximately equal parts
> democracy, plutocracy, and warrior aristocracy.
They held property communally, not personally. The concept of
owning the land, the earth, is a silly fiction. The earth has
been here for millions of years before us and will be here for
millions after us. It might not be very inhabitable, but it
will be here.
>
> The commies have invented a fictitious constitution for the
> Iroquois, similar to the fictitious speech they invented for
> chief Seattle.
Strange. The Iroquois Great Law of Peace was neither new nor a
fiction. It was their law before 1492 and continues to this day
for those that choose to follow the 'old way'.
>
> The Iroquois were one of the "five civilized tribes", so called
> because of the similarity of their political and economic
> institutions to those of white people.
Not so. The 5 'civilized' tribes [CHEROKEE, CHICKASAW, CHOCTAW,
CREEK, and SEMINOLE] were in the southeast. The Iroquois were
in the area of New York and Canada.
Among those
> institutions were argiculture, private property in agricultural
> land, and slavery. Their constitution was more stable and
> peaceful than that of the others, perhaps because it was a
> mixed constitution, avoiding the oppressive inequality of many
> highly aristocratic Southern tribes, or the dangerously
> excessive democracy of some western tribes.
Can there be 'excessive democracy'?
Publius2k
Many of the Native American tribes practiced communism,
successfully, without coercion.
Many Europeans reveled in the freedom and quality of life such
communal living offered:
"Most of the Indians who were educated by the English--some
contemporaries thought ALL of them--returned to Indian society
at the first opportunities to resume their Indian identities.
On the other hand, large numbers of Englishmen had chosen to
become Indians--by running away from colonial society to join
Indian society, by not trying to escape after being captured, or
by electing to remain with their Indian captors when treaties of
peace periodically afforded them the opportunity to return
home."
"No Arguments, no Intreaties, nor Tears of their Friends and
Relatives, could persuade many of them to leave their new Indian
friends and Acquaintances; several of them that were by the
caressings of their relatives persuaded to come Home, in a
little Time grew tired of our Manner of living, and run away
again to the Indians, and ended their days with them."
--- James Axtell in "The White Indians of Colonial America"
Unless you live with or associate with Indians, you will have a
hard time appreciating their culture of generosity and
hospitality, "the magic of being givers".
"The true Indian sets no price upon either his property or
his labor. His generosity is limited only by his strength and
ability. He regards it as an honor to be selected for difficult
or dangerous service and would think it shameful to ask for any
reward, saying rather: "Let the person I serve express his
thanks according to his own bringing up and his sense of
honor." Each soul must meet the morning sun, the new sweet
earth, and the Great Silence alone!. What is Silence? It is the
Great Mystery! The Holy Silence is His voice!
Whenever, in the course of the daily hunt, the hunter comes
upon a scene that is strikingly beautiful or sublime -- a black
thundercloud with the rainbow's arch above the mountain, a white
waterfall in the heart of a green gorge, a vast prairie tinged
with the blood-red of the sunset -- he pauses for an instant in
an attitude of worship.
He sees no need for setting apart one day in seven as a
holy day, because to him all days are God's days.
The first American mingled with his pride a singular
humility. Spiritual arrogance was foreign to his nature and
teaching. He never claimed that the power of articulate speech
was proof of superiority over the dumb creation; on the other
hand, it is to him a perilous gift.
Children must early learn the beauty of generosity. They
are taught to give what they prize most, that they may taste the
happiness of giving."
-----Ohiyesa (Dr. Charles Alexander Eastman)[Santee Sioux]
Dan Clore
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message news:<3E3A3764...@columbia-center.org>...
> > The problem with the essay, as usual from this sort of
> > ideologue (ex-Trotskyist, ex-Maoist, current
> > "anarcho"-capitalist) is that it fails to address any sort
> > of socialism (where the term refers to what has been
> > advocated by folks like Godwin, Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon,
> > Proudhon, Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Benjamin Tucker, William
> > Morris, Kropotkin, Helen Keller, Rosa Luxemburg, Orwell,
> > Einstein, Polanyi, Erich Fromm, Guy Debord, Raoul Vaneigem,
> > Chomsky, etc etc etc), instead addressing Bolshevik state
> > capitalism and calling that "socialism". It is in fact
> > simply a weaker form of the typical anarchist/socialist
> > argument against state capitalism.
> >
> these thinkers did not have to address practical questions of
> distribution.
> - that's a luxury of dreaming up theories about the just society, you
> don't have to address down to earth issues.
Nonetheless, plenty of them have presented possible schemes
for such societies, addressing down to earth issues.
> So what is happening in practice, when the community has to divide up
> a limited amount of resources?
> People argue, somebody is left out.
> So you have to build a fence around your paradise, otherwise those who
> were left out would escape.
> so you have to repress them somehow.
> First it is a minority, but in the end they are repressing everybody.
This argument would apply to any system that allows any
degree of private property or individual possession. In
particular, it would especially apply to any form of
capitalism. It would apply more and more strongly the more
capitalist the system, as the more capitalist, the greater
the degree of inequality in the division of limited
resources. Notably enough, it is the state-capitalist
regimes (which the original poster had labeled "socialist")
to which it applies most strongly.
Michael Moser
i would add that Real Socialism (tm) starts with a fence and ends in killin fields.
G*rd*n
| > >
| > > The problem with the essay, as usual from this sort of
| > > ideologue (ex-Trotskyist, ex-Maoist, current
| > > "anarcho"-capitalist) is that it fails to address any sort
| > > of socialism (where the term refers to what has been
| > > advocated by folks like Godwin, Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon,
| > > Proudhon, Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Benjamin Tucker, William
| > > Morris, Kropotkin, Helen Keller, Rosa Luxemburg, Orwell,
| > > Einstein, Polanyi, Erich Fromm, Guy Debord, Raoul Vaneigem,
| > > Chomsky, etc etc etc), instead addressing Bolshevik state
| > > capitalism and calling that "socialism". It is in fact
| > > simply a weaker form of the typical anarchist/socialist
| > > argument against state capitalism.
mich...@sapiens.com (Michael Moser):
| > these thinkers did not have to address practical questions of
| > distribution.
| > - that's a luxury of dreaming up theories about the just society, you
| > don't have to address down to earth issues.
| >
| > So what is happening in practice, when the community has to divide up
| > a limited amount of resources?
| > People argue, somebody is left out.
| > So you have to build a fence around your paradise, otherwise those who
| > were left out would escape.
| > so you have to repress them somehow.
| > First it is a minority, but in the end they are repressing everybody.
| >
| > Any counterexamples?
|
| i would add that Real Socialism (tm) starts with a fence and ends in killin fields.
And what is it about the ownership or control of the means
of production by the workers or the people that brings this
about, do you think? And why is it that the capitalist
class is immune from the pathology, whatever it is?
gavnook
news:URK_9.197$%m6...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:
> Can there be 'excessive democracy'?
Yes, it's commonly referred to as "mob rule." You have this whenever a
majority is allowed to legislate away the rights of a minority.
James A. Donald
"James A. Donald":
> > Iroquois were not socialist, nor anarchist. They had
> > private property and money. Contrary to the commie myth,
> > their constitution was a mixed constitution, aproximately
> > equal parts democracy, plutocracy, and warrior aristocracy.
Publius2k
> They held property communally, not personally.
Commie myth.
The numerous black slaves they purchased at white slave markets
would be startled to hear this.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
6j+OcuqIb/kXMubFGiPPd8BPO4Ads8vP5FAaeRxU
4e82luws7x29rtJap2LUHQLqOy9BF2LIC4Hr2KGB5
G*rd*n
gavnook <gavnook@ya_EYEh8SPAM_hoo.com>:
| Yes, it's commonly referred to as "mob rule." You have this whenever a
| majority is allowed to legislate away the rights of a minority.
And who allows, or does not allow, the majority to do this
or that?
James A. Donald
On Sat, 01 Feb 2003 07:57:36 GMT, Publius2k <Pub?*@?*li.us>
wrote:
> Many of the Native American tribes practiced communism,
> successfully, without coercion.
Commie fantasy.
The five civilized tribes had an economic order very similar to
that of the white people.
Different tribes had different economic orders, some of which
where vicious caste societies with large numbers of slaves and
a few absolute rulers.
Hunter gatherers were generally anarchic, and had little in the
way of property, and shared what they had. You can call that
communism, or you can call that not having much. Or you could
call it anarcho capitalism. When people do not have much
property, their society does not tell us much about what
institutions of property are feasible.
Among primitive peoples that practiced agriculture, and
therefore had large amounts of property, very few practiced
communism, and those that practiced communism employed the
familiar methods of mass murder, terror, and absolute rulers
surrounded by a cult of personality.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
9IHOz+CK0nGFPRo1ST0cAgnGn4jbhQzocI1sKYNp
4nv+fsZhIwT5yRlvSM1ObKQGjZ4hINXWcCFuhx9ha
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
> Hunter gatherers were generally anarchic, and had little in the
> way of property, and shared what they had. You can call that
> communism, or you can call that not having much. Or you could
> call it anarcho capitalism. When people do not have much
> property, their society does not tell us much about what
> institutions of property are feasible.
Well, if you actually ask them they'll tell you alot.
Chief Sealth:
"The president in Washington sends words that he wishes to buy our land. But
how can you buy or sell the sky? The land? The idea is strange to us. If we
do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can
you buy them?. . . We are part of the earth and it is part of us. . . . This
we know: the earth does not be- long to man, man belongs to the earth."
I would like to see you try to convince Sealth that he was not a free man
because he didn't own private property. I think he would pity you.
Vladimir Kuznetsov
baby_ifritah <lkgie...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
>news:4gik3vs9jlepig66h...@4ax.com...
>> --
>> "baby_ifritah"
>> > er...do you want to let me know what specific thing i have
>> > said that you consider this an appropriate response to? oh,
>> > sorry - specific thingS
>>
>> You have been arguing one can have socialism without terror.
>> Here I explained at length why you cannot.
>
>that's a really great response. i am utterly undone.
>
>except that you are incorrect.
>
>i have been arguing that socialist styles of economic behaviour can occur
>between free individuals. you choose to imagine that this can only occur
>voluntarily within a family in spite of the fact that it presently occurs
>voluntarily between friends and community and charitable groups.
>
You are confusing apple and oranges. Relation structure
essential for the family cannot be extended for the whole
society. Questions like: "How much to spend?" and "How much to
produce?" can be easily and directly resolved inside the family.
On a society level you need beurocracy to resolve these issues.
As soon as beurocracy is created, it takes life of its own.
So the killing field become a reality. James is right.
vlad
G*rd*n
| >> > er...do you want to let me know what specific thing i have
| >> > said that you consider this an appropriate response to? oh,
| >> > sorry - specific thingS
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
| >> You have been arguing one can have socialism without terror.
| >> Here I explained at length why you cannot.
baby_ifritah <lkgie...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
| >that's a really great response. i am utterly undone.
| >
| >except that you are incorrect.
| >
| >i have been arguing that socialist styles of economic behaviour can occur
| >between free individuals. you choose to imagine that this can only occur
| >voluntarily within a family in spite of the fact that it presently occurs
| >voluntarily between friends and community and charitable groups.
vl...@vlad.best.vwh.net (Vladimir Kuznetsov):
| You are confusing apple and oranges. Relation structure
| essential for the family cannot be extended for the whole
| society. Questions like: "How much to spend?" and "How much to
| produce?" can be easily and directly resolved inside the family.
| On a society level you need beurocracy to resolve these issues.
| As soon as beurocracy is created, it takes life of its own.
| So the killing field become a reality. James is right.
I think one of the mistakes you are making here is that you
assume that all resources have to be fully committed at all
times in order to maximize production. Hence, the need for
a quasi-military governance of those resources, including
labor, and of the distribution of the products, whose
consumption must also be maximized.
This order of things -- power first, desire last -- arises
in slavery. The labor of the slaves and the soldiers and
police through whom they are controlled must be maximized to
ensure the power of the state in its inevitable conflicts
with other states and with rebels and criminals. The slave
state has been transformed by capitalism and other forces,
but it retains the institutionalized need to maximize
production. And the states which arose in the 20th century
professing socialism nevertheless did not depart from this
principle, for a variety of reasons. That being the case,
they had to practice either capitalist-style coercion ("wage
slavery") or fall back on older and more unpleasant modes of
coercion. And this is what we must expect given the general
principle at work.
However, if a community did not attempt to maximize production
but rather the pursuit and satisfaction of desire (and here
I am speaking of authentic desire, not consumerism) it would
not be driven to the quasi-military organization required of
communities which maximize power.
James A. Donald
mich...@sapiens.com (Michael Moser): | i would add that Real
Socialism (tm) starts with a fence and ends in killin fields.
On 1 Feb 2003 11:50:54 -0500, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> And what is it about the ownership or control of the means of
> production by the workers or the people that brings this
> about,
I already explained that repeatedly, most recently in my post
"Why socialism needs killing fields"
If all "the people" own all the stuff, rather than particular
individual people owning particular parts of the means of
production, then "the people" are going to have to start
torturing and murdering particular individual people, for
reasons I have explained time after time.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
elSzXOZAHgKzXSoHjUO5gkyVzyBeGRigUHJeswMn
4eh/U9f4gBrOS9sdBwYFqCuuRHjm9nJEU/WX5epxU
James A. Donald
James A. Donald
> > Hunter gatherers were generally anarchic, and had little in
> > the way of property, and shared what they had. You can
> > call that communism, or you can call that not having much.
> > Or you could call it anarcho capitalism. When people do
> > not have much property, their society does not tell us much
> > about what institutions of property are feasible.
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
> Well, if you actually ask them they'll tell you alot.
>
> Chief Sealth: "The president in Washington sends words that
> he wishes to buy our land. But how can you buy or sell the
> sky? The land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own
> the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how
> can you buy them?. . . We are part of the earth and it is
> part of us. . . . This we know: the earth does not be- long
> to man, man belongs to the earth."
Commie lie. Chief Seattle said nothing of the kind
For what Chief Seattle actually said, as translated at the
time, and printed up in the paper at the time.
http://www.halcyon.com/arborhts/chiefsea.html. That web page
also gives links the many different fraudulent speeches that
have been attributed to Chief Seattle
Here is a fragment from that web page, about buying land:
: : The great, and I presume -- good, White Chief sends
: : us word that he wishes to buy our land but is
: : willing to allow us enough to live comfortably.
: : This indeed appears just, even generous, for the
: : Red Man no longer has rights that he need respect,
: : and the offer may be wise, also, as we are no
: : longer in need of an extensive country.
: :
: : There was a time when our people covered the land
: : as the waves of a wind-ruffled sea cover its
: : shell-paved floor, but that time long since passed
: : away with the greatness of tribes that are now but
: : a mournful memory. I will not dwell on, nor mourn
: : over, our untimely decay
Needless to say, he proceeds to dwell on their untimely decay,
and implies that the great and good white chief is not in fact
good, but rather a liar and treaty breaker, but there is
nothing in any way socialist in that speech, nor any suggestion
that the idea of buying and selling land is any way strange to
him or his people.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
CH8PGQFJFw7CGDYw5VQxwfxJERQRJdpo86PcjJ91
4Dujl0BmQU8CJfNPcmdDpUViM10IJ1N7JorHEurOy
George Stewart
That's Chief Seattle, only it wasn't. That famous quote was made up
by a white newspaperman back in the 50s or 60s, I believe.
- George Stewart
***************************************************
"To wake up is to wake the world up" - D.E. Harding
G*rd*n
| >> way of property, and shared what they had. You can call that
| >> communism, or you can call that not having much. Or you could
| >> call it anarcho capitalism. When people do not have much
| >> property, their society does not tell us much about what
| >> institutions of property are feasible.
"Gabrielle Rapagnetta"
| >Well, if you actually ask them they'll tell you alot.
| >
| >Chief Sealth:
| >"The president in Washington sends words that he wishes to buy our land. But
| >how can you buy or sell the sky? The land? The idea is strange to us. If we
| >do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can
| >you buy them?. . . We are part of the earth and it is part of us. . . . This
| >we know: the earth does not be- long to man, man belongs to the earth."
| >
| >I would like to see you try to convince Sealth that he was not a free man
| >because he didn't own private property. I think he would pity you.
George Stewart <geo...@sugarland.clara.co.uk>:
| That's Chief Seattle, only it wasn't. That famous quote was made up
| by a white newspaperman back in the 50s or 60s, I believe.
Or else someone made up a story that the story was made up by
a White newspaperman back in the 50s or 60s. Debunking is a
funny game.
Vladimir Kuznetsov
. . .
>vl...@vlad.best.vwh.net (Vladimir Kuznetsov):
>| You are confusing apple and oranges. Relation structure
>| essential for the family cannot be extended for the whole
>| society. Questions like: "How much to spend?" and "How much to
>| produce?" can be easily and directly resolved inside the family.
>| On a society level you need beurocracy to resolve these issues.
>| As soon as beurocracy is created, it takes life of its own.
>| So the killing field become a reality. James is right.
>
>I think one of the mistakes you are making here is that you
>assume that all resources have to be fully committed at all
>times in order to maximize production.
Where did I say about maximising production?
In a real life examples of socialist societies that I observed
by my own eyes or read about maximising production was not an issue,
providing basic needs of population was.
>Hence, the need for
>a quasi-military governance of those resources, including
>labor, and of the distribution of the products, whose
>consumption must also be maximized.
You are abolutely right about "quasi-military governance" -
here you agree with James. About consumption you don't have to worry
usually people consume just fine. They do not need "military
governance" for that.
. . .
>
>However, if a community did not attempt to maximize production
>but rather the pursuit and satisfaction of desire (and here
>I am speaking of authentic desire, not consumerism) it would
>not be driven to the quasi-military organization required of
>communities which maximize power.
>
I have a desire for three Mersedes's S600 in my garage and
black caviar at the table at dinner each evening. Is this desire
authentic or consumerism? Do we need another layer of beureocracy
to decide that?
James is right.
Vlad
James A. Donald
George Stewart <geo...@sugarland.clara.co.uk>:
> > That's Chief Seattle, only it wasn't. That famous quote
> > was made up
> > by a white newspaperman back in the 50s or 60s, I believe.
On 1 Feb 2003 18:25:40 -0500, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> Or else someone made up a story that the story was made up by
> a White newspaperman back in the 50s or 60s. Debunking is a
> funny game.
There are four, count em, four fake speeches attributed to
Chief Seattle, each one more obviously addressed to twentieth
century events than the last.
The one that Gabrielle cited has him talking about buffallo.
There were of course no buffalo anywhere near his hunting
grounds.
In any case, if you read the speech that Gabrielle attributed
to Chief Seattle, it is quite obviously a recent forgery --
seventies, rather than sixties.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
9MmvW44RJob46nYOHdkGAboNeX7QKgw58kzpvrK
46V53AT7mSs0uDSrV2YD3Z8ZqX8vNNjk/acf2Yh4N
gavnook
> Publius2k <Pub?*@?*li.us> wrote in
>| > Can there be 'excessive democracy'?
>
> gavnook <gavnook@ya_EYEh8SPAM_hoo.com>:
>| Yes, it's commonly referred to as "mob rule." You have this whenever a
>| majority is allowed to legislate away the rights of a minority.
>
> And who allows, or does not allow, the majority to do this
> or that?
Government.
LeRoy
This thread reveals how Americans mistakenly mix communism and
socialism together, which is unfair to the democratic socialist
governments that have brought progress and prosperity to Scandinavia
and western Europe - and to America's neighbor, Canada.
Ferg
G*rd*n
| >| > Can there be 'excessive democracy'?
gavnook <gavnook@ya_EYEh8SPAM_hoo.com>:
| >| Yes, it's commonly referred to as "mob rule." You have this whenever a
| >| majority is allowed to legislate away the rights of a minority.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| > And who allows, or does not allow, the majority to do this
| > or that?
gavnook <gavnook@ya_EYEh8SPAM_hoo.com>:
| Government.
So this government does not allow the majority to do
something. Presumably, then, it is not the majority but
something else. What? Who?
G*rd*n
| > > > Iroquois were not socialist, nor anarchist. They had
| > > > private property and money. Contrary to the commie myth,
| > > > their constitution was a mixed constitution, aproximately
| > > > equal parts democracy, plutocracy, and warrior aristocracy.
Publius2k
| > > They held property communally, not personally.
James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
| > Commie myth.
| >
| > The numerous black slaves they purchased at white slave markets
| > would be startled to hear this.
lefe...@worldonline.es (LeRoy):
| This thread reveals how Americans mistakenly mix communism and
| socialism together, which is unfair to the democratic socialist
| governments that have brought progress and prosperity to Scandinavia
| and western Europe - and to America's neighbor, Canada.
I've lived and worked in Canada and Denmark and I'm
astonished to learn that the means of production in those
nations are owned or controlled by the working class or the
people generally. There was no evidence of this is the
workplace, the streets, or the media. Is this something
new?
As for confusing communism and socialism (and Welfarism and
a lot of other things), from the point of view of fundamentalist
liberals, there are only two parties or sides: the fundamentalist
liberal side, and everything and everyone else. Like other
fundamentalisms, it is a low-res, high-contrast, narrow-field,
short-focus view. But it is not a "mistake", it's the result
of choosing to look at the world in a certain way.
Constantinople
> "James A. Donald":
>| > > > Iroquois were not socialist, nor anarchist. They had
>| > > > private property and money. Contrary to the commie myth,
>| > > > their constitution was a mixed constitution, aproximately
>| > > > equal parts democracy, plutocracy, and warrior aristocracy.
>
> Publius2k
>| > > They held property communally, not personally.
>
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com>:
>| > Commie myth.
>| >
>| > The numerous black slaves they purchased at white slave markets
>| > would be startled to hear this.
>
> lefe...@worldonline.es (LeRoy):
>| This thread reveals how Americans mistakenly mix communism and
>| socialism together, which is unfair to the democratic socialist
>| governments that have brought progress and prosperity to Scandinavia
>| and western Europe - and to America's neighbor, Canada.
>
> I've lived and worked in Canada and Denmark and I'm
> astonished to learn that the means of production in those
> nations are owned or controlled by the working class or the
> people generally. There was no evidence of this is the
> workplace, the streets, or the media. Is this something
> new?
>
> As for confusing communism and socialism
The proponents are to blame because they can't get it straight themselves
what communism and socialism are. Your disagreement with LeRoy is a case in
point: he thinks Canada is socialist, you think Canada is not socialist.
Another source of confusion is the name "Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics", given to a state which is run by a group calling itself a
Communist Party.
> (and Welfarism and
> a lot of other things), from the point of view of fundamentalist
> liberals, there are only two parties or sides: the fundamentalist
> liberal side, and everything and everyone else. Like other
> fundamentalisms, it is a low-res, high-contrast, narrow-field,
> short-focus view.
Name-calling and metaphor have low content and high suggestive value;
therefore you use them. It's like calling someone "an asshole" - it would
be almost impossible for him to prove that he was not one because the term
has almost no verifiable or falsifiable content; and yet the word is loaded
with emotional impact. You get the same effect when you call us
"fundamentalist", and then use a bunch of metaphors from photography: you
say nothing factual about us, but you say plenty about how you feel about
us.
Constantinople
news:2737a82c.03020...@posting.google.com:
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
> news:<rm1o3voqgekito303...@4ax.com>...
>> --
>> "James A. Donald":
>> > > Iroquois were not socialist, nor anarchist. They had
>> > > private property and money. Contrary to the commie myth,
>> > > their constitution was a mixed constitution, aproximately
>> > > equal parts democracy, plutocracy, and warrior aristocracy.
>>
>> Publius2k
>> > They held property communally, not personally.
>>
>> Commie myth.
>>
>> The numerous black slaves they purchased at white slave markets
>> would be startled to hear this.
>>
>> --digsig
>> James A. Donald
>> 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
>> 6j+OcuqIb/kXMubFGiPPd8BPO4Ads8vP5FAaeRxU
>> 4e82luws7x29rtJap2LUHQLqOy9BF2LIC4Hr2KGB5
>
> This thread reveals how Americans mistakenly mix communism and
> socialism together,
And your post reveals that you lump people of a nation together. We're
individuals expressing opinions, and then out of the blue you bring up
our nation. It's as if Einstein were having an argument with someone and
then someone said, "it's funny how Jews make that sort of mistake."
Which changes the entire tone of the discussion and pulls it right into
the mud.
gavnook
> Publius2k <Pub?*@?*li.us> wrote in
>| >| > Can there be 'excessive democracy'?
>
> gavnook <gavnook@ya_EYEh8SPAM_hoo.com>:
>| >| Yes, it's commonly referred to as "mob rule." You have this
>| >| whenever a majority is allowed to legislate away the rights of a
>| >| minority.
>
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
>| > And who allows, or does not allow, the majority to do this
>| > or that?
>
> gavnook <gavnook@ya_EYEh8SPAM_hoo.com>:
>| Government.
>
> So this government does not allow the majority to do
> something. Presumably, then, it is not the majority but
> something else. What? Who?
What if a majority of Texans decided to kill and eat the minority (those
who don't own cowboy hats)? This is simply not allowed in Texas, and a
number of institutions exist to prevent it from happening.
Another example is smoking bans. A number of states and cities have passed
bans on smoking in resturaunts and bars by passing an initiative with a
majority vote. These establishments are private property. If a government
respected the property rights of the owners, it wouldn't allow such a thing
on the ballot in the first place.
G*rd*n
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| > As for confusing communism and socialism (and Welfarism and
| > a lot of other things), from the point of view of fundamentalist
| > liberals, there are only two parties or sides: the fundamentalist
| > liberal side, and everything and everyone else. Like other
| > fundamentalisms, it is a low-res, high-contrast, narrow-field,
| > short-focus view.
Constantinople <constan...@yahoo.com>:
| Name-calling and metaphor have low content and high suggestive value;
| therefore you use them. It's like calling someone "an asshole" - it would
| be almost impossible for him to prove that he was not one because the term
| has almost no verifiable or falsifiable content; and yet the word is loaded
| with emotional impact. You get the same effect when you call us
| "fundamentalist", and then use a bunch of metaphors from photography: you
| say nothing factual about us, but you say plenty about how you feel about
| us.
My description was not intended for fundamentalist liberals,
but those who stand outside that particular faith, who may
find it useful. There a numerous examples of f.l.'s lumping
very different non-f.l. ideologies together, for example social
democracy (Welfare-Statism), democratic socialism and Naziism.
That was what James Donald was doing in this thread, in fact,
by asserting that socialism led inevitably to terror and mass
murder. One can do this sort of thing, but then one must
accept the fact that others will notice and describe what is
going on as they see it. I think the photographic metaphors
are apt and may prove helpful to people who are confused by
the rhetoric. Leroy, for example, said "Americans" conflated
socialism and communism; it would be more accurate to say that
fundamentalist liberals do so as a matter of belief and choice,
and the boss media do so as a matter of distributing propaganda
and keeping people as ignorant as possible. But there are a
lot of other Americans.
Woodard R. Springstube
news:b1jgc3$eok$1...@panix3.panix.com:
Gordon,
You are a fundamentalist collectivist, who has more blind
faith in collectivism than the Pope has in the Madonna.
Besides, I wonder if your description of "fundamentalist
liberals" just might happen to contain a lot of projection.
In any event, I would never trust you with power.
Michael Moser
> Michael Moser wrote:
> >
> > Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message news:<3E3A3764...@columbia-center.org>...
> > >
> > > The problem with the essay, as usual from this sort of
> > > ideologue (ex-Trotskyist, ex-Maoist, current
> > > "anarcho"-capitalist) is that it fails to address any sort
> > > of socialism (where the term refers to what has been
> > > advocated by folks like Godwin, Owen, Fourier, Saint-Simon,
> > > Proudhon, Marx, Engels, Bakunin, Benjamin Tucker, William
> > > Morris, Kropotkin, Helen Keller, Rosa Luxemburg, Orwell,
> > > Einstein, Polanyi, Erich Fromm, Guy Debord, Raoul Vaneigem,
> > > Chomsky, etc etc etc), instead addressing Bolshevik state
> > > capitalism and calling that "socialism". It is in fact
> > > simply a weaker form of the typical anarchist/socialist
> > > argument against state capitalism.
> > >
> >
> > distribution.
> > - that's a luxury of dreaming up theories about the just society, you
> > don't have to address down to earth issues.
> >
> > So what is happening in practice, when the community has to divide up
> > a limited amount of resources?
> > People argue, somebody is left out.
> > So you have to build a fence around your paradise, otherwise those who
> > were left out would escape.
> > so you have to repress them somehow.
> > First it is a minority, but in the end they are repressing everybody.
> >
> > Any counterexamples?
>
>
> successfully, without coercion.
Ok, this paradiso had a problem - there was no escape from it.
where would you run to, if you would not agree with the Chief?
meaning that there is a fence, i.e. an element that keeps you from running away.
> Many Europeans reveled in the freedom and quality of life such
> communal living offered:
Once again, limited choice kept them from running away.
Fence again.
LeRoy
Your reaction bewilders me. To point out the accomplishes of the
democratic socialist parties of the western world (called Social
Democracy in Germany, Labor in Britain, Liberals in Canada and simply
Socialism in France and Spain) is throwing mud?
Michael Moser
If something is owned by 'all the workers' or 'the state' - then it
isn't owned by anybody
read Matt Ridley's the 'Origin of Virtue'.
(Small scale cooperatives just don't scale up to the level of a state.
Then it turns out that nobody is responsible for what is going on;
it's the
problem of 'everyone' that is nobody.
Then it turns out that problems of distribution turn into something
very abstract.
Meaning that there is no problem to infringe on the rights of a
minority,
when it comes to pleasing the majority of people (in principle).
Then it turns out that the majority turns into a minority, in the end
those who benifit are a very tiny minority indeed.
Is that enough for a descriptions of the mechanisms that were actually
observed in more then one case?
Publius2k
oh contrare. you are confusing the concept of fences introduced
by the Europeans. All were free to disagree with the 'chief'.
The leaders did not rule by force but lead by wisdom and
persuasion.
Any who dissented, were free to depart. Just as a deer may
decide to look for a new territory to live in, so too were
individuals free to find their own place. Living with a
community was by consent and attraction, not coercion and
chains. That is the white man's world.
Only when the whites decided to start claiming vast property
rights, far exceeding their personal needs for sustenance and
fencing it in with steel wire or paper 'land patents' backed by
bullets was this freedom destroyed.
Only the animals are free. Free to roam where they may. Humans
are born into bondage and have to pay tribute for the 'right' to
live on a piece of land. In England today, 3% of the riches
landLORDS own 95% of the land. The remaining majority are
reduced by this 'legal' fiat to serfdom. As someone wiser than
me said, 'privatization of the commons is theft from the
unborn'. When I was asked if I thought all land should be
divided up equally between all persons, I said definitely not.
Though equal at the moment, the next child born would have no
birth right, no access to land except by becoming an indentured
servant to work for others to earn money to exchange for a space
of land to live on. Obviously some other system is needed.
Madison had the foresight to see this as he looked over the vast
territories of the Americas [callously disregarding the rights
of the indigenous peoples] and he crafted the constitution so as
to imbed social injustice and privilege for his elite class.
to be redundant:
Said Madison:
"In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should
not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce. An
increase of population will of necessity increase the proportion
of those who will labor under all the hardships of life, and
secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings.
These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the
feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage,
the power will slide into the hands of the former."
Madison correctly saw that democracy would threaten his 'way of
life', his unbridled 'freedom' to plunder and profit without
regard to impact on others or the earth. He had to twist the
new government into a sham that would thwart "equal laws of
suffrage".
"The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or
rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of
the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to
last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent;
but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and
kingdoms of Europe, when the number of landholders shall be
comparatively small, through the various means of trade and
manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in
future elections? and, unless wisely provided against, what will
become of your government? In England, at this day, if
elections were open to all classes of people, the property of
landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would
soon take place."
One man, one vote? NAY I say! All classes of people allowed an
equal say? NAY I say! So Madison treacherously handed back the
hard won freedoms and our fledgling democracy to the royal hands
of a privileged few. It was to be minority rule.
"If these observations be just, our government ought to secure
the permanent interests of the country against innovation.
Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support
these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other.
They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of
the opulent against the majority. The Senate, therefore, ought
to be this body; and, to answer these purposes, they ought to
have permanency and stability. Various have been the
propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in
office, the better will these views be answered."
And as per his plot, the government was "so constituted as to
protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." The
Senate as he designed it was just as effective as the House of
Lords in England in curbing the will of the majority that "labor
under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more
equal distribution of its blessings."
Toward an American Revolution
Exposing the Constitution and other Illusions
Jerry Fresia Chapter 3
The Constitution: Resurrection of An Imperial System
Go to http://www.cyberjournal.org for the whole book online....
Publius2k
thread and others on at least my news server. Also, something
is weird about gavnook's posts that prevent me replying to the
newsgroups. When I hit reply, it opens my email program and
starts an email to gavnook instead of a reply post here.. dunno
how to sort that yet..
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> Publius2k <Pub?*@?*li.us> wrote in
> | >| > Can there be 'excessive democracy'?
>
> gavnook <gavnook@ya_EYEh8SPAM_hoo.com>:
> | >| Yes, it's commonly referred to as "mob rule." You have this whenever a
> | >| majority is allowed to legislate away the rights of a minority.
Pardon my french but this is bull shit. The passionate acts of
a lawless mob do not equate with the calm deliberations and
decisions reached by consensus. That 'mob rule' metaphor is a
well worn but ill founded strawman.
What we really have is a minority dictating and legislating away
the rights of the majority. Madison designed it that way and
the vast majority have been so indoctrinated they think the
Right is right.
The 'mob rule' fallacy is just a smoke screen for a system based
on tyranny of the opulent few who control by coercion and fraud.
Why do you think it is more fair for a minority to pass laws
that restrict the majority, than for the majority to pass laws
that restrict a minority? If the minority should rule, why are
we shammed with voting? He who gets the least votes wins?
sounds rather absurd.
>
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> | > And who allows, or does not allow, the majority to do this
> | > or that?
>
> gavnook <gavnook@ya_EYEh8SPAM_hoo.com>:
> | Government.
>
> So this government does not allow the majority to do
> something. Presumably, then, it is not the majority but
> something else. What? Who?
As you well know, Madison's 'opulent minority' class :)
"If we are the new American slaves, then who is our master? The
New Master, like some monster escaped from the laboratories of a
noble experiment called the American dream, is the sum total of
an amoral coupling between government and business. It looms as
a monolith hybrid that is neither government nor business and is
composed of individual strands of power that include the
president, Congress, the courts, a multitude of governing
bureaus and agencies, and an immense cluster of multinational
corporations, some as wealthy as great nations."
--Gerry Spence, Give Me Liberty!-Freeing Ourselves in the 21st
Century
When we reign in the 'commerce clause' as so openly interpreted
by the elite justices, when we depersonalize the corporations
and make them subservient to real people, liberty and justice
will begin to blossom.
...We interrupt this dialogue for a song...
Who Will Tell the People
by David Rovics
The CIA is pushing crack in the ghettoes of LA
While the food crops in Colombia get sprayed by the DEA
The FBI is reading your email with something called the
carnivore
And the rich are getting richer while the poor are staying poor
They're launching nuclear-powered ships up into space
One little accident could wipe out half the human race
And they're putting radioactive waste into your silverware
Or maybe your toaster or perhaps your wheelchair
The Air Force is bombing people in Iraq every other day
They don't like the government so the children have to pay
The ozone hole is spreading and the sheep are going blind
While the US spends more on arms than the rest of the world
combined
Journalists are getting fired from San Jose to Atlanta
When they write about reality, not a fluff piece for Fanta
A death threat every week and sometimes life is short
When the truth is too dangerous for someone to report
(Chorus)
Who will tell the people that free speech is a ruse
The corporations run the country and then they make the news
Is it media or mind control, heroic victories or crimes
Who will tell the people that we're living in these times
The cancer rates are skyrocketing though people are smoking less
If you live near a nuke your life is bound to be a mess
Clean water's almost gone all over the earth
And what's left they want to privatize and see how much it's
worth
Chevron is gunning down the students of Nigeria
Turning the land to waste while the babies die of dyptheria
And the weather's getting hotter, the world's forests are on
fire
Pretty soon Brazil will be one giant funeral pyre
(Chorus)
One in three adult Americans cannot read or write
And their children go to bed hungry every night
And two million US citizens are rotting behind bars
And while they're there they're working hard building parts for
cars
And the Army's running torture schools to keep the earth under
control
And they're relocating Navajos so they can mine some extra coal
Our taxes pay McDonald's to sell tumors in Shanghai
While a hundred thousand poisoned vets are just about to die
(Chorus)
And the people are resisting wherever you may go
And this is the single biggest fact they don't want you to know
From New Delhi to New Mexico there are battles going on
And the darkest hour is just before the dawn
And in Berkeley and New York they're raiding radio stations
Trying to turn the voice of the people into the voice of the
corporations
Will we seize the airwaves, wipe the sweat off of our brow
Stand and face the beast and shout, "Democracy Now!"
(Chorus)
James A. Donald
On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 22:31:07 GMT, Publius2k <Pub?*@?*li.us>
wrote:
> Pardon my french but this is bull shit. The passionate acts
> of a lawless mob do not equate with the calm deliberations
> and decisions reached by consensus. That 'mob rule' metaphor
> is a well worn but ill founded strawman.
The basic formula of politics is to express your policy in half
a dozen words, and repeat those words ad nauseum.
The phrase "Mob rule" captures the fact that "the people" are
much less intelligent, more violent, and more cruel, than any
individual person.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
PeS+Sp+uKOF0lcA4BPw4bEkLm2FaF0yW/+Y44XbF
4jnRRFMPKpYcdCbYmxKLW5PkJIHS+U4xOx9oUXI1t
G*rd*n
| > of production by the workers or the people that brings this
| > about, do you think? And why is it that the capitalist
| > class is immune from the pathology, whatever it is?
mich...@sapiens.com (Michael Moser):
| If something is owned by 'all the workers' or 'the state' - then it
| isn't owned by anybody
| read Matt Ridley's the 'Origin of Virtue'.
| (Small scale cooperatives just don't scale up to the level of a state.
|
| Then it turns out that nobody is responsible for what is going on;
| it's the
| problem of 'everyone' that is nobody.
|
| Then it turns out that problems of distribution turn into something
| very abstract.
|
| Meaning that there is no problem to infringe on the rights of a
| minority,
| when it comes to pleasing the majority of people (in principle).
|
| Then it turns out that the majority turns into a minority, in the end
| those who benifit are a very tiny minority indeed.
|
| Is that enough for a descriptions of the mechanisms that were actually
| observed in more then one case?
Would you say, then, that large enterprises and institutions
must be governed by elites? Must they base themselves in a
coercive social order (such as a state)? This seems to be
the alternative to that assemblage of small cooperatives.
And in any case, is it necessary for humans to be organized
into large institutions?
G*rd*n
| >| >| > Can there be 'excessive democracy'?
gavnook <gavnook@ya_EYEh8SPAM_hoo.com>:
| >| >| Yes, it's commonly referred to as "mob rule." You have this
| >| >| whenever a majority is allowed to legislate away the rights of a
| >| >| minority.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| >| > And who allows, or does not allow, the majority to do this
| >| > or that?
gavnook <gavnook@ya_EYEh8SPAM_hoo.com>:
| >| Government.
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| > So this government does not allow the majority to do
| > something. Presumably, then, it is not the majority but
| > something else. What? Who?
gavnook <gavnook@ya_EYEh8SPAM_hoo.com>:
| What if a majority of Texans decided to kill and eat the minority (those
| who don't own cowboy hats)? This is simply not allowed in Texas, and a
| number of institutions exist to prevent it from happening.
|
| Another example is smoking bans. A number of states and cities have passed
| bans on smoking in resturaunts and bars by passing an initiative with a
| majority vote. These establishments are private property. If a government
| respected the property rights of the owners, it wouldn't allow such a thing
| on the ballot in the first place.
You haven't answered my question. The institutions of Texas
have been brought into being and exist because someone wills
them to exist and to take the form they do. If this someone
is not the majority of Texans, who or what is it? Some
particular minority? Which?
G*rd*n
| > > This thread reveals how Americans mistakenly mix communism and
| > > socialism together,
Constantinople <constan...@yahoo.com>:
| > And your post reveals that you lump people of a nation together. We're
| > individuals expressing opinions, and then out of the blue you bring up
| > our nation. It's as if Einstein were having an argument with someone and
| > then someone said, "it's funny how Jews make that sort of mistake."
| > Which changes the entire tone of the discussion and pulls it right into
| > the mud.
lefe...@worldonline.es (LeRoy):
| Your reaction bewilders me. To point out the accomplishes of the
| democratic socialist parties of the western world (called Social
| Democracy in Germany, Labor in Britain, Liberals in Canada and simply
| Socialism in France and Spain) is throwing mud?
You said that Americans got something wrong. Constantinople
is probably an American. But since Constantinople belongs to
the true liberal faith, his beliefs must be infallible.
Therefore, to suggest that Americans may get something wrong
is to suggest that Constantinople may have gotten something
wrong, and that is tantamount to the most despicable,
error-drenched, lying abuse imaginable.
But wait 'til you get to James and hot irons are thrust into
your trembling hands to torture him with.
brian turner
[deleted]
> If something is owned by 'all the workers' or 'the state' - then it
> isn't owned by anybody
> read Matt Ridley's the 'Origin of Virtue'.
> (Small scale cooperatives just don't scale up to the level of a state.
>
> Then it turns out that nobody is responsible for what is going on;
> it's the
> problem of 'everyone' that is nobody.
>
> Then it turns out that problems of distribution turn into something
> very abstract.
>
> Meaning that there is no problem to infringe on the rights of a
> minority,
> when it comes to pleasing the majority of people (in principle).
>
> Then it turns out that the majority turns into a minority, in the end
> those who benifit are a very tiny minority indeed.
>
> Is that enough for a descriptions of the mechanisms that were actually
> observed in more then one case?
The absence of private property rights is not necessarily the same as
a no ownership free-for-all. Depends on the monitoring institutions.
Corporations are owned by so many shareholders that any one has no
incentive to monitor closely (I realize that most have a few
mega-holders which do, but I've never heard proponents of this model
argue that's a necessary condition), but there are flawed but workable
monitoring capacities. Same can be for state or collective ownership.
Some choose not to have effective monitoring institutions, but that's
because of ignorance or the fact that rent-seeking vested interests
are preventing it somehow.
Constantinople
> lefe...@worldonline.es (LeRoy) wrote in
>| > > This thread reveals how Americans mistakenly mix communism and
>| > > socialism together,
>
> Constantinople <constan...@yahoo.com>:
>| > And your post reveals that you lump people of a nation together.
>| > We're individuals expressing opinions, and then out of the blue you
>| > bring up our nation. It's as if Einstein were having an argument
>| > with someone and then someone said, "it's funny how Jews make that
>| > sort of mistake." Which changes the entire tone of the discussion
>| > and pulls it right into the mud.
>
> lefe...@worldonline.es (LeRoy):
>| Your reaction bewilders me. To point out the accomplishes of the
>| democratic socialist parties of the western world (called Social
>| Democracy in Germany, Labor in Britain, Liberals in Canada and simply
>| Socialism in France and Spain) is throwing mud?
No. I said "you lump people of a nation together", "people of a nation"
meaning "Americans", my statement meaning, "you lump Americans
together."
Understand?
>
> You said that Americans got something wrong. Constantinople
> is probably an American. But since Constantinople belongs to
> the true liberal faith, his beliefs must be infallible.
> Therefore, to suggest that Americans may get something wrong
> is to suggest that Constantinople may have gotten something
> wrong, and that is tantamount to the most despicable,
> error-drenched, lying abuse imaginable.
Your interpretation is absurd, probably deliberately so.
James A. Donald
On 2 Feb 2003 18:26:42 -0500, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> You said that Americans got something wrong. Constantinople
> is probably an American. But since Constantinople belongs to
> the true liberal faith, his beliefs must be infallible.
The proposition that Americans got something wrong is as silly
as the proposition that Jews, or Blacks, got something wrong.
If you want to argue that liberals got something wrong, fine.
But, as is typical of socialists, you cannot distinguish
between races, classes, ideologies, nations and forms of
organization, which is why when socialists proceed to
supposedly eliminate some form of organization, they so
frequently wind up eliminating some race or nationality.
Supposedly the big important difference between commies, nazis,
and fabians, is that commies use class as the rationale for
mass murder, nazis use race as the rationale of mass murder,
and fabians use forms of organization as the rationale for mass
murder: "humanely and judiciously liquidates a handful of
exploiters and speculators"
But since in practice none of them can tell the difference
between class, race, and form of organization this supposed
difference is merely rhetorical.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
dO9EYDiwyDfmZBS+czZvBKY9UufdqqGL9wPiuhj2
4Lraa2BSewsrc2BUxdyEYDh2SckwaZfvp6uHC2jzD
G*rd*n
| >| > > This thread reveals how Americans mistakenly mix communism and
| >| > > socialism together,
Constantinople <constan...@yahoo.com>:
| >| > And your post reveals that you lump people of a nation together.
| >| > We're individuals expressing opinions, and then out of the blue you
| >| > bring up our nation. It's as if Einstein were having an argument
| >| > with someone and then someone said, "it's funny how Jews make that
| >| > sort of mistake." Which changes the entire tone of the discussion
| >| > and pulls it right into the mud.
lefe...@worldonline.es (LeRoy):
| >| Your reaction bewilders me. To point out the accomplishes of the
| >| democratic socialist parties of the western world (called Social
| >| Democracy in Germany, Labor in Britain, Liberals in Canada and simply
| >| Socialism in France and Spain) is throwing mud?
Constantinople <constan...@yahoo.com>:
| No. I said "you lump people of a nation together", "people of a nation"
| meaning "Americans", my statement meaning, "you lump Americans
| together."
|
| Understand?
G*rd*n:
| > You said that Americans got something wrong. Constantinople
| > is probably an American. But since Constantinople belongs to
| > the true liberal faith, his beliefs must be infallible.
| > Therefore, to suggest that Americans may get something wrong
| > is to suggest that Constantinople may have gotten something
| > wrong, and that is tantamount to the most despicable,
| > error-drenched, lying abuse imaginable.
Constantinople <constan...@yahoo.com>:
| Your interpretation is absurd, probably deliberately so.
Probably. Can you explain why you and James write
follow-ups to my articles? Why do you even read them?
Can't you think of anything better to do?
Constantinople
> Constantinople <constan...@yahoo.com>:
>| Your interpretation is absurd, probably deliberately so.
>
> Probably. Can you explain why you and James write
> follow-ups to my articles? Why do you even read them?
> Can't you think of anything better to do?
Ignoring your posts is probably good advice, but I do many foolish things,
being human.
Woodard R. Springstube
news:b1k8m1$115$1...@panix1.panix.com:
As a Texan, I will try to answer, but I am quite certain that
you will twist my answer into something that suits your
purposes of disinformation and propaganda. (Anything that
advances the cause of socialiam is good, even if million have
to die).
For the most part, the institutions of Texas reflect the will
of the majority of those voting. The Texas Constitution is
one of, if not the most amended of all state constitutions.
And, every amendment must be approved by a majority of the
voters. However, even the voters of Texas cannot pass an
amendment that reinstitutes segragation or Jim Crow laws. In
that case, the majority of the voters would be forbidden by
the US Constitution, specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment.
The problem comes when somebody demands absolute majority
rule, with no limits on what the majority can impose.
Undoubtedly, there were times when nearly 100% of the whites
in Mississippi favored Jim Crow, lynching, and oppression of
the Black minority. But, the fact that the majority favored
such things, possibly as late as the 1960's and certainly in
earlier times, does not make those things morally or ethically
right. And, that is one example of why the majority must also
be constrained by some means. In the case of pure majority
rule, if a majority votes for Jim Crow, killing Catholics,
killing landlords, or killing off any other minority, then the
case is closed.
Aphorism: The Twentieth Century saw more people murdered in
the name of "The People" than any other period in history.
And the killing was mostly done by totalitarian collectivists.
Vladimir Kuznetsov
. . .
>Probably. Can you explain why you and James write
>follow-ups to my articles? Why do you even read them?
>Can't you think of anything better to do?
>
G*rd*n, it is very simple, really. If you don't want
people to read you articles, you don't write any articles.
And you will do a great favor to all people in this group who
can read :-)
vlad
gavnook
> g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
>| > So this government does not allow the majority to do
>| > something. Presumably, then, it is not the majority but
>| > something else. What? Who?
>
> gavnook <gavnook@ya_EYEh8SPAM_hoo.com>:
>| What if a majority of Texans decided to kill and eat the minority
>| (those who don't own cowboy hats)? This is simply not allowed in
>| Texas, and a number of institutions exist to prevent it from
>| happening.
>|
>| Another example is smoking bans. A number of states and cities have
>| passed bans on smoking in resturaunts and bars by passing an
>| initiative with a majority vote. These establishments are private
>| property. If a government respected the property rights of the
>| owners, it wouldn't allow such a thing on the ballot in the first
>| place.
>
> You haven't answered my question. The institutions of Texas
> have been brought into being and exist because someone wills
> them to exist and to take the form they do. If this someone
> is not the majority of Texans, who or what is it? Some
> particular minority? Which?
I don't know the history of Texas, but I can assure you that the whole
adult population of Texas did not have equal say in the creation of it's
government.
Michael Moser
> mich...@sapiens.com (Michael Moser) wrote in message news:<d70280fc.03020...@posting.google.com>...
>
> [deleted]
>
> > If something is owned by 'all the workers' or 'the state' - then it
> > isn't owned by anybody
> > read Matt Ridley's the 'Origin of Virtue'.
> > (Small scale cooperatives just don't scale up to the level of a state.
> >
> > Then it turns out that nobody is responsible for what is going on;
> > it's the
> > problem of 'everyone' that is nobody.
> >
> > Then it turns out that problems of distribution turn into something
> > very abstract.
> >
> > Meaning that there is no problem to infringe on the rights of a
> > minority,
> > when it comes to pleasing the majority of people (in principle).
> >
> > Then it turns out that the majority turns into a minority, in the end
> > those who benifit are a very tiny minority indeed.
> >
> > Is that enough for a descriptions of the mechanisms that were actually
> > observed in more then one case?
> The absence of private property rights is not necessarily the same as
> a no ownership free-for-all. Depends on the monitoring institutions.
nothing works by appealing to ideals. If you don't create selfish self
interest people will just not have a motive invest their own personal
effort into things.
Self interest _can_ be created with small scale communities; it does
not work with huge crowds -
here factors of alienations etc. start to be dominant.
Michael Moser
For the last couple of centuries the basic unit of society (i.e. the
thing that matters)was the nation state.
Quite a big entity, isn't it?
Even if you try to create a society of cooperative, then
you still need to balance regional interests against each other.
(that's because industrial production is hardly self contained within
one
small province - you still need the resources of other
provinces/regions).
These concerns are _quite_ important.
With such huge crowds to govern you will inevitably have an elite of
sorts,
i.e. the ones that can grab all the loot.
gavnook
news:L_g%9.2589$YC....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com:
> I am piggy backing here because many posts are missing from this
> thread and others on at least my news server. Also, something
> is weird about gavnook's posts that prevent me replying to the
> newsgroups. When I hit reply, it opens my email program and
> starts an email to gavnook instead of a reply post here.. dunno
> how to sort that yet..
>
> G*rd*n wrote:
>>
>> Publius2k <Pub?*@?*li.us> wrote in
>> | >| > Can there be 'excessive democracy'?
>>
>> gavnook <gavnook@ya_EYEh8SPAM_hoo.com>:
>> | >| Yes, it's commonly referred to as "mob rule." You have this
>> | >| whenever a majority is allowed to legislate away the rights of a
>> | >| minority.
>
> Pardon my french but this is bull shit. The passionate acts of
> a lawless mob do not equate with the calm deliberations and
> decisions reached by consensus. That 'mob rule' metaphor is a
> well worn but ill founded strawman.
The point of using the term 'mob rule' is to point out that one side isn't
neccesarily right just because there are more of them. There's nothing mis-
leading about that.
> What we really have is a minority dictating and legislating away
> the rights of the majority.
And now suddenly I'm an advocate of "what we really have", just because I
don't support absolute democracy. That, my friend, is a strawman.
> Madison designed it that way and
> the vast majority have been so indoctrinated they think the
> Right is right.
>
> The 'mob rule' fallacy is just a smoke screen for a system based
> on tyranny of the opulent few who control by coercion and fraud.
>
> Why do you think it is more fair for a minority to pass laws
> that restrict the majority, than for the majority to pass laws
> that restrict a minority?
Why do you think I think that? There is no moral reason for allowing a
majority to violate the rights of a minority or vice versa and it should
not be tolerated.
> If the minority should rule, why are
> we shammed with voting? He who gets the least votes wins?
> sounds rather absurd.
Sure does.
Publius2k
>
> --
> On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 22:31:07 GMT, Publius2k <Pub?*@?*li.us>
> wrote:
> > Pardon my french but this is bull shit. The passionate acts
> > of a lawless mob do not equate with the calm deliberations
> > and decisions reached by consensus. That 'mob rule' metaphor
> > is a well worn but ill founded strawman.
>
> The basic formula of politics is to express your policy in half
> a dozen words, and repeat those words ad nauseum.
>
> The phrase "Mob rule" captures the fact that "the people" are
> much less intelligent, more violent, and more cruel, than any
> individual person.
None of that changes the basic fact that laws enacted by consent
of the majority are more valid than laws imposed by a minority
on the majority.
Publius2k
***
> > You haven't answered my question. The institutions of
> > Texas have been brought into being and exist because
> > someone wills them to exist and to take the form they do.
> > If this someone is not the majority of Texans, who or what
> > is it? Some particular minority? Which?
> >
>
> As a Texan, I will try to answer, but I am quite certain that
> you will twist my answer into something that suits your
> purposes of disinformation and propaganda. (Anything that
> advances the cause of socialiam is good, even if million have
> to die).
>
> For the most part, the institutions of Texas reflect the will
> of the majority of those voting. The Texas Constitution is
> one of, if not the most amended of all state constitutions.
> And, every amendment must be approved by a majority of the
> voters.
so far so good.
However, even the voters of Texas cannot pass an
> amendment that reinstitutes segragation or Jim Crow laws. In
> that case, the majority of the voters would be forbidden by
> the US Constitution, specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment.
And the trouble starts here. The US constitution was never
consented to by vote the people. No one now living was given
any option in accepting or rejecting the terms of this contract,
therefore it is legally non-binding.
Other than that minor technicality, the people just don't get to
decide on any amendments. They aren't allowed to petition for
any changes or vote on any such proposed amendments. So while
the terms of the US constitution overrule conflicting state
constitutions that are enacted by currently living people, who
has the power to change the US constitution. Why should not the
people now living be able to consent or not to it and change it
if they please? Is it so hallowed that it shall not be changed,
as if written in stone? Or rather is their some non-democratic
process for changing it? What validity is there to such
non-democratic methods that may not reflect the current will of
the majority? shall a minority therefore be empowered to effect
the changes to be imposed on the majority? That is the case and
it is bass ackwards.
> The problem comes when somebody demands absolute majority
> rule, with no limits on what the majority can impose.
Who is entitled to limit the majority? Some elite few, such as
Madison's privileged "opulent minority"?
G*rd*n
| > > You haven't answered my question. The institutions of
| > > Texas have been brought into being and exist because
| > > someone wills them to exist and to take the form they do.
| > > If this someone is not the majority of Texans, who or what
| > > is it? Some particular minority? Which?
"Woodard R. Springstube" wrote:
| > As a Texan, I will try to answer, but I am quite certain that
| > you will twist my answer into something that suits your
| > purposes of disinformation and propaganda. (Anything that
| > advances the cause of socialiam is good, even if million have
| > to die).
Perhaps you could hold off your appetite for personal abuse
until their was some actual reason for it.
"Woodard R. Springstube" wrote:
| > For the most part, the institutions of Texas reflect the will
| > of the majority of those voting. The Texas Constitution is
| > one of, if not the most amended of all state constitutions.
| > And, every amendment must be approved by a majority of the
| > voters.
| >
| > However, even the voters of Texas cannot pass an
| > amendment that reinstitutes segragation or Jim Crow laws. In
| > that case, the majority of the voters would be forbidden by
| > the US Constitution, specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment.
Publius2k <Pub?*@?*li.us>:
| And the trouble starts here. The US constitution was never
| consented to by vote the people. No one now living was given
| any option in accepting or rejecting the terms of this contract,
| therefore it is legally non-binding.
|
| Other than that minor technicality, the people just don't get to
| decide on any amendments. They aren't allowed to petition for
| any changes or vote on any such proposed amendments. So while
| the terms of the US constitution overrule conflicting state
| constitutions that are enacted by currently living people, who
| has the power to change the US constitution. Why should not the
| people now living be able to consent or not to it and change it
| if they please? Is it so hallowed that it shall not be changed,
| as if written in stone? Or rather is their some non-democratic
| process for changing it? What validity is there to such
| non-democratic methods that may not reflect the current will of
| the majority? shall a minority therefore be empowered to effect
| the changes to be imposed on the majority? That is the case and
| it is bass ackwards.
"Woodard R. Springstube" wrote:
| > The problem comes when somebody demands absolute majority
| > rule, with no limits on what the majority can impose.
Publius2k <Pub?*@?*li.us>:
| Who is entitled to limit the majority? Some elite few, such as
| Madison's privileged "opulent minority"?
"Woodard R. Springstube" wrote:
| > Undoubtedly, there were times when nearly 100% of the whites
| > in Mississippi favored Jim Crow, lynching, and oppression of
| > the Black minority. But, the fact that the majority favored
| > such things, possibly as late as the 1960's and certainly in
| > earlier times, does not make those things morally or ethically
| > right. And, that is one example of why the majority must also
| > be constrained by some means. In the case of pure majority
| > rule, if a majority votes for Jim Crow, killing Catholics,
| > killing landlords, or killing off any other minority, then the
| > case is closed.
| >
| > Aphorism: The Twentieth Century saw more people murdered in
| > the name of "The People" than any other period in history.
| > And the killing was mostly done by totalitarian collectivists.
You seem to be saying that "the people" are a perpetual lynch
mob who must be constantly restrained by some sort of aristocracy.
This is the form everyone seems to be talking around, pro or
con.
Regardless, no one is answering the simple question I asked,
which was not about whether the people had to be disciplined,
but -- assuming that idea -- who was actually in charge, how
they got their role, and by what means they maintain the order
they impose. And Texas popped up as an example. All this
moralizing is as yet beside the point. Beside _my_ point,
anyway -- others may enjoy it.
G*rd*n
| > > Pardon my french but this is bull shit. The passionate acts
| > > of a lawless mob do not equate with the calm deliberations
| > > and decisions reached by consensus. That 'mob rule' metaphor
| > > is a well worn but ill founded strawman.
"James A. Donald" wrote:
| > The basic formula of politics is to express your policy in half
| > a dozen words, and repeat those words ad nauseum.
| >
| > The phrase "Mob rule" captures the fact that "the people" are
| > much less intelligent, more violent, and more cruel, than any
| > individual person.
I would think so, but groups do seem to do some things
better than individuals at times, don't they?
Publius2k <Pub?*@?*li.us>:
| None of that changes the basic fact that laws enacted by consent
| of the majority are more valid than laws imposed by a minority
| on the majority.
They could all be equally (in)valid.
Constantinople
That's not true. I impose the law that I may not be harmed, and I
impose it on everyone. I, a minority, impose that law on the majority,
and I do it not by reason but by force.
Laws imposed by the majority by means of majority vote involve some
sort of plunder or harm of a minority. If they did not involve that,
then the power of the state would not be necessary to impose those
laws; they would be imposed despite the state and therefore despite
majority vote. Laws imposed by the minority on the majority by means
of raw force and against the principle of majority vote are mostly
limited to defense of their rights. A simple example of this is the
law against entering into a home without permission of the occupant.
That law is imposed by each homeowner, a minority of one, using deadly
force rather than reason or eloquence or majority vote.
ShrikeBack
Why would that be? If the majority enacts laws to ban Ulysses,
ban various weeds, force dissidents to drink Hemlock, march
Jews to reservations, or ban elections forevermore, these laws
are not any more valid than if they had been enacted by a tyrant.
James A. Donald
"James A. Donald":
> > The phrase "Mob rule" captures the fact that "the people"
> > are much less intelligent, more violent, and more cruel,
> > than any individual person.
Publius2k
> None of that changes the basic fact that laws enacted by
> consent of the majority are more valid than laws imposed by a
> minority on the majority.
Big deal.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
EOBcxQMAme3TfhIAGG4P5Q1DhYMW3Toc73MRllcR
4Oov5fFwx0mJ9aoH7+65WwVvIlB8ytCUehHwikdXs
Jetgraphics
wrote in message news:cys%9.724$rC2...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
: "Woodard R. Springstube" wrote:
: ***
: > amendment that reinstitutes segragation or Jim Crow laws. In
: > that case, the majority of the voters would be forbidden by
: > the US Constitution, specifically, the Fourteenth Amendment.
:
: And the trouble starts here. The US constitution was never
: consented to by vote the people. No one now living was given
: any option in accepting or rejecting the terms of this contract,
: therefore it is legally non-binding.
[Common sense attack - take a pill and don't read the following explanation]
FWIW - early court cites admit that the constitution is a compact between
the States united and the United States, in Congress assembled, and that the
private people are not party to that compact. Most Americans don't
understand that the "United States of America" is not the same as the
"United States, in Congress Assembled".
: Other than that minor technicality, the people just don't get to
: decide on any amendments. They aren't allowed to petition for
: any changes or vote on any such proposed amendments. So while
: the terms of the US constitution overrule conflicting state
: constitutions that are enacted by currently living people, who
: has the power to change the US constitution. Why should not the
: people now living be able to consent or not to it and change it
: if they please? Is it so hallowed that it shall not be changed,
: as if written in stone? Or rather is their some non-democratic
: process for changing it? What validity is there to such
: non-democratic methods that may not reflect the current will of
: the majority? shall a minority therefore be empowered to effect
: the changes to be imposed on the majority? That is the case and
: it is bass ackwards.
[Common sense attack - take a pill and don't read the following explanation]
The constitution has NOTHING to do with sovereign people, who are promised a
republican form of government. However, if one is in the "democracy",
typically by voluntary application for an account and number in Social
Security, one has CONSENTED to all the garbage that DC can spew.
Sources for further proof:
1) Art IV of Articles of Confederation - note the excluded classes
2) Definition of "resident" is not synonymous with "inhabitant", and often
defined in statute to mean a transient or vagabond (See excluded classes)
3) Participation in SocSec makes one a pauper (See excluded classes)
4) Private property is absolutely owned by an individual, anything else is
"real estate". Real estate is not protected by the constitution, as is
private property. By definition, paupers own NOTHING absolutely.
: > The problem comes when somebody demands absolute majority
: > rule, with no limits on what the majority can impose.
:
: Who is entitled to limit the majority? Some elite few, such as
: Madison's privileged "opulent minority"?
[Common sense attack - take a pill and don't read the following explanation]
The legal side stepping of constitutional limitations on government power is
accomplished by participation in Social Security. It was a fraud from day
one.
If you have never applied for "the number" or successfully extracted
yourself from their clutches, you'll be surprised to find that the law is on
YOUR SIDE.
: > Undoubtedly, there were times when nearly 100% of the whites
: > in Mississippi favored Jim Crow, lynching, and oppression of
: > the Black minority. But, the fact that the majority favored
: > such things, possibly as late as the 1960's and certainly in
: > earlier times, does not make those things morally or ethically
: > right. And, that is one example of why the majority must also
: > be constrained by some means. In the case of pure majority
: > rule, if a majority votes for Jim Crow, killing Catholics,
: > killing landlords, or killing off any other minority, then the
: > case is closed.
[Common sense attack - take a pill and don't read the following explanation]
The weakness of the government to protect impaired classes was more their
inability to effectively control free people who ceased to obey or enforce
the law. Predators became bold, when people presumed it was the
"government's job to protect everyone". From the beginning, law enforcement
was the prerogative of the people. What else is a posse, if not an organized
instrument of "the people" to enforce the law that protects property rights.
Those who had no right to property had no protection of law. But instead of
elevating the dispossessed, the scoundrels impaired everyone to the
"equality" of pauperization. Now, no one is presumed to be private property,
holding private property, that is protected from being taken by the
government for public use without just compensation.
: > Aphorism: The Twentieth Century saw more people murdered in
: > the name of "The People" than any other period in history.
: > And the killing was mostly done by totalitarian collectivists.
[Common sense attack - take a pill and don't read the following explanation]
Socialism and Communism are bafflegab terms for piracy. These new Predators
are devoted to stealing the private property of others, and killing those
who won't cooperate. No Socialist / Communist is an altruist. If they were,
they'd expend their charitable energies in any one of the thousands of
charitable and religious enterprises that serve people of this planet.
Instead, these pirates hoist the Jolly Roger, and excuse their theft by
sharing the spoils with their crewmates.
'nuff said.
Constantinople
wrote:
> --
>"James A. Donald":
>> > The phrase "Mob rule" captures the fact that "the people"
>> > are much less intelligent, more violent, and more cruel,
>> > than any individual person.
>
>Publius2k
>> None of that changes the basic fact that laws enacted by
>> consent of the majority are more valid than laws imposed by a
>> minority on the majority.
>
>Big deal.
One place I've seen this line of reasoning go in the past is to the
conclusion that when the legislature decides that it's time to
socialize more of the economy, and the minority being robbed resists,
then that minority is guilty of imposing an outcome on the majority,
and is therefore evil and therefore there is all the more reason to
confiscate their property.
G*rd*n
| > | > And what is it about the ownership or control of the means
| > | > of production by the workers or the people that brings this
| > | > about, do you think? And why is it that the capitalist
| > | > class is immune from the pathology, whatever it is?
mich...@sapiens.com (Michael Moser):
| > | If something is owned by 'all the workers' or 'the state' - then it
| > | isn't owned by anybody
| > | read Matt Ridley's the 'Origin of Virtue'.
| > | (Small scale cooperatives just don't scale up to the level of a state.
| > |
| > | Then it turns out that nobody is responsible for what is going on;
| > | it's the
| > | problem of 'everyone' that is nobody.
| > |
| > | Then it turns out that problems of distribution turn into something
| > | very abstract.
| > |
| > | Meaning that there is no problem to infringe on the rights of a
| > | minority,
| > | when it comes to pleasing the majority of people (in principle).
| > |
| > | Then it turns out that the majority turns into a minority, in the end
| > | those who benifit are a very tiny minority indeed.
| > |
| > | Is that enough for a descriptions of the mechanisms that were actually
| > | observed in more then one case?
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
| > Would you say, then, that large enterprises and institutions
| > must be governed by elites? Must they base themselves in a
| > coercive social order (such as a state)? This seems to be
| > the alternative to that assemblage of small cooperatives.
| > And in any case, is it necessary for humans to be organized
| > into large institutions?
mich...@sapiens.com (Michael Moser):
| For the last couple of centuries the basic unit of society (i.e. the
| thing that matters)was the nation state.
| Quite a big entity, isn't it?
|
| Even if you try to create a society of cooperative, then
| you still need to balance regional interests against each other.
|
| (that's because industrial production is hardly self contained within
| one
| small province - you still need the resources of other
| provinces/regions).
|
| These concerns are _quite_ important.
|
| With such huge crowds to govern you will inevitably have an elite of
| sorts,
| i.e. the ones that can grab all the loot.
I agree that what you write reflects contemporary
conditions, but I don't see why these conditions must be
considered to be inevitable and eternal.
James A. Donald
On 2 Feb 2003 21:35:42 -0500, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> Can you explain why you and James write follow-ups to my
> articles? Why do you even read them? Can't you think of
> anything better to do?
I love your posts for the same reason I love Chomsky's
writings. I want to demonstrate that pious words often thinly
conceal monstrous intent. Ron Allen's shear incoherence makes
that difficult -- the very absurdity and inconsistency of his
claimed beliefs makes it difficult to show him to be a monster,
difficult to distinguish between madness and hypocrisy. Brian
Turner confidently believes that in the liberating effect of
totalitarian terror, and its deep and widespread popularity
among the masses, and its great effect in advancing humane and
just economic development, but his genuine and deep sincerity
makes it kind of boring. It does not give me the same kind as
satisfaction as when I score on someone more duplicitous,
doubletalking, and evasive.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
gdwUPhMoozrJS+yIK1qqAcdI0Uw+De61JeIiLyqh
4HsBzEAQDZHJwCxPvkMuM7drVTC0O8asEFwmPdrtS
James A. Donald
On 2 Feb 2003 18:05:18 -0500, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> Would you say, then, that large enterprises and institutions
> must be governed by elites? Must they base themselves in a
> coercive social order (such as a state)?
Large enterprises for the most part do not base themselves in a
coercive social order -- they are for the most part victims,
not perpetrators.
Large enterprises are not "governed" by elites, because the
manager is not only answerable to the board, but board and
manager are answerable to the market.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
DtowVj5pOVhXDM/HOYPI+hT5uevSIn/ZaW4tkWLm
4EpMCvVBr1s7ebj0Yx3AjaaIh3XtOYlM8CNWVMH26
Woodard R. Springstube
news:b1lobb$ons$1...@panix3.panix.com:
I knew it! I knew that you were going to TWIST my words and
try to obscure their meaning! You complained about the
personal abuse and said that I should wait until you had a
reason. Well you gave me a reason.
You are setting up a false dichotomy: The people are always
good and would never oppress minorities versus the people are
in a perpetual lynch mob. Actually, what I am saying is that
sometimes majorities do oppress minorities and that is wrong.
To prevent that sort of behavior, there must exist checks and
balances on power, even the power of the majority. The
constitution contains several checks and balances. The
ultimate check is the armed citizenry. It is damnably more
expensive and hazardous to oppress armed people, who could
engage in all sorts of guerilla warfare than it is to oppress
unarmed peasants who have nothing but a vote. What is needed
is a rather minimalist government with strict limits on its
powers, enforced at the ballot box preferably.
>
> Regardless, no one is answering the simple question I
> asked, which was not about whether the people had to be
> disciplined, but -- assuming that idea -- who was actually
> in charge, how they got their role, and by what means they
> maintain the order they impose. And Texas popped up as an
> example. All this moralizing is as yet beside the point.
> Beside _my_ point, anyway -- others may enjoy it.
>
Why do you assume that some secret cabal is in charge? Where
is your proof? How do you know that those in charge are not
the ones who are elected? What happens in Texas when
legislators don't respect the wishes of their constituents is
that they are in danger of losing the next election. Do you
have a problem with that? The limits written into a
constitution are there to tell the majority that there are
things that even the majority must not do--things like Jim
Crow. You are British, I believe. Therefore, you did not
live through the Civil Rights era in the US, neither have you
seen the continuing problems with majority mistreatment of
minorities. I have seen it all. The abuses of the White
majority in a number of states--not all in the South--
convinced me that even majorities need limits on what they are
allowed to do.
Michael Moser
nothing is eternal.
There is always room for hope.
Well, there was an old Jewish joke, where the hero was asked to chose
a place to live.
Well, America is no good, Russia/Poland is no good, Germany is no good
either
- wait, hold on, give me another planet.
according to this joke you must be Jewish (like, well, all the
anarchists of the olden days)
cheers!
Matt
vl...@vlad.best.vwh.net (Vladimir Kuznetsov) wrote:
> >i have been arguing that socialist styles of economic behaviour can occur
> >between free individuals. you choose to imagine that this can only occur
> >voluntarily within a family in spite of the fact that it presently occurs
> >voluntarily between friends and community and charitable groups.
> >
>
> You are confusing apple and oranges. Relation structure
> essential for the family cannot be extended for the whole
> society. Questions like: "How much to spend?" and "How much to
> produce?" can be easily and directly resolved inside the family.
That's often untrue. If husband and wife, or parents and children, have
differing ideas on what to produce or spend (as often happens), it can
be hard to reach a mutually agreeable decision. Sometimes these issues
can break up a relationship. Socialism is very hard to practice even at
the level of two people--for a whole society, impossible.
--
Matt
brian turner
James, thank you very much for noting my sincerity :) By
"totalitarian terror" you mean collective farming and the local
politics associated with collective farming in rural China, I presume.
Question: Why is it that I can't praise collective farming in China,
while rejecting the overall dictatorship and repression, without being
said to adore totalitarianism, while you can praise Pinochet's
economic policies with no such implications drawn? I presume you would
object to being labeled as someone who adores fascist repression,
thinks fascist repression has wonderful liberating qualities, etc.
ActualGeek
Publius2k <Pub?*@?*li.us> wrote:
> "James A. Donald" wrote:
> >
> > --
> > Since baby_ifritah has once again attempted to argue that one
> > can have socialism without terror, a position I thought that
> > socialists had for the most part quietly conceded, I repost my
> > old article:
> >
> > Why socialism needs killing fields:
> >
> > Throughout the twentieth century the introduction of socialism
> > has always involved killing fields, facilities for the mass
> > production of murder by specialized labor.
>
> 'Socialism' has existed for thousands of years. Just because
> some tyrants sought to be bullies under the flag of socialism
> doesn't disparage the concept.
You said:
"Murder has existed for thousands of years. Just because some tyrants
sought to be bullies and used murder to reach that goal, does not
disparage the concept."
No, but the definition of soci- er, murder, does.
ActualGeek
"baby_ifritah" <lkgie...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
> news:4gik3vs9jlepig66h...@4ax.com...
> > --
> > "baby_ifritah"
> > > er...do you want to let me know what specific thing i have
> > > said that you consider this an appropriate response to? oh,
> > > sorry - specific thingS
> >
> > You have been arguing one can have socialism without terror.
> > Here I explained at length why you cannot.
>
> that's a really great response. i am utterly undone.
>
> except that you are incorrect.
>
> i have been arguing that socialist styles of economic behaviour can occur
> between free individuals. you choose to imagine that this can only occur
> voluntarily within a family in spite of the fact that it presently occurs
> voluntarily between friends and community and charitable groups.
>
> incidentally, how do you actually define a family? the nuclear family?
> blood ties only, or do legal family bonds apply? extended families? how
> extended? matrilineal or patrilineal? maybe spiritual families? racial
> families? hmm. i feel some clarification is required here...
>
> xx la
>
>
You're not fooling anyone baby. This "free socialism" is just as silly
as saying "free fascism". Nobody is going to buy it, and James will
continue to point out how you want to fire up the ovens.
ActualGeek
"Gabrielle Rapagnetta" <{[NOSPAM]}cut...@gmx.net> wrote:
> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
>
> > Hunter gatherers were generally anarchic, and had little in the
> > way of property, and shared what they had. You can call that
> > communism, or you can call that not having much. Or you could
> > call it anarcho capitalism. When people do not have much
> > property, their society does not tell us much about what
> > institutions of property are feasible.
>
> Well, if you actually ask them they'll tell you alot.
>
> Chief Sealth:
> "The president in Washington sends words that he wishes to buy our land. But
> how can you buy or sell the sky? The land? The idea is strange to us. If we
> do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can
> you buy them?. . . We are part of the earth and it is part of us. . . . This
> we know: the earth does not be- long to man, man belongs to the earth."
>
> I would like to see you try to convince Sealth that he was not a free man
> because he didn't own private property. I think he would pity you.
Interesting that you think the namesake of my city didn't have rights to
his own body. That you consider him a slave? Why do you consider him a
slave? He did not consider himself a slave-- and because of this, he
DID own private property.
G*rd*n
mich...@sapiens.com (Michael Moser):
| nothing is eternal.
| There is always room for hope.
|
| Well, there was an old Jewish joke, where the hero was asked to chose
| a place to live.
| Well, America is no good, Russia/Poland is no good, Germany is no good
| either
| - wait, hold on, give me another planet.
|
| according to this joke you must be Jewish (like, well, all the
| anarchists of the olden days)
|
| cheers!
I'm just waiting for Emma to return with the Mother Ship.
James A. Donald
On 4 Feb 2003 12:43:36 -0800, bk...@hotmail.com (brian turner)
wrote:
> Why is it that I can't praise collective farming in China,
> while rejecting the overall dictatorship and repression,
> without being said to adore totalitarianism,
You see the spontaneous outrage of the masses, where most would
see the master's hand and voice. You see liberation, where
most would see terror.
> while you can praise Pinochet's economic policies with no
> such implications drawn?
When you interpret terror against the peasants, as class
struggle by the peasants, this not analogous to praising
Pinochet's economic policies, it is analogous to praising his
trials.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
mlX68PWg8lkxv+LXHdo41JkHze64gZzN1PnkPkit
4KgbArRyeNkRM3CxnIn6/qQXfUNlAikfudiiJBHJp
Publius2k
Because they would be self imposed. They might not be good
but... what is the alternative? What we have now where the
minority dictates to the majority?
Where is the protection of the minority founded? Who says the
minority is to be protected? Who made that rule? And make no
bones about it, that rule was created by the rich to protect
themselves as the 'opulent minority'. They were not
paternalistically intending to protect racial minorities or
religious minorities, just the economically rich minority. Who
gave them the right to declare their hoard of wealth off limits?
Madison's Constitution repealed Jefferson's Declaration of
Independence. We have government of the rich, for the rich, by
the rich, by usurpation not consent.
Publius2k
>
> --
> On 2 Feb 2003 18:05:18 -0500, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> > Would you say, then, that large enterprises and institutions
> > must be governed by elites? Must they base themselves in a
> > coercive social order (such as a state)?
>
> Large enterprises for the most part do not base themselves in a
> coercive social order -- they are for the most part victims,
> not perpetrators.
>
> Large enterprises are not "governed" by elites, because the
> manager is not only answerable to the board, but board and
> manager are answerable to the market.
>
> --digsig
> James A. Donald
The market regulates? right. Just like in california with
privatization of the electric production facilities? Supply and
demand are not pristine and innocent. Suppliers have often
manipulated supply levels as well as demand. DeBeers is the
classic case.
Invisible Hand
w/m: Ethan Miller
ogg format for social types [ogg is free, open source audio
codec]:
mp3 for propertarians [mp3 is proprietary, requires license and
royalties]:
http://media.maineindymedia.org/content/FTAA-Brunswick/audio/mp3/Ethan_Miller_-_Invisible_Hand_(FTAA_Hearing_Brunswick_03-29-02).mp3
Invisible Hand
w/m: Ethan Miller
Well old Adam Smith, he gave us this myth
'Bout how the market will self-regulate
But elite business schemes would still just be dreams
Without the arms of the State
If you want to know that they mean when they say
"We're gonna open up your markets for our free trade"
Well just ask the ghosts of all those who've been killed
For refusing to bow down before the dollar bill
The invisible hand of the market is only one of two
Wielded by the corporate elite and dressed in red, white, and
blue
In one fist an M-16 rifle, in the other fist a thousand dollar
bill
If the right fist doesn't get you, then the other one surely
will
Cargill, Monsanto, Merck, or Union Carbide, they go by so many
names
But for the land and the people destroyed by their greed, the
story is always the same
McDonald's requires McDonnell Douglass, United Fruit needed US
Marines
The freedom of their markets supported by fascist regimes
(Chorus)
The rhetoric is so thick as they tell us we're free
And we've got to see right though their lies
It's not freedom to choose our won destinies,
It's freedom to choose our demise
You can die for their money, you can die by their guns
They'll let you choose your own fate
But if you get in the way of their profits
You can be sure you'll be burnt at the stake
(Chorus)
Don't need no great hand comin' down from the sky
Or soldiers in olive drab marchin' on my
To discipline, regulate, liberalize, legislate-we decline
Without you we were just doin' fine
(Chorus)
Joseph K.
Kuznetsov) wrote:
>In article <b1kkhu$93e$1...@panix1.panix.com>, G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote:
> . . .
>>Probably. Can you explain why you and James write
>>follow-ups to my articles? Why do you even read them?
>>Can't you think of anything better to do?
>>
>
> G*rd*n, it is very simple, really. If you don't want
>people to read you articles, you don't write any articles.
Your logic is flawed. G*rd*n didn't say he doesn't want people to read
his articles. He reasonably said that people who think he writes
absurd stuff should not read and reply to his posts. Curiously enough,
those people continue reading and replying to his posts, which is
irrational, on the face of it, as admitted by one of them.
>And you will do a great favor to all people in this group who
>can read :-)
All people who can read? Speak for yourself moron.
Joseph K.
Joseph K.
>ShrikeBack wrote:
>>
>> Publius2k <Pub?*@?*li.us> wrote in message news:<Bds%9.31$%32.55...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com>...
>> > "James A. Donald" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > On Sun, 02 Feb 2003 22:31:07 GMT, Publius2k <Pub?*@?*li.us>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > Pardon my french but this is bull shit. The passionate acts
>> > > > of a lawless mob do not equate with the calm deliberations
>> > > > and decisions reached by consensus. That 'mob rule' metaphor
>> > > > is a well worn but ill founded strawman.
>> > >
>> > > The basic formula of politics is to express your policy in half
>> > > a dozen words, and repeat those words ad nauseum.
>> > >
>> > > The phrase "Mob rule" captures the fact that "the people" are
>> > > much less intelligent, more violent, and more cruel, than any
>> > > individual person.
>> >
>> >
>> > None of that changes the basic fact that laws enacted by consent
>> > of the majority are more valid than laws imposed by a minority
>> > on the majority.
Only if 'validity' is defined in such a way to make your assertion
above tautological.
>> Why would that be? If the majority enacts laws to ban Ulysses,
>> ban various weeds, force dissidents to drink Hemlock, march
>> Jews to reservations, or ban elections forevermore, these laws
>> are not any more valid than if they had been enacted by a tyrant.
>
>
>Because they would be self imposed.
Wrong. An individual in the minority is not self-imposing laws enacted
by the majority. Those laws are imposed on him by others who have the
brute force needed to impose laws.
>They might not be good
>but... what is the alternative? What we have now where the
>minority dictates to the majority?
What you have now is what you want: rule by majority.
The fact that the majority is manipulated by a wealthy and powerful
minority does not change the fact that the majority is consenting
(assuming non-voters distribute their preferences the same way as
voters).
Joseph K.
Constantinople
news:4L40a.787$IO5.84...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com:
> "James A. Donald" wrote:
>>
>> --
>> On 2 Feb 2003 18:05:18 -0500, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>> > Would you say, then, that large enterprises and institutions
>> > must be governed by elites? Must they base themselves in a
>> > coercive social order (such as a state)?
>>
>> Large enterprises for the most part do not base themselves in a
>> coercive social order -- they are for the most part victims,
>> not perpetrators.
>>
>> Large enterprises are not "governed" by elites, because the
>> manager is not only answerable to the board, but board and
>> manager are answerable to the market.
>>
>> --digsig
>> James A. Donald
>
> The market regulates? right. Just like in california with
> privatization of the electric production facilities? Supply and
> demand are not pristine and innocent. Suppliers have often
> manipulated supply levels as well as demand. DeBeers is the
> classic case.
Obviously if a single supplier dominates a market to the point of having
monopoly power to set prices, like DeBeers or an electric-power
monopoly, then the invisible hand will not have much role. But most
markets are not dominated by a monopoly. And when they are dominated by
a monopoly, the heavy hand of the state is generally found at the scene
of the crime holding the bloody knife. But like a cheap mystery writer,
the typical leftist/statist has already written off the guy at the scene
of the crime with means, motive, and blood all over him as a possible
suspect.
Constantinople
news:58324vcqqtbt05i1f...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 03 Feb 2003 05:29:30 GMT, vl...@vlad.best.vwh.net (Vladimir
> Kuznetsov) wrote:
>
>>In article <b1kkhu$93e$1...@panix1.panix.com>, G*rd*n <g...@panix.com>
wrote:
>> . . .
>>>Probably. Can you explain why you and James write
>>>follow-ups to my articles? Why do you even read them?
>>>Can't you think of anything better to do?
>>>
>>
>> G*rd*n, it is very simple, really. If you don't want
>>people to read you articles, you don't write any articles.
>
> Your logic is flawed. G*rd*n didn't say he doesn't want people to read
> his articles. He reasonably said that people who think he writes
> absurd stuff should not read and reply to his posts. Curiously enough,
> those people continue reading and replying to his posts, which is
> irrational, on the face of it, as admitted by one of them.
Gordon's silly suggestion was nothing more than a way of avoiding having
to argue with me. Imagine if on one occasion when you pointed out an
error in something a person wrote, he said, "if you think I'm wrong, why
do you bother reading me". Maybe a valid question, but at the same time
it also avoids dealing with the criticism by means of rational
discussion (e.g. either by conceding the point or by defending his own
position). That's all Gordon was doing in this case.
In that particular case, Gordon's point which I criticized had been so
strange that I didn't think he meant it seriously, and I said as much.
Gabrielle Rapagnetta
"ActualGeek":
> "Gabrielle Rapagnetta":
> > I would like to see you try to convince Sealth that he was not a free
man
> > because he didn't own private property. I think he would pity you.
>
> Interesting that you think the namesake of my city didn't have rights to
> his own body. That you consider him a slave? Why do you consider him a
> slave? He did not consider himself a slave-- and because of this, he
> DID own private property.
My city as well. I've given up on this line of argument because it turns
out that most of the words we attribute to Sealth weren't spoken by him.
What concerns me is why I didn't know that. I don't know if you grew up in
Seattle as well, but kids there are taught about Sealth early on. I can't
remember ever hearing that those speeches kids would recite in school were
not merely paraphrased, but largely fabricated. I don't know if you
attended public schools in Seattle, but if so, did you have similiar
experiences?
I guess this issue bothers me because I was supposed to have been schooled
in a region of the U.S. that has made an honest effort to include Native
American history in its curriculum, or so we're told. Thinking back I now
realize a large part of that was fluff. Seattle takes a lot of pride in
Chief Sealth, so why don't schools get the story right?