The academic Left claims that 'fascism' is "Right".
b1s
http://www.nurwibsco.com/spectrum.htm
The academic Left claims that 'fascism' is a Right phenomenon, and
'anarchism' is a Left phenomenon. Let's examine this, shall we? Now to the
revelationary bit, the bit that will really upset the pointy-headed
Left-wing academics.
My sub-standard dictionary defines 'Anarchism' as: "A doctrine
advocating the abolition of government or governmental restraint
(regulation) as the indispensible condition for full social and political
freedom." 'Fascism' is defined as: "A totalitarian government led by a
dictator and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often (xenophobia)."
'Totalitarianism' means 'absolute control by a state or a governing branch
of a highly centralized institution'. Is there other than one conclusion
that can be reached regarding the political orientation of fascists and
totalitarians?
Now, tell me which of the above definitions fit what modern groups
about whom we are frequently hearing in society today: A) 'right-wing
anti-government protesters', and B) 'big government tax-and-spend liberals'?
I think the answer is obvious to you and me. Why is it so difficult
for the academics to get right? Is it that they don't have the stomach to
openly admit their embracing of the totalitarian ideal?
When one thinks of the far left, of what does one first think?
Probably socialism, and then communism, which is a totalitarian state. When
and how does a totalitarian state descend into anarchy (ascend actually,
nowhere to go but up)?
I believe that the following quote from Leonard Peikoff in 'T.O.P.'
should explain how the Academic Left arrives at the belief that you get
anarchy by going to the left. He says that the Communists "...rejected the
idea of liberty. Until we reach the classless society, they held, there can
be no such thing as a society without rulers; until the state withers away,
the absolute state is an absolute." This is quite like a doctor saying he
loves to heal people, and then shooting someone to make sure that there was
someone on whom to exercise this charity.
rose...@idt.net
> The academic Left claims that 'fascism' is a Right phenomenon, and
>'anarchism' is a Left phenomenon.
Don't stand to close to your strawman
He's liable to burn
You haven't shown a scintilla of facts or evidence that the premise is
correct
WHO makes that claim?
Where can I find the article, fact, data, or authority that claims that?
b1s
If you disagree, why don't you put forth your differing version on what the
academic left says about fascism.
With no opposing statement, there is little reason to add a lot of
argumentative detail. I see nothing here to be argumentative about.
Regards,
Chip
<rose...@idt.net> wrote in message news:39217b40....@169.132.11.12...
steve
On 15-May-2000, "b1s" <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> The academic Left claims that 'fascism' is a Right phenomenon, and
> 'anarchism' is a Left phenomenon. Let's examine this, shall we? Now to the
> revelationary bit, the bit that will really upset the pointy-headed
> Left-wing academics.
I find it facinating and infuriating that people can call themselves both
anarchists and leftists. Anarchism is the absence of government, and in
that absense people could act as capitalists (free actors in a free economy)
or voluntary socialists (such as collective farms and communes), but no one
could be coerced into involuntary socialism. How is it that so many here
make claims like "only socialism is true anarchism" and stuff like that?
True anarchism restrains no one to any coercive relationship, and a free
market is not composed of coercive relationships. Anarchism can accomodate
many different voluntary behaviors.
> My sub-standard dictionary defines 'Anarchism' as: "A doctrine
> advocating the abolition of government or governmental restraint
> (regulation) as the indispensible condition for full social and political
> freedom." 'Fascism' is defined as: "A totalitarian government led by a
> dictator and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often
> (xenophobia)."
> 'Totalitarianism' means 'absolute control by a state or a governing branch
> of a highly centralized institution'. Is there other than one conclusion
> that can be reached regarding the political orientation of fascists and
> totalitarians?
> Now, tell me which of the above definitions fit what modern groups
> about whom we are frequently hearing in society today: A) 'right-wing
> anti-government protesters', and B) 'big government tax-and-spend
> liberals'?
Yes. Ask a group of people to categorize Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party
(AKA "Natl Socialist German Workers Party"). Many will categorize him as
far right, yet the NAZI platform reads like a modern leftist wish list.
Govt housing, guaranteed jobs,.etc. etc.
Thanks, b1s, for a good post and a good point.
steve
--
"It ain't me, man, it's the system." Charles Manson
Jenn
st...@steve.com wrote:
>
> On 15-May-2000, "b1s" <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > The academic Left claims that 'fascism' is a Right phenomenon, and
> > 'anarchism' is a Left phenomenon. Let's examine this, shall we? Now
to the
> > revelationary bit, the bit that will really upset the pointy-headed
> > Left-wing academics.
>
> I find it facinating and infuriating that people can call themselves
both
> anarchists and leftists. Anarchism is the absence of government, and
in
> that absense people could act as capitalists (free actors in a free
economy)
> or voluntary socialists (such as collective farms and communes), but
no one
> could be coerced into involuntary socialism. How is it that so many
here
> make claims like "only socialism is true anarchism" and stuff like
that?
> True anarchism restrains no one to any coercive relationship, and a
free
> market is not composed of coercive relationships.
How is the free market not coersive, when owners can and do band
together to set prices, meanwhile Unions can't set wages without being
fired.
He cut welfare, government housing, and the Jobs weren't free! This is
just not true!
>
> Thanks, b1s, for a good post and a good point.
>
> steve
>
> --
> "It ain't me, man, it's the system." Charles Manson
>
--
Jenn
The most potent weapon of the
oppressor is the mind of the
oppressed.
Steven Biko
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
rose...@idt.net
>roselle:
>
>If you disagree, why don't you put forth your differing version on what the
>academic left says about fascism.
>With no opposing statement, there is little reason to add a lot of
>argumentative detail. I see nothing here to be argumentative about.
I don't think you "get it"
When proposing an argument, YOU, as the claimant, have to furnish the proof
that your assertion is correct by supplying facts, evidence or data to back
it up
What in hell did you think, that all you had to do is make some specious
predjudical statement, then expect the respondent to "prove" that your
unsubstantiated claim is false
I don't know where you went to school, but even 8th graders learn that you
don't simply allege or "say" something and then demand the opposing view to
supply something to rebutt it with
State your claim, provide facts, evidence and data to support it, THEN the
oppositon has some basis in which to argue the merits of your evidence.
Even OPINION must have facts and data to make it arguable
rose...@idt.net
>Yes. Ask a group of people to categorize Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party
>(AKA "Natl Socialist German Workers Party"). Many will categorize him as
>far right, yet the NAZI platform reads like a modern leftist wish list.
>Govt housing, guaranteed jobs,.etc. etc.
Ideology is pure RIGHT WING, from the ultranationalism to the xenophobia
and suspicion of world order.
============================================================================================
Totalitarian regimes mobilize and make use of mass political participation, and often
are led by charismatic cult figures. Examples of such cult figures in modern history are
Mao Tse-tung (China) and Josef Stalin (Soviet Union), who led left-wing regimes, and
Adolf Hitler (Germany) and Benito Mussolini (Italy), who led right-wing regimes.
Right-wing totalitarian regimes (particularly the Nazis) have arisen in relatively
advanced societies, relying on the support of traditional economic elites to attain
power. In contrast, left-wing totalitarian regimes have arisen in relatively
undeveloped countries through the unleashing of revolutionary violence and terror.
Such violence and terror are also the primary tools of right-wing totalitarian
regimes to maintain compliance with authority.
antiliberal
Since rosie has been using this same old tired answer as replies to 99%
of all posts he replies to, we can DEDUCE that rosie is as DUMB as a
rock, and has nothing to back up his claims, or to defend his own
positions he sauys he believes in.
b1s
<rose...@idt.net> wrote in message news:3921c1a1....@169.132.11.12...
> "b1s" <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >roselle:
> >
> >If you disagree, why don't you put forth your differing version on what
the
> >academic left says about fascism.
>
> >With no opposing statement, there is little reason to add a lot of
> >argumentative detail. I see nothing here to be argumentative about.
>
> I don't think you "get it"
>
> When proposing an argument, YOU, as the claimant, have to furnish the
proof
> that your assertion is correct by supplying facts, evidence or data to
back
> it up
Not necessarily. As the only statement in contention, it has validity
automatically, until it is opposed. I see no opposing statement.
> What in hell did you think, that all you had to do is make some specious
> predjudical statement, then expect the respondent to "prove" that your
> unsubstantiated claim is false
You need prove nothing, but to oppose, you must have an opposing candidate.
You offer none, looks like the statement stands with no competition.
>
> I don't know where you went to school, but even 8th graders learn that you
> don't simply allege or "say" something and then demand the opposing view
to
> supply something to rebutt it with
You may agree. That is a viable alternative.
>
> State your claim, provide facts, evidence and data to support it, THEN the
> oppositon has some basis in which to argue the merits of your evidence.
What opposition?
>
> Even OPINION must have facts and data to make it arguable
>
Not if it is the only opinion stated. As such, it may as well be fact, for
it is unchallenged.
Regards,
Chip
thx1666
When I was a little kid, I, too, thought that conservative meant "more
control", "more totalitarian". It was a LONG time out of public schools
before I finally caught on.
I forgive Mr. rose...@idiot.net for his mistaken thinking. I used to be
that mislead. Let's spell it out:
Nazi is "National socialism". Socialism is popularly defined as "left".
Therefore Nazi = left. Get it?
Capitalism started before governments did. Way way back when people would
take their wares to the farmer down the road, because the chap noticed how
good your pottery was. That was a GENTEEL system, and it is the essence of
lassaize faire capitalism! Socialism could never have begin, except in a
mind that had certain assumptions about power and government. Ther could be
no socialism without force! All that came AFTER capitalism, and lead to the
development of kings, serfdoms, etc.
You have a lot more options today than being a serf, but the governments of
the world would like you to think that you're really better off under their
protection. Listen to me carefully: YOU'RE NOT AS WEAK AS YOU HAVE BEEN
LEAD TO BELIEVE! Especially today - there are many many people who would be
willing to trade with you for your goods or services, unless of course all
you can do is crime. There are teachers who LOVE to teach, and they would
be willing to trade with you to teach your children. There are people like
me who LOVE to program machinery to build you all the things your heart
desires. But I don't work for free. You have to have something of value to
trade with.
You DON'T NEED a government handout. Even if you were desperate, if you
were crippled. I would help you -IF you had the desire to help yourself.
Don't be mislead. Government is NOT about protecting YOU. It's all about
protecting itself. And if they can do that by dividing us and making you
believe that I am your enemy, then they'll do just that.
<rose...@idt.net> wrote in message news:3921e6cc....@169.132.11.12...
Jenn
"thx1666" <thx...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's too late. The words' meanings have been lost.
>
> When I was a little kid, I, too, thought that conservative meant "more
> control", "more totalitarian". It was a LONG time out of public schools
> before I finally caught on.
>
> I forgive Mr. rose...@idiot.net for his mistaken thinking. I used to be
> that mislead. Let's spell it out:
>
> Nazi is "National socialism". Socialism is popularly defined as "left".
> Therefore Nazi = left. Get it?
>
Stalin said his system was a democracy. It didn't make it so. Almost all of
Hitler's beliefs placed him on the right!
> Capitalism started before governments did. Way way back when people would
> Take their wares to the farmer down the road, because the chap noticed how
> good your pottery was. That was a GENTEEL system,
This statement reflects no knowledge of anthropology, or history.
and it is the essence of
> lassaize faire capitalism! Socialism could never have begin, except in a
> mind that had certain assumptions about power and government. Ther could be
> no socialism without force!
There could be no highly developed capitalism without force either. No one
could operate without public roads or currency.
All that came AFTER capitalism,
Yes, because capitalism couldn't develop any other way, for the reasons I
have stated.
and lead to the
> development of kings, serfdoms, etc.
Yes, capitalism required strong authorities (Kings) in order to protect their
property (land) from the lower classes (serf) who were a direct result of the
social stratification created by the Agricultural Revolution!
Now, about the time of the French revolution, certain people started
questioning the negative, and classist, affects of pure capitalism. Two
major streams of thought emerged on the subject. One, welfare capitalism,
the other was Socialism.
Welfare capitalism has been the most affective at dealing with the inequities
of capitalism, while sacrificing the least personal liberty.
>
> You have a lot more options today than being a serf,
In giving absolute protection to the property owner, libertarians are much
more like the people of medieval Europe, with their absolute protection of
the Land owning liege lord. I won't apologize ever for calling libertarians'
neofuedalists.
but the governments of
> the world would like you to think that you're really better off under their
> protection.
Well, I have to say, the plight of the average person was improved, when the
States became more powerful than the liege lords did.
Listen to me carefully: YOU'RE NOT AS WEAK AS YOU HAVE BEEN
> LEAD TO BELIEVE! Especially today - there are many many people who would be
> willing to trade with you for your goods or services, unless of course all
> you can do is crime
If you are ill, old or infirmed, and you can't find these people tough. In
order to makeup for welfare and social security, the individual would have to
donate 10 times as much money as you do now. The social safety net is more
economical.
There are teachers who LOVE to teach, and they would
> be willing to trade with you to teach your children.
Can you pay her 40, 000 a year that doesn't mean you can afford it, or that
your child wouldn't be left without a teacher, if you were poor?
Furthermore, private schools are notorious for discriminating against
children, in areas where they have tried vouchers.
There are people like
> me who LOVE to program machinery to build you all the things your heart
> desires. But I don't work for free. You have to have something of value to
> trade with.
People like you are a dime a dozen, how about 1.50 an hour? What if nobody
else offers you more? Will you take it?
>
> You DON'T NEED a government handout.
People need handout for the roads they drive, the sewers they use, the clean
water they drink, the list goes on and on. If you were anywhere in the dry
desert states, you probably wouldn't have water at all if it weren't for
government projects, and your cities would be poop stops.
Even if you were desperate, if you
> were crippled. I would help you -IF you had the desire to help yourself.
Are you willing to contribute 10 times more to charity, to help ALL the
people who need it? Can you pay a 150 thousand dollar medical bill of a
child brain tumor patient?
> Don't be misleading. Government is NOT about protecting YOU. It's all about
> protecting itself.
That is because the government is human, as are all institutions. Private
business doesn't have different motivations, or better incentives. You
control abuses with laws, just like you do everything else.
And if they can do that by dividing us and making you
> believe that I am your enemy, then they'll do just that.
You are the one that wants everybody and island. Uniting is not a
Libertarian specialty.
--
Jenn
The most potent weapon of the
oppressor is the mind of the
oppressed.
Steven Biko
steve
On 16-May-2000, rose...@idt.net wrote:
> > The academic Left claims that 'fascism' is a Right phenomenon, and
> >'anarchism' is a Left phenomenon.
>
> Don't stand to close to your strawman
>
> He's liable to burn
>
> You haven't shown a scintilla of facts or evidence that the premise is
> correct
>
> WHO makes that claim?
>
> Where can I find the article, fact, data, or authority that claims that?
He is probably speaking from personal experience. I have observed the same.
Do you watch TV, talk to people, read papers? That is where I have observed
the trend.
If pressed I'm sure we could come up with some examples, probably in this
group.
steve
On 16-May-2000, Jenn <moon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> How is the free market not coersive, when owners can and do band
> together to set prices, meanwhile Unions can't set wages without being
> fired.
Despite the inaccurate characterizations of a free market (sellers do not
"set" prices, they "offer" prices and hope someone buys), you haven't yet
given an example of coercion.
And please note that in the political sense and always in my discussions
"coercion" means actual force by violence or violent threats.
That is, in fact, one of the general definitions, but I did discover that
there are "milder" definitions somewhat synonymous with "pressure". If
pressure does not take the form of violence it is not immoral.
> He cut welfare, government housing, and the Jobs weren't free! This is
> just not true!
I'm talking about the official party platform (I have a copy in one of my
books, but I need to find it. We've moved recently and it's buried in a
box.) Actually the tendency of socialists to talk nice and act mean is not
unusual. That is the point, really. I mean, since when does anyone
overthrow a government in the name of totalitarianism. It's always in the
name (and name only) of freedom.
Jenn
st...@steve.com wrote:
>
> On 16-May-2000, Jenn <moon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > How is the free market not coersive, when owners can and do band
> > together to set prices, meanwhile Unions can't set wages without being
> > fired.
>
> Despite the inaccurate characterizations of a free market (sellers do not
> "set" prices, they "offer" prices and hope someone buys), you haven't yet
> given an example of coercion.
> And please note that in the political sense and always in my discussions
> "coercion" means actual force by violence or violent threats.
Legally coersion constitutes any threat to well-being, including economic
wellbeing. Blackmail is considered a form of coersion. Employers to band
together to set wages, and it is coersiverve.
>
That is, in fact, one of the general definitions, but I did discover that
> there are "milder" definitions somewhat synonymous with "pressure". If
> pressure does not take the form of violence it is not immoral.
Then why is blackmail illegal?
>
> > He cut welfare, government housing, and the Jobs weren't free! This is
> > just not true!
>
> I'm talking about the official party platform (I have a copy in one of my
> books, but I need to find it. We've moved recently and it's buried in a
> box.) Actually the tendency of socialists to talk nice and act mean is not
> unusual. That is the point, really. I mean, since when does anyone
> overthrow a government in the name of totalitarianism. It's always in the
> name (and name only) of freedom.
Ok whatever, he still wasn't a leftist. He never tried to regulate(modern
liberals) or dismantel private industry(socialists), and never sought to do
so. Additionally he was livid in his condemnation of all forms of leftist
politics, liberals, socialists, and communists alike. whatever he may have
called himself. Stalin said his system was a democracy. Did he ever hold a
true election? What someone calls themselves doesn't nessesarily reflect real
beliefs, or practices!
>
> steve
>
> --
> "It ain't me, man, it's the system." Charles Manson
>
--
steve
On 17-May-2000, Jenn <moon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Legally coersion constitutes any threat to well-being, including economic
> wellbeing. Blackmail is considered a form of coersion. Employers to band
> together to set wages, and it is coersiverve.
No violence, no coercion.
> That is, in fact, one of the general definitions, but I did discover that
> > there are "milder" definitions somewhat synonymous with "pressure". If
> > pressure does not take the form of violence it is not immoral.
>
> Then why is blackmail illegal?
> >
I never thought it should be, provided the information is accurate.
> > I'm talking about the official party platform (I have a copy in one of
> > my
> > books, but I need to find it. We've moved recently and it's buried in a
> > box.) Actually the tendency of socialists to talk nice and act mean is
> > not
> > unusual. That is the point, really. I mean, since when does anyone
> > overthrow a government in the name of totalitarianism. It's always in
> > the
> > name (and name only) of freedom.
>
> Ok whatever, he still wasn't a leftist. He never tried to regulate(modern
> liberals) or dismantel private industry(socialists), and never sought to
> do
> so. Additionally he was livid in his condemnation of all forms of leftist
> politics, liberals, socialists, and communists alike. whatever he may have
> called himself. Stalin said his system was a democracy. Did he ever hold
> a
> true election? What someone calls themselves doesn't nessesarily reflect
> real
> beliefs, or practices!
My point exactly. Don't be fooled by attractive rhetoric, and don't think
socialism is ever "free". It is coercive by nature as well as practice.
Jenn
So is the free market! My veiw of coersion isn't as limited as yours.
>
> steve
>
> --
> "It ain't me, man, it's the system." Charles Manson
>
--
steve
On 17-May-2000, Jenn <moon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > My point exactly. Don't be fooled by attractive rhetoric, and don't
> think
> > socialism is ever "free". It is coercive by nature as well as
> practice.
>
> So is the free market! My veiw of coersion isn't as limited as yours.
So many discussion here come down to that very point. Please help me to
understand why you feel your definition of coercion defines the boudary
between moral and immoral behavior. I see violence as the dividing line
because it is clearly a violation of a persons right to himself. Pressure
(and by this I assume we mean such things as contingent behavior, like "if
you don't buy A from me I wont sell you B") places constraints on ones
choice, but only through the exercise of property rights.
Please explain to me what you consider non-violent coercion and why it is
immoral.
I seriously want to understand your point of view.
thanks,
rose...@idt.net
>> Where can I find the article, fact, data, or authority that claims that?
>He is probably speaking from personal experience. I have observed the same.
Then post it, write it, specific instances, something that contains the
relevant facts and evidence to pick apart.
>Do you watch TV, talk to people, read papers? That is where I have observed
>the trend.
Then post them, specific facts and data. Are you suggesting that your
"perception" becomes "fact"? How do I know what or how you percieve
"facts". Are your perceptions merely inferences from fact. I have to know
what that fact is to know if your inference is valid
I seriously doubt if you understand the very basics of argument. Merely
making an accusation, or using an observation and thinking that should
stand as an arguable position is simply bs.
You can Make the claim, as he has, but without that evidence to support it,
it is merely invalid argument. (predjudicial statement) And that requires
NO ONE to take serious.
>If pressed I'm sure we could come up with some examples, probably in this
>group.
Then do
rose...@idt.net
>> How is the free market not coersive, when owners can and do band
>> together to set prices, meanwhile Unions can't set wages without being
>> fired.
>Despite the inaccurate characterizations of a free market (sellers do not
>"set" prices, they "offer" prices and hope someone buys), you haven't yet
>given an example of coercion.
BS. That is a theortical claim. Sellers DO set prices (some do, some
dont) You think a car sells for what the market will bear? Or does the
manufacturere set a "price"?
>And please note that in the political sense and always in my discussions
>"coercion" means actual force by violence or violent threats.
That's kinda stupid. "coercion" is not limited to actual violence
> If
>pressure does not take the form of violence it is not immoral.
Tell that to state statue law. Coercion in the workplace includes
Psychological and economic "pressure
>Actually the tendency of socialists to talk nice and act mean is not
>unusual. That is the point, really. I mean, since when does anyone
>overthrow a government in the name of totalitarianism. It's always in the
>name (and name only) of freedom.
And which right wing despot or totalitarian has not done that?
rose...@idt.net
>My point exactly. Don't be fooled by attractive rhetoric, and don't think
>socialism is ever "free". It is coercive by nature as well as practice.
One of the FIRST premises of left ideologies, is that: "he who does not
work shall not eat"
Socialism seems to be a bugaboo with you. Ownership of the means of
production hardly seems to be relevant in your posts, but some form of cut
and pasted snippets of perceptions of what it means in order to write
specious little arguments.
Dana
<rose...@idt.net> wrote in message news:3922dcf3...@169.132.11.12...
How come we never see any facts from rosie, only mere allegations and his
perceptions.
>
steve
On 17-May-2000, rose...@idt.net wrote:
> >He is probably speaking from personal experience. I have observed the
> >same.
>
> Then post it, write it, specific instances, something that contains the
> relevant facts and evidence to pick apart.
>
> >Do you watch TV, talk to people, read papers? That is where I have
> >observed
> >the trend.
>
> Then post them, specific facts and data. Are you suggesting that your
> "perception" becomes "fact"? How do I know what or how you percieve
> "facts". Are your perceptions merely inferences from fact. I have to
> know
> what that fact is to know if your inference is valid
>
> I seriously doubt if you understand the very basics of argument. Merely
> making an accusation, or using an observation and thinking that should
> stand as an arguable position is simply bs.
You are correct. I am not presenting a formal argument, just a personal
perception. Next time I see a blatent example, I'll try to remember to post
it. I do understand the "basics of argument", but sometimes I just engage
in informal discussion. See my many other posts for formal discussion if
you care to check me on that unsupported statement.
steve
steve
On 17-May-2000, rose...@idt.net wrote:
> One of the FIRST premises of left ideologies, is that: "he who does not
> work shall not eat"
>
> Socialism seems to be a bugaboo with you. Ownership of the means of
> production hardly seems to be relevant in your posts, but some form of cut
> and pasted snippets of perceptions of what it means in order to write
> specious little arguments.
I hate socialism, as it is the antithesis of individualism. I don't
understand the rest of your point. It seems incoherent.
Socialism is the subjugation of the individual to the collective.
Libertarianism is the recognition of self ownership and respect for that
most basic right.
"He who does not work, shall not eat" is neither necesary nor sufficient to
establish respect for the individual. The absence of the initiation of
violence and the respect for property are conditions that respect the
individual.
rose...@idt.net
>How come we never see any facts from rosie, only mere allegations and his
>perceptions.
What you see from me is merely demanding YOU provide those facts and
supporting evidence to back YOUR claims up
So far, you've managed to do NOTHING except post opinions of various right
wingers, idiotic rambling, disconnected crap you percieve as fact, argue
fallacy as if it were good argument.
And the FACTS of your BIG, SOFT, PLUMP, BLACK BUTTISM is documented.
THAT IS IRREFUTABLE FACT
Posting TRUTH, DIMWIT DANA can't get me in trouble
The more you complain, the less my ISP writes.
I don't threaten
I don't harass
I dont falsify headers
I don't/haven't broken any ISP rules.
MOREOVER, you simple fuck, I"M the one paying them, NOT YOU.
>
===================================================
http://x35.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=556741088&CONTEXT=956240342.1344012307&hitnum=3
There are 3888 unique messages by
"Dana Raffaniello"
<ra...@home.com>
>> Forum: alt.personals
>> Thread: seeking big butt ladies inPhoenix
>> Message 4 of 7
Subject: seeking big butt ladies in
Phoenix
Date: 12/05/1999
Author: Dana <ra...@home.com>
Ladies if you have a nice round plump butt, and pretty feet.
Lets have some fun
Jenn
st...@steve.com wrote:
>
>
> On 17-May-2000, Jenn <moon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > My point exactly. Don't be fooled by attractive rhetoric, and
don't
> > think
> > > socialism is ever "free". It is coercive by nature as well as
> > practice.
> >
yours.
>
> So many discussion here come down to that very point. Please help me
to
> understand why you feel your definition of coercion defines the
boudary
> between moral and immoral behavior.
It isn't just mine!
I see violence as the dividing line
> because it is clearly a violation of a persons right to himself.
1)Economic contracts and property rights are not non-violent. Property
rights can only be enforced through the threat of violence.
Pressure
> (and by this I assume we mean such things as contingent behavior,
like "if
> you don't buy A from me I wont sell you B") places constraints on ones
> choice, but only through the exercise of property rights.
No I am referring to someone in the low wage end of the job market.
They are often in situation where no-one is willing to pay them a
better wage, despite the fact that society absolutely needs them.
Nursing home workers, Home health Aids, Janators ect. ect. Yet, I have
no doubt that were it not for a minimum wage, these people would not
make enough so that they, and their families could live and be
healthy. That is why these sort of domestic workers in the past ended
up endentured servants. Something Libertarians want to bring back.
Poverty, at that level does bodily harm, and it destroys freedom. You
can say people have a choice to not work for a certain person, but they
don't have choice not to work. The invisible hand sets prices far to
low, for these workers to make a living. This form of econimic
coersion, actually hurts people, and does do bodily harm.
Finally, If I have enough money to bribe people sell to you, or pay you
a decent wage, and thus you and your family die. Something that could
definately happen in a Libertarian society. How is this not coersive?
By your standard, I shouldn't be convicted of anything because, I did
no violence.
>
> Please explain to me what you consider non-violent coercion and why
it is
> immoral.
>
> I seriously want to understand your point of view.
>
> thanks,
> steve
> --
> "It ain't me, man, it's the system." Charles Manson
>
--
Jackson Harvey
> > I see violence as the dividing line
> > because it is clearly a violation of a persons right to himself.
>
> 1)Economic contracts and property rights are not non-violent. Property
> rights can only be enforced through the threat of violence.
All rights can only be enforced through the threat of violence. Why is it
only property rights that you reject?
> They are often in situation where no-one is willing to pay them a
> better wage, despite the fact that society absolutely needs them.
If society needs something, it will appropriate it. If you are so concerned
about the poor pay of certain groups, boycott all companies that don't pay
as much as you would like. Start your own company and pay whatever you
would like. What freedom-loving people object to is that you are willing to
use force to make other people pay what *you* think a job is worth.
> That is why these sort of domestic workers in the past ended
> up endentured servants. Something Libertarians want to bring back.
Which libertarians have suggested such a thing?
Jackson Harvey
"moderate" Libertarian
rose...@idt.net
>I hate socialism, as it is the antithesis of individualism.
In it's extremist form, that is a rational judgment.
>Socialism is the subjugation of the individual to the collective.
Society is collective. We formed this nation based on a collective
society, with proper respect built in for individual rights. Why do you
think the founders use "WE", instead of a universal individual delcaration?
>Libertarianism is the recognition of self ownership and respect for that
>most basic right.
Libertariansim is pure bullshit. It survives laugh tests because it's
generally spoken of in a well knit, collective society.... a method for
whiners, carpers, and neer-do-wells to vent self serving frustration.
If any society functioned purely libertarian, those who NOW (despite all
your whining about the "system") have amassed power and wealth, would
become virtual dictators. If you're one of those "struggling" in THIS
environment, you damn sure wouldn't last a day in THEIRS.
>"He who does not work, shall not eat" is neither necesary nor sufficient to
>establish respect for the individual.
Wasn't meant to. Socialism is an intensive collective framework, geared to
addressing the disparity (albeit misguided) belief individualism is the
root evil in societies problems.
> The absence of the initiation of
>violence and the respect for property are conditions that respect the
>individual.
I have no idea what that means, but if you're alluding to "government"
enforcing societies law, then tough
This is a representative democracy geared. It was not founded on a
libertarian principles, but that of collective functioning. The Bill of
Rights addressed individual rights in relation to that government.
But the interpretation of that document is still under the aegis of the
Legal authority (the SC)
antiliberal
rose...@idt.net wrote:
> "Dana" <ra...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >How come we never see any facts from rosie, only mere allegations
and his
> >perceptions.
>
> What you see from me is merely demanding YOU provide those facts and
> supporting evidence to back YOUR claims up
>
> So far, you've managed to do NOTHING except post opinions of various
right
> wingers, idiotic rambling, disconnected crap you percieve as fact,
argue
> fallacy as if it were good argument.
>
> And the FACTS of your BIG, SOFT, PLUMP, BLACK BUTTISM is documented.
>
> THAT IS IRREFUTABLE FACT
>
> Posting TRUTH, DIMWIT DANA can't get me in trouble
>
> The more you complain, the less my ISP writes.
>
> I don't threaten
>
> I don't harass
Bullshit
>
> I dont falsify headers
Yeah right see header on this one that you changed
>
> I don't/haven't broken any ISP rules.
>
> MOREOVER, you simple fuck, I"M the one paying them, NOT YOU.
Oh big bad words, I bet you get your ass kicked all the time, all you
have is a loud mouth, never posting facts, and always you lie.
>
> >
>
> ===================================================
>
http://x35.deja.com/[ST_rn=ap]/getdoc.xp?AN=556741088&CONTEXT=956240342.
1344012307&hitnum=3
>
> There are 3888 unique messages by
> "Dana Raffaniello"
> <ra...@home.com>
>
> >> Forum: alt.personals
> >> Thread: seeking big butt ladies inPhoenix
> >> Message 4 of 7
>
> Subject: seeking big butt ladies in
> Phoenix
>
> Date: 12/05/1999
>
> Author: Dana <ra...@home.com>
>
> Ladies if you have a nice round plump butt, and pretty feet.
> Lets have some fun
>
>
rose...@idt.net
>> The more you complain, the less my ISP writes.
>> I don't threaten
>Koresh them all eh rosie
That's an OPINION, DIMWIT DANA
>> I don't harass
>Bullshit
FREE SPEECH, DIMWIT DANA
>> I dont falsify headers
>Yeah right see header on this one that you changed
"alteration" is NOT falsifying in any terms of an ISP
>> I don't/haven't broken any ISP rules.
No comment DIMWIT DANA
>> MOREOVER, you simple fuck, I"M the one paying them, NOT YOU.
>Oh big bad words, I bet you get your ass kicked all the time, all you
>have is a loud mouth, never posting facts, and always you lie.
Then why is it YOU that cries to an ISP????
I keep telling you DIMWIT DANA, it's NOT the FACTS that shoot you down,
it's the conclusions and inference you make from them to "argue" your
silly-assed points. The FACTS do not support your conclusions. NEVER have
=======================================================
I am sending this email as a complaint against one of your users. the user
rose...@idt.net. is always posting foul language attacks against other
people who visit the news groups. Would it be possible to warn this person
of the violations he is doing in regards to terms of service.
Thanks.
-------------------------------------------------------
This is a second complaint of vulgar personal attacks from one of you
members. Can you remind this person of his terms of service.
rose...@idt.net
>How come we never see any facts from rosie, only mere allegations and his
>perceptions.
I'm actually beginning to believe you're really stupid and not
understanding the concept of argument, DIMWIT DANA
YOU have consistently posted either comment or articles that attempt to use
conclusion from "facts" that the evidence cannot support. Everything from
Rev. Moons bullshit, to SC decisions.
Apparantly you "think" that by offering a conclusion as "evidence" that
something is true, should require an answer to prove it false. YOU must
prove that the premise is true. And you can't simply use "opinion" as your
evidence. Consistently you list facts, then a conclusion that NONE of the
facts can support. I got tired of that crap long ago DIMWIT DANA. So did
everyone else.
You were taken to the woodshed about "perjury", "2nd amemdment", nearly
everything you've tried to "argue". Then when you're finally beaten, you
resort to the same old 3rd grade flames. Everyone got tired of your
ignorant ass DIMWIT DANA. Especially when you started the "moral" and
ethical crap to trash a political enemy you can't legitimately beat with
ideas and issues.
Same bullshit about Elian. You have NO factual, substantive, moral, or
legal basis for making the outrageous claims against Reno, Clinton, INS.
What you DO, is post right wing "opEd" pieces, or silly assed conclusions
and expect someone to argue against it.
That's attempting to legitimize evidence that hasn't been proven true, and
that's begging the question fallacy argument.
I ridicule you as an excercise to show extreme disrespect and revulsion at
both your intellectual prowess and deviant sexual predilictions, DIMWITH
DANA
If you don't like it, next time think before you childishly run and "tell
mama" about something you aint man enough to handle.
antiliberal
You talk tough while on line, but we all know you are a wimpy coward.
No rosie it is just that you do not want to accept the facts as
everyone else can see. You are so narrow minded you are incapable of
seeing anything outside of what you perceive as the truth. All you can
do is resort to personal attacks, and vulgar language, that makes you
the intellectual lightweight. We all now ridicule you, especially
after you have exposed yourself to be the biggest hypocrite here. I
posted more facts than you could handle, so you resorted to stalking me
on the net looking for dirt, and all you found was I like asians,
blacks,nothing in those ads were about sex, so you came to a conclusion
the facts do not support. As for who lacks the morals, it would be you
rosie, as who posted Koresh them all, what kind of monster are you??
So take your I am better than everyone else attitude and shove it where
the sun does not shine. As for what you think about me or anyone here,
rosie, we do not care as you have been proven wrong on the 2nd
Amendment issue, The nature of our government, as well as humanity to
fellow humans. You have the nature of an evil monster who never posts
any facts, yet insists on saying everyone else is wrong, without
showing any proof. You infer your conclusions on incorrect facts and
your ideals.
>
> =======================================================
>
> I am sending this email as a complaint against one of your users. the
user
> rose...@idt.net. is always posting foul language attacks against
other
> people who visit the news groups. Would it be possible to warn this
person
> of the violations he is doing in regards to terms of service.
> Thanks.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is a second complaint of vulgar personal attacks from one of you
> members. Can you remind this person of his terms of service.
>
antiliberal
rose...@idt.net wrote:
> antiliberal <ra...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> The more you complain, the less my ISP writes.
>
> >> I don't threaten
>
> >Koresh them all eh rosie
>
> That's an OPINION, DIMWIT DANA
>
> >> I don't harass
>
> >Bullshit
>
> FREE SPEECH, DIMWIT DANA
There is a limit. Plain and simple You harass everyone who has a
different opinion than you, you can be labled a bigot.
>
> >> I dont falsify headers
>
> >Yeah right see header on this one that you changed
>
> "alteration" is NOT falsifying in any terms of an ISP
See the header above
>
> >> I don't/haven't broken any ISP rules.
Sure you have rosie. You know what slander and defamation are right.
>
> No comment DIMWIT DANA
>
> >> MOREOVER, you simple fuck, I"M the one paying them, NOT YOU.
>
> >Oh big bad words, I bet you get your ass kicked all the time, all you
> >have is a loud mouth, never posting facts, and always you lie.
>
> Then why is it YOU that cries to an ISP????
Because I got tired of your personal attacks, because you lack the
knowledge to prove your points.
>
> I keep telling you DIMWIT DANA, it's NOT the FACTS that shoot you
down,
> it's the conclusions and inference you make from them to "argue" your
> silly-assed points. The FACTS do not support your conclusions.
NEVER have
Always have and always will.
rose...@idt.net
>> >Koresh them all eh rosie
>> That's an OPINION, DIMWIT DANA
>No that is the words of a person with no compasion for other humans
That isn't what you clamed DIMWIT DANA
What it ISN'T, is a threat.
>There is a limit. Plain and simple You harass everyone who has a
>different opinion than you, you can be labled a bigot.
Being a "bigot" is not harassment.
Explain how one can Harass by posting "words" on the internet?
>> "alteration" is NOT falsifying in any terms of an ISP
>See the header above
See response above
>> >> I don't/haven't broken any ISP rules.
>Sure you have rosie. You know what slander and defamation are right.
Posting what YOU wrote in fetish groups (all true) is not slander or
defamation. YOU did it, DIMWIT, not me
>> Then why is it YOU that cries to an ISP????
>Because I got tired of your personal attacks, because you lack the
>knowledge to prove your points.
What is this??
"Only fools like you believe in KKKlintoon rosie. You are so full of shit.
Have you sold your mother yet."
===================================================
Forum: alt.personals.black
Thread: White guy looking for
black female in Phoenix
Message 2 of 4
Subject: White guy looking for black
female in Phoenix
Date: 10/23/1999
Author: Dana Raffaniello
<ra...@home.com>
steve
On 17-May-2000, Jenn <moon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> 1)Economic contracts and property rights are not non-violent. Property
> rights can only be enforced through the threat of violence.
But not with the INITIATION of violence. If someone tries to kill me, you
would not dispute (I hope) my absolute right to defend myself. If someone
attempts to do violence to my property (theft or destruction), I have the
right to respond with violence. That does not make property any more of a
coercive relationship than the simple protection of the self.
> No I am referring to someone in the low wage end of the job market.
> They are often in situation where no-one is willing to pay them a
> better wage, despite the fact that society absolutely needs them.
> Nursing home workers, Home health Aids, Janators ect. ect. Yet, I have
> no doubt that were it not for a minimum wage, these people would not
> make enough so that they, and their families could live and be
> healthy. That is why these sort of domestic workers in the past ended
> up endentured servants. Something Libertarians want to bring back.
> Poverty, at that level does bodily harm, and it destroys freedom. You
> can say people have a choice to not work for a certain person, but they
> don't have choice not to work. The invisible hand sets prices far to
> low, for these workers to make a living. This form of econimic
> coersion, actually hurts people, and does do bodily harm.
It is our nature that we must work or die. If you were the only person on
earth you would have to gather food, keep warm, protect yourself from
animals, etc. Would you then be unfree? Can freedom (in your definition)
come only in leisure?
And I disagree with your contention about low wage workers unable to earn a
living. Perhaps it is true that they couldn't earn a comfortable living, or
one that Amaricans call comfortable. It is simple economics that a more
efficient economy makes all people better off given the same amount of work
effort. 300 years ago, the same low wage workers would barely feed
themselves working in the fields 10 hours a day. With greater economic
efficiency and trade, they can be more productive, and therefor more
wealthy.
I have done some calculations assuming a very modest wage of $5/hour working
just 40 hours per week. A 30 day month has about 4.25 weeks making the
monthly wage $850.
If two people earn this amount and share a modest apartment (in many areas a
2 bedroom can be had for 800/month, other areas even less), assuming a small
amount of taxes, they would each still have about $100/week for food,
clothes, and miscelaneous. You can't do this in New York City, but in
plenty of other places it is realistic. And if the person works overtime,
he can afford even more. This is clearly not luxery and you probably
shouldn't try to have a family on this kind of pay, but it is not poverty in
any reasonable sense of the word. And, of course, there are plenty of even
less attractive arrangments that would cost even less (sharing a 1 bedroom,
or more people in a small house, for instance).
And if the government would get out of distorting the economy, virtually
everything would become less expensive.
> Finally, If I have enough money to bribe people sell to you, or pay you
> a decent wage, and thus you and your family die. Something that could
> definately happen in a Libertarian society. How is this not coersive?
> By your standard, I shouldn't be convicted of anything because, I did
> no violence.
Well, you would have to have a lot of money, because this is a big country,
and even a bigger world, not to mention the fact that some people can't be
bought on such terms. And there are many religions and charities that would
help someone in such circumstance, so this is not a realistic dilemma. You
are stretching pretty far to find real fault with freedom. That should tell
you something.
steve
On 17-May-2000, rose...@idt.net wrote:
> Society is collective. We formed this nation based on a collective
> society, with proper respect built in for individual rights. Why do you
> think the founders use "WE", instead of a universal individual
> delcaration?
I'm unconcerned with the founders. Why do you think their opnions are
controlling? Society is only a collective IF there is no private property.
We have (to a great extent) private property, so no collective.
> Libertariansim is pure bullshit. It survives laugh tests because it's
> generally spoken of in a well knit, collective society.... a method for
> whiners, carpers, and neer-do-wells to vent self serving frustration.
Not much of an argument, and I think an inaccurate characterization.
> If any society functioned purely libertarian, those who NOW (despite all
> your whining about the "system") have amassed power and wealth, would
> become virtual dictators. If you're one of those "struggling" in THIS
> environment, you damn sure wouldn't last a day in THEIRS.
Actually the "system" would be turned upside down. Worthless bureaucrats
would have to get a real job, companies that use the government would fail,
and the productive, the creative, and the industrious would create an even
more productive and efficient economy. All people who earn an honest living
would be better off. I earn an honest living, and I would be better off.
> Wasn't meant to. Socialism is an intensive collective framework, geared
> to
> addressing the disparity (albeit misguided) belief individualism is the
> root evil in societies problems.
So you believe individualism is not a problem. That's good. Where exactly
do we disagree?
> > The absence of the initiation of
> >violence and the respect for property are conditions that respect the
> >individual.
>
> I have no idea what that means, but if you're alluding to "government"
> enforcing societies law, then tough
What is cryptic about my statement. No initiation of violence means only
voluntary interaction is respected and tolerated, so no government
regulation and no government supported businesses. Respect for property
means no (or very low) taxation and the rights that go with property will
not be infringed. I don't understand your response. "Tough"?
> This is a representative democracy geared. It was not founded on a
> libertarian principles, but that of collective functioning. The Bill of
> Rights addressed individual rights in relation to that government.
>
> But the interpretation of that document is still under the aegis of the
> Legal authority (the SC)
Ar you saying the status quo is it's own justification? Why discuss
anything, it must be settled already. Good thinking.
Dana
<rose...@idt.net> wrote in message news:3923faa8...@169.132.11.12...
> antiliberal <ra...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >Koresh them all eh rosie
>
> >> That's an OPINION, DIMWIT DANA
>
> >No that is the words of a person with no compasion for other humans
>
> That isn't what you clamed DIMWIT DANA
>
> What it ISN'T, is a threat.
government burned out the Branch Davidians.
>
>
> >There is a limit. Plain and simple You harass everyone who has a
> >different opinion than you, you can be labled a bigot.
>
> Being a "bigot" is not harassment.
>
> Explain how one can Harass by posting "words" on the internet?
>
>
> >> "alteration" is NOT falsifying in any terms of an ISP
>
> >See the header above
>
> See response above
>
> >> >> I don't/haven't broken any ISP rules.
>
> >Sure you have rosie. You know what slander and defamation are right.
>
> Posting what YOU wrote in fetish groups (all true) is not slander or
> defamation. YOU did it, DIMWIT, not me
have become judgemental and concluded falsely what those posts mean.
As proof look at the post you cross posted below, it never mentions sex does
it, nor do the other two you keep on posting. Hence your attack on my morals
can not be supported.
Which of course is none of your business, which of course marks you as a
hypocrite. But rosie lets not forget all the other terms and attacks you
have done, those are slander and defamation.
>
>
> >> Then why is it YOU that cries to an ISP????
>
> >Because I got tired of your personal attacks, because you lack the
> >knowledge to prove your points.
>
> What is this??
>
> "Only fools like you believe in KKKlintoon rosie. You are so full of
shit.
> Have you sold your mother yet."
No worse than "butt sniffer, dimwitt, right wing loon".
Robert Allen Leeper
Dana wrote:
>
> <rose...@idt.net> wrote in message news:3923faa8...@169.132.11.12...
> > antiliberal <ra...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >
The verb is "to Reno", not "to Koresh".
['Verbing weirds language' - Calvin]
Buddy
Take a few Political Science courses and you find that Hitler was an
extreme Right Winger. When he came into power he outlawed the Communist Party
in Germany. The KKK is also extreme right. They both don't tolerate catholics,
jews, blacks and liberals. They both promote the aryan race.
b1s wrote:
> <rose...@idt.net> wrote in message news:3921c1a1....@169.132.11.12...
> > "b1s" <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > >roselle:
> > >
> > >If you disagree, why don't you put forth your differing version on what
> the
> > >academic left says about fascism.
> >
> > >With no opposing statement, there is little reason to add a lot of
> > >argumentative detail. I see nothing here to be argumentative about.
> >
> > I don't think you "get it"
> >
> True.
>
> > When proposing an argument, YOU, as the claimant, have to furnish the
> proof
> > that your assertion is correct by supplying facts, evidence or data to
> back
> > it up
>
> Not necessarily. As the only statement in contention, it has validity
> automatically, until it is opposed. I see no opposing statement.
>
> > What in hell did you think, that all you had to do is make some specious
> > predjudical statement, then expect the respondent to "prove" that your
> > unsubstantiated claim is false
>
> You need prove nothing, but to oppose, you must have an opposing candidate.
> You offer none, looks like the statement stands with no competition.
>
> >
> > I don't know where you went to school, but even 8th graders learn that you
> > don't simply allege or "say" something and then demand the opposing view
> to
> > supply something to rebutt it with
>
> You may agree. That is a viable alternative.
> >
> > State your claim, provide facts, evidence and data to support it, THEN the
> > oppositon has some basis in which to argue the merits of your evidence.
>
> What opposition?
> >
> > Even OPINION must have facts and data to make it arguable
> >
>
> Not if it is the only opinion stated. As such, it may as well be fact, for
> it is unchallenged.
>
> Regards,
>
> Chip
Jonny
terms "Left" and "Right". If you look those up in your
dictionary you would be very lucky to see anything which
applies to political discourse. These are terms which are
generally avoided by the academics you vituperate.
"Left" and "Right" when applied to politics are pretty much
meaningless terms. You can be far more accurate in
discussing political ideology by using terms
like "conservative" "liberal" "radical" "progressive"
"reactionary" "pluralist" "totalitarian" "anarchist" "corpor
atist" "Marxist" "socialist"... and so on. Terms such as
these have much clearer and specific meanings than "Left"
and "Right" and using them will help you to understand much
more clearly the differences in outlook between the various
politicians, political parties, and ideologies which exist
in the world today.
You might be interested to know that in the 1920s and 1930s
that many of the European fascist regimes acquired support
from the more radical communist elements in their various
cultures. Members of the COMINTERN in Germany were
actually instructed by Stalin to support Hitler's campaigns
of violence against more moderate Social Democrat elements
in Germany. Anyone who has ever thought about the subject
realises that Fascism and Communism were closer to one
another than they ever were to conservative or socialist
parties, it's hardly an important issue that it is
difficult to understand which is "Left" and which
is "Right". The point is that they are (after organised
religion) the most evil systems of thought ever visited on
humanity and should be resisted to the utmost.
As for anarchy, it's never been tried and never will be
because it is self contradictory. For what it is worth,
any system of thought that might be described
as "anarchist" is nihilist and nihilism is as far away from
your political spectrum "Left" and "Right" as it is
possible to be.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Jonny
$z4.6...@nntp2.onemain.com>, "thx1666" <thx...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Capitalism started before governments did. Way way
> back when people would
> take their wares to the farmer down the road, because
> the chap noticed how
> good your pottery was. That was a GENTEEL system, and
> it is the essence of
> lassaize faire capitalism! All that came AFTER
> capitalism, and lead to the
> development of kings, serfdoms, etc.
Try "Leviathan" by Thomas Hobbes or "The Social Contract"
by Jean Jacques Rousseau. If they don't help then you
could always try "The Politics" by Aristotle. Failing
that, any basic anthropolgy text should do the trick. You
will do well to purge yourself of this nonsensical view of
human history as soon as you can.
Jorge Landivar
Buddy wrote:
>
> Rosell is correct.
> Take a few Political Science courses and you find that Hitler was an
> extreme Right Winger. When he came into power he outlawed the Communist Party
> in Germany. The KKK is also extreme right. They both don't tolerate catholics,
> jews, blacks and liberals. They both promote the aryan race.
Doesn't matter.
Right and left are just a farce.
--
echelon cycle waster v2.3
SOF DELTA FORCE CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS WHITEWATER POM PARK ON
METER ARKANSIDE IRAN CONTRAS OLIVER NORTH VINCE FOSTER PROMIS
MOSSAD NASA MI5 ONI CID C4 REVOLUTION CHEROKEEHILLARY BILL CLINTON
GORE GEORGE BUSH WACKENHUT TERRORIST TASKFORCE 160 SPECIAL OPS
12TH GROUP 5TH GROUP SF EXPLOSIVE MOLOTOV COCKTAIL REVOLUTION NRA
GOA HEMP UFO AURORA NRO FCC FTC FAA HIJACK BILLION TRILLION ENCRYPT
OPEN SOURCE CAPITALISM LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM OSS OPERATION PAPERCLIP
HOT SPRINGS HOTEL CHINA JAPAN NORTH KOREA ATTACK SOUTH KOREA CATCHER
IN THE RYE VIETNAM ASSASSINATE CLINTON PRISON BREAK OUT CONSPIRACY LOW
SULFUR COAL LIPPO GROUP ALTERNATIVE 3 OVERTHROW MLK JR. JFK SARIN
TABUN VX GB DM PHYSICS PACKAGE EBOLA AEROSOL FOBS SPOKE TRINE UMBRA
SAVIN GAMMA SF RESISTER MJ12
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.1 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
qANQR1DDDQQDAwK3PfMtQMnqkWDJHjm9z3uOqda5CLcj5KhztpjBa4Z4ZEIkJloe
7RB0mw==
=oNEV
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
rose...@idt.net
>I'm unconcerned with the founders. Why do you think their opnions are
>controlling?
I don't, conservatives do.
>Society is only a collective IF there is no private property.
>We have (to a great extent) private property, so no collective.
Public policy takes into consideration "collective" society.
>> Libertariansim is pure bullshit. It survives laugh tests because it's
>> generally spoken of in a well knit, collective society.... a method for
>> whiners, carpers, and neer-do-wells to vent self serving frustration.
>
>Not much of an argument, and I think an inaccurate characterization.
The thought of any individual operating in a virtual unrestrained society
is ludicrious. We HAD lassiez Faire personal and economic freedom a
generation or two ago. Haven't you read what the conditions were?
>Actually the "system" would be turned upside down. Worthless bureaucrats
>would have to get a real job,
And what would the Gates's of this world do? The Scaifes? Virtually
anyone who amasses power and wealth? Sit back and allow the rest of the
rats to thrive?
>companies that use the government would fail,
>and the productive, the creative, and the industrious would create an even
>more productive and efficient economy. All people who earn an honest living
>would be better off. I earn an honest living, and I would be better off.
You'd "earn" what the most powerful TOLD you, you could earn or allow you
to. Hasn't it dawned on you that the same forces that made communism
unworkable also make loonytarianism unworkable?
Marx/Engels set up ideal paradigms that expected things to operate a
certain way. They never took into account the change in society, the
possibility of human nature changing, and accepted false models to predict
what the outcome would be
I have no idea what kind of BS you've been listening to, but one thing is
clear. Only within a working, structured society can one even contemplate
that kind of silly belief.
>So you believe individualism is not a problem. That's good. Where exactly
>do we disagree?
It's the misguided belief that "individualism" is a substitute for
collective will
> Respect for property
>means no (or very low) taxation and the rights that go with property will
>not be infringed. I don't understand your response. "Tough"?
What DO you think "taxes" go for?
Is it some nebulous government act that is merely set into motion to
"bother" you?
Where do you propose that roads, bridges, schools, infrastructure come
from?
>Ar you saying the status quo is it's own justification? Why discuss
>anything, it must be settled already. Good thinking.
"status quo"??
There is nothing "settled". The "needs" of the last generation have been
overtaken by another set of needs that have to be addressed. NOT wanting
to address them is reactionary. Conservatives want neither change, nor
addressing the changing needs. The difference between reactionary and
conservative is the degree to which they'll fight.
You can't possible accept that the regulatory demands of today in ANY way
could be addressed according to 1950's society, can you? The mere addition
of 50 or 60 millions more demand more. "status quo" defense would be any
attempt to address the issues of today with those which were barely
adequate a half century ago.
MK
>>Society is only a collective IF there is no private property.
>>We have (to a great extent) private property, so no collective.
>Public policy takes into consideration "collective" society.
Spoken like a true ignorant. What is this statement? Positive?
Normative? If positive, where's the evidence? If normative,
from what premises this conclusion is drawn?
>>> Libertariansim is pure bullshit. It survives laugh tests because it's
>>> generally spoken of in a well knit, collective society.... a method for
>>> whiners, carpers, and neer-do-wells to vent self serving frustration.
>>
>>Not much of an argument, and I think an inaccurate characterization.
>
>The thought of any individual operating in a virtual unrestrained society
>is ludicrious.
The proponents of centralisation of economy thought so as well.
>We HAD lassiez Faire personal and economic freedom a
>generation or two ago. Haven't you read what the conditions were?
Do you actually have any brain? Do you realize what "about 90% of workers
in agriculture losing their jobs as result of sudden increase of productivity"?
>>Actually the "system" would be turned upside down. Worthless bureaucrats
>>would have to get a real job,
>And what would the Gates's of this world do?
Same as now.
>The Scaifes? Virtually
>anyone who amasses power and wealth? Sit back and allow the rest of the
>rats to thrive?
Why not? It's physically impossible for them to control billions of people
anyway. Besides, if they wanted power, they'd become politicians, not
businessmen.
>>companies that use the government would fail,
>>and the productive, the creative, and the industrious would create an even
>>more productive and efficient economy. All people who earn an honest living
>>would be better off. I earn an honest living, and I would be better off.
>You'd "earn" what the most powerful TOLD you, you could earn or allow you
>to.
Because? How would they make me to do it, if they did not have the power
of state to force me into it?
As Rand noted, those who do not distinguish power of a dollar from
power of a whip, eventually will learn the difference on their own
backs. Since you hate power of a dollar, you effectively _ask for_
learning power of a whip. So the world will probably grant it to you.
>Hasn't it dawned on you that the same forces that made communism
>unworkable also make loonytarianism unworkable?
Hasn't it dawned on you that libertarianism is precise opposite of communism?
>Marx/Engels set up ideal paradigms that expected things to operate a
>certain way.
You're clueless even wrt marxism.
>They never took into account the change in society, the
>possibility of human nature changing, and accepted false models to predict
>what the outcome would be
That's nonsense. You're ignorant. Marx claimed that "human nature"
is exclusively a product of economic relations. You write strawman
argument in typical mode of ignorant "oh but you did not take possibility
of human nature changing in society blah blah blah". On the contrary:
Marx claimed that if you change econ relations, you'll change human
nature. Looks like it doesn't work that way after all, but at this point
it should be clear that you have no clue either wrt marxism nor libertarianism.
EOT
---
MK
Socialism is another name for self-destruction.
steve
> >I'm unconcerned with the founders. Why do you think their opnions are
> >controlling?
>
> I don't, conservatives do.
That's not me, either. So lets leave the founders out of it.
> >Society is only a collective IF there is no private property.
> >We have (to a great extent) private property, so no collective.
>
> Public policy takes into consideration "collective" society.
Why don't you stick to your own beleifs and stop attempting to use the
status quo as a definition of morality. Even IF public policy does consider
society a "collective" I am not an adherent of public policy. Are you? If
so, defend that position, don't state it as justification of itself.
> The thought of any individual operating in a virtual unrestrained society
> is ludicrious. We HAD lassiez Faire personal and economic freedom a
> generation or two ago. Haven't you read what the conditions were?
Libertarianism does not advocate an "unrestrained society", but rather a
society restrained by individual rights, specifically the right to the self
and property. What action does this allow to which you would object?
And we have never had a libertarian society, so I don't know to what you
refer.
> And what would the Gates's of this world do? The Scaifes? Virtually
> anyone who amasses power and wealth? Sit back and allow the rest of the
> rats to thrive?
Why not, they do that now. Many people are rich as a result of the advances
in technology from Gates. Is he bothered? I doubt it. Would you be? Not
me. That is precisely why he is so much richer.
> You'd "earn" what the most powerful TOLD you, you could earn or allow you
> to. Hasn't it dawned on you that the same forces that made communism
> unworkable also make loonytarianism unworkable?
Communism rewards the poltical animal, liberianism does the opposite.
> Marx/Engels set up ideal paradigms that expected things to operate a
> certain way. They never took into account the change in society, the
> possibility of human nature changing, and accepted false models to predict
> what the outcome would be
Unlike those jerks I do not assume people are or will become noble and self
sacrificing, just self serving and restrained by property rights. That is
sufficient for a great society, and does not require any change in human
nature or violation of economics.
> I have no idea what kind of BS you've been listening to, but one thing is
> clear. Only within a working, structured society can one even contemplate
> that kind of silly belief.
Actaully we agree, the problem is the definition of "structured society".
Mine is a minimal working structure with maximum results.
steve
remmy
Yes, I know you want to make everyone live as if they were the
only person on earth. Go live in the woods, and hide, and no-
one would impose anything on you, and you wouldn't impose your
beliefs on the rest of us. You want the benefits of living in a
society and none of the responsibilities. No one is stoping you
from persuing your life all by yourself in the woods, why don't
you go their. You will have complete freedom.
Can freedom (in your definition) come only in leisure?
As long as we are dependent on money, no-one has a right not to
work.
And I disagree with your contention about low wage workers
unable to earn a living. Perhaps it is true that they couldn't
earn a comfortable living, or one that Amaricans call
comfortable. It is simple economics that a more efficient
economy makes all people better off given the same amount of
work effort.
It is not, their are people, who do no work that have alot of
money. They inherited and invested in the stock market.
300 years ago, the same low wage workers would barely feed
themselves working in the fields 10 hours a day. With greater
economic efficiency and trade, they can be more productive, and
therefor more wealthy.
This greater economic efficiency happened because of social
safety nets, and a minimum wage.
I have done some calculations assuming a very modest wage of
$5/hour working just 40 hours per week. A 30 day month has about
4.25 weeks making the monthly wage $850.
If two people earn this amount and share a modest apartment (in
many areas a 2 bedroom can be had for 800/month, other areas
even less), assuming a small amount of taxes, they would each
still have about $100/week for food, clothes, and miscelaneous.
Ooh, what about a reliable car, and medical expences! Your in
La, La land.
You can't do this in New York City, but in plenty of other
places it is realistic.
No it is not!
And if the person works overtime, he can afford even more.
Work Work Work just to pay the bills. Yes, this is really
attractive.
This is clearly not luxery and you probably shouldn't try to
have a family on this kind of pay, but it is not poverty in any
reasonable sense of the word.
It most certainly is, because people still need transportation,
and they still need to pay the bills.
And, of course, there are plenty of even less attractive
arrangments that would cost even less (sharing a 1 bedroom, or
more people in a small house, for instance).
I always knew Libertarian were closet Solviet Union fans.
And if the government would get out of distorting the economy,
virtually everything would become less expensive.
The government doesn't distort the economy, it supports it. It
was the system we have that created the strong economy. Beck
when everything was private, people were working 10 hrs a day in
the fields to get by.
Finally, If I have enough money to bribe people sell to you, or
pay you a decent wage, and thus you and your family die.
Something that could definately happen in a Libertarian society.
How is this not coersive? By your standard, I shouldn't be
convicted of anything because, I did no violence.
Well, you would have to have a lot of money, because this is a
big country, and even a bigger world, not to mention the fact
that some people can't be bought on such terms. And there are
many religions and charities that would help someone in such
circumstance, so this is not a realistic dilemma.
They wouldn't help you because I own all the land you must
travel over to see them, and all the phone lines, you must use
to communicate with them, so you will just die period.
You are stretching pretty far to find real fault with freedom.
That should tell you something.
You are stretching pretty far to call the mafia freedom.
steve
--
"It ain't me, man, it's the system." Charles Manson
Reply to this message
In article <8g0uit$7d7$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "steve"
<st...@steve.com> wrote:
>
>On 17-May-2000, Jenn <moon...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> 1)Economic contracts and property rights are not non-
violent. Property
>> rights can only be enforced through the threat of violence.
>
>But not with the INITIATION of violence. If someone tries to
kill me, you
>would not dispute (I hope) my absolute right to defend myself.
If someone
>attempts to do violence to my property (theft or destruction),
I have the
>right to respond with violence. That does not make property
any more of a
>coercive relationship than the simple protection of the self.
Yep, that is how we rationalized stealing this country from the
indian.
Yes, no one has a choice not to work, even in your society. You
don't really believe in absolute freedom, or people would have a
right not to work, without fear of starvation.
>
>And I disagree with your contention about low wage workers
unable to earn a
>living. Perhaps it is true that they couldn't earn a
comfortable living, or
>one that Amaricans call comfortable. It is simple economics
that a more
>efficient economy makes all people better off given the same
amount of work
>effort.
Then why are their so many wealthy people who don't work at all.
300 years ago, the same low wage workers would barely feed
>themselves working in the fields 10 hours a day. With greater
economic
>efficiency and trade, they can be more productive, and therefor
more
>wealthy.
No they didn't become more wealthy, until we started protecting
union rights, creating minimum wage laws, and creating social
safety nets. When relied on the free market, people wore eeking
out a living in the field 10 hours a day.
>
>I have done some calculations assuming a very modest wage of
$5/hour working
>just 40 hours per week. A 30 day month has about 4.25 weeks
making the
>monthly wage $850.
>If two people earn this amount and share a modest apartment (in
many areas a
>2 bedroom can be had for 800/month, other areas even less),
assuming a small
>amount of taxes, they would each still have about $100/week for
food,
>clothes, and miscelaneous.
People get sick, and they need to have a car to go to their
dumpy job. Cars breakdown. You are in La La land.
You can't do this in New York City, but in
>plenty of other places it is realistic. And if the person
works overtime,
>he can afford even more. This is clearly not luxery and you
probably
>shouldn't try to have a family on this kind of pay, but it is
not poverty in
>any reasonable sense of the word.
Yes it is, for the reasons I have stated.
And, of course, there are plenty of even
>less attractive arrangments that would cost even less (sharing
a 1 bedroom,
>or more people in a small house, for instance).
Sounds like the Solviet Union to me. Of coarse Libertarian
dogmatists, have more in common with them than Liberals. They
dogmatically support private tyrannies.
>
>And if the government would get out of distorting the economy,
virtually
>everything would become less expensive.
Before the government started distorting the economy, this
country sucked.
>
>
>> Finally, If I have enough money to bribe people sell to you,
or pay you
>> a decent wage, and thus you and your family die. Something
that could
>> definately happen in a Libertarian society. How is this not
coersive?
>> By your standard, I shouldn't be convicted of anything
because, I did
>> no violence.
>
>Well, you would have to have a lot of money, because this is a
big country,
>and even a bigger world, not to mention the fact that some
people can't be
>bought on such terms. And there are many religions and
charities that would
>help someone in such circumstance,
The only reason religious charities can help such people today,
is because welfare relieves the workload. They were terrible
failures before welfare.
so this is not a realistic dilemma.
It is a terribly realistic dilemma, because charity hasn't
doesn't work for the 3/4 of the poor in this world.
You
>are stretching pretty far to find real fault with freedom.
That should tell
>you something.
Your stretching pretty far trying to claim the mafia is freedom.
>
>steve
>
>
>
>
>--
>"It ain't me, man, it's the system." Charles Manson
>
>
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
steve
response is difficult to follow.
On 19-May-2000, remmy <dosbrowse...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
steve:
>> It is our nature that we must work or die. If you were the only
>> person on earth you would have to gather food, keep warm,
>> protect yourself from animals, etc. Would you then be unfree?
>>
remmy:
> Yes, I know you want to make everyone live as if they were the
> only person on earth. Go live in the woods, and hide, and no-
> one would impose anything on you, and you wouldn't impose your
> beliefs on the rest of us. You want the benefits of living in a
> society and none of the responsibilities. No one is stoping you
> from persuing your life all by yourself in the woods, why don't
> you go their. You will have complete freedom.
Do you understand the concept of a hypothetical statement? I am trying to
get some logic out of you. No luck, apparently.
steve:
>> Can freedom (in your definition) come only in leisure?
remmy:
> As long as we are dependent on money, no-one has a right not to
> work.
As long as we are human we must survive off the work of SOMEONE. My
question is, does that make freedom impossible for anyone who must work for
his own survival? That is what is suggested here.
steve:
>> And I disagree with your contention about low wage workers
>> unable to earn a living. Perhaps it is true that they couldn't
>> earn a comfortable living, or one that Amaricans call
>> comfortable. It is simple economics that a more efficient
>> economy makes all people better off given the same amount of
>> work effort.
>
remmy:
> It is not, their are people, who do no work that have alot of
> money. They inherited and invested in the stock market.
Not responsive.
steve:
>>300 years ago, the same low wage workers would barely feed
>>themselves working in the fields 10 hours a day. With greater
>>economic efficiency and trade, they can be more productive, and
>>therefor more wealthy.
remmy:
> This greater economic efficiency happened because of social
> safety nets, and a minimum wage.
Study economics and get back to me. Safety nets do nothing to make markets
efficient, they are unrelated to market processes. And minimum wage is a
price control, which always distort supply and demand relationships.
steve:
>>I have done some calculations assuming a very modest wage of
>>$5/hour working just 40 hours per week. A 30 day month has about
>>4.25 weeks making the monthly wage $850.
>>If two people earn this amount and share a modest apartment (in
>>many areas a 2 bedroom can be had for 800/month, other areas
>>even less), assuming a small amount of taxes, they would each
>>still have about $100/week for food, clothes, and miscelaneous.
remmy:
> Ooh, what about a reliable car, and medical expences! Your in
> La, La land.
A car is a luxery in most countries, and lack of a car is far from poverty
in any reasonable sense. Medical expenses have been inflated by government
mandates and a bad tort system.
steve:
>> And if the person works overtime, he can afford even more.
>
remmy:
> Work Work Work just to pay the bills. Yes, this is really
> attractive.
Reality is not attractive? Not my fault.
steve:
>> And, of course, there are plenty of even less attractive
>> arrangments that would cost even less (sharing a 1 bedroom, or
>> more people in a small house, for instance).
>
remmy:
> I always knew Libertarian were closet Solviet Union fans.
Huh? Man, you are twisted.
People should live within their means. That's communism? No, again, that's
reality.
I'm not wasting any more time on you.
b1s
Jenn wrote in message <8fsg6t$61g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <8fsbij$sfd$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> st...@steve.com wrote:
>>
>> On 15-May-2000, "b1s" <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The academic Left claims that 'fascism' is a Right phenomenon, and
>> > 'anarchism' is a Left phenomenon. Let's examine this, shall we? Now
>to the
>> > revelationary bit, the bit that will really upset the pointy-headed
>> > Left-wing academics.
>>
>> I find it facinating and infuriating that people can call themselves
>both
>> anarchists and leftists. Anarchism is the absence of government, and
>in
>> that absense people could act as capitalists (free actors in a free
>economy)
>> or voluntary socialists (such as collective farms and communes), but
>no one
>> could be coerced into involuntary socialism. How is it that so many
>here
>> make claims like "only socialism is true anarchism" and stuff like
>that?
>> True anarchism restrains no one to any coercive relationship, and a
>free
>> market is not composed of coercive relationships.
>
>How is the free market not coersive, when owners can and do band
>together to set prices, meanwhile Unions can't set wages without being
>fired.
Collusion is illegal, and if it were not, the practice would still
eventually stimulate more competition.
Unions can do whatever they want.
>
>Anarchism can accomodate
>> many different voluntary behaviors.
>>
>> > My sub-standard dictionary defines 'Anarchism' as: "A doctrine
>> > advocating the abolition of government or governmental restraint
>> > (regulation) as the indispensible condition for full social and
>political
>> > freedom." 'Fascism' is defined as: "A totalitarian government led
>by a
>> > dictator and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often
>> > (xenophobia)."
>> > 'Totalitarianism' means 'absolute control by a state or a governing
>branch
>> > of a highly centralized institution'. Is there other than one
>conclusion
>> > that can be reached regarding the political orientation of fascists
>and
>> > totalitarians?
>> > Now, tell me which of the above definitions fit what modern
>groups
>> > about whom we are frequently hearing in society today: A) 'right-
>wing
>> > anti-government protesters', and B) 'big government tax-and-spend
>> > liberals'?
>>
>> Yes. Ask a group of people to categorize Adolf Hitler and the Nazi
>Party
>> (AKA "Natl Socialist German Workers Party"). Many will categorize
>him as
>> far right, yet the NAZI platform reads like a modern leftist wish
>list.
>> Govt housing, guaranteed jobs,.etc. etc.
>
>He cut welfare, government housing, and the Jobs weren't free! This is
>just not true!
>>
>> Thanks, b1s, for a good post and a good point.
>>
>> steve
>>
>> --
>> "It ain't me, man, it's the system." Charles Manson
>>
>
>--
>Jenn
>
>The most potent weapon of the
>oppressor is the mind of the
>oppressed.
>
>Steven Biko
>
>
>
>
rose...@idt.net
>rOn Fri, 19 May 2000 01:15:35 GMT, rose...@idt.net wrote:
>>Public policy takes into consideration "collective" society.
>Spoken like a true ignorant.
Then public policy is for what reason according to you?
>>We HAD lassiez Faire personal and economic freedom a
>>generation or two ago. Haven't you read what the conditions were?
>Do you actually have any brain? Do you realize what "about 90% of workers
>in agriculture losing their jobs as result of sudden increase of productivity"?
They are losing jobs because they cannot compete against a concentration of
wealth and technology that corporate farmers have at their disposal.
>>And what would the Gates's of this world do?
>
>Same as now.
No, MORE of it.
>Why not? It's physically impossible for them to control billions of people
>anyway.
It IS possible to "control" masses by influencing what they read, hear and
form opinions from.
>Because? How would they make me to do it, if they did not have the power
>of state to force me into it?
Never fails to amaze me
Why isn't the loonytarian view of things considered more than a laughable
excercise in stupidity?
If looonytarianism is "so good", why can't you point to any existing,
credible examples of where, or when it worked, or is working?
>That's nonsense. You're ignorant. Marx claimed that "human nature"
>is exclusively a product of economic relations.
That's true. And thats why the "system" failed. Human nature, changing
society, the ability of democracies to counteract, or encourage interation
in the marketplace and society all were clear influences.
But loonytarianism is nothing more that a version of social darwinism. In
fact loonytarianism isn't even an interesting discussion topic.
rose...@idt.net
>Why don't you stick to your own beleifs and stop attempting to use the
>status quo as a definition of morality. Even IF public policy does consider
>society a "collective" I am not an adherent of public policy.
Yes. I believe that government is a useful tool in curtailing the wealth
and power of individuals.
>Libertarianism does not advocate an "unrestrained society", but rather a
>society restrained by individual rights, specifically the right to the self
>and property. What action does this allow to which you would object?
That the "interpretation" or "definition" of "individual rights" supercedes
that of (generally speaking) a society. The restraints on "individual
personal and property rights" is geared towards those actions which become
offensive and inimical to others rights. IE, racist restrictions,
>And we have never had a libertarian society, so I don't know to what you
>refer.
The absence of government into personal, private, economic life of
americans was virtually the "law" a generation or two ago. No restraints
on wealth (barely), personal freedom to do just about anything. No
workplace standards, age limits for working, everyone fending for
themselves. Along with that, property and individual "rights".
The reason we HAVE the restraints is because PEOPLE, through their elected
representatives recognized why it was bad and changed it.
>Why not, they do that now. Many people are rich as a result of the advances
>in technology from Gates. Is he bothered? I doubt it. Would you be? Not
>me. That is precisely why he is so much richer.
Gates has every right to amass a fortune. But within "rules". Scaife has
broken no law, but the LAWS are there to KEEP him from breaking them.
Adolph Coors utilized his economic and personal wealth to literally create
an racist, homophobic, nazilike empire complete with spies and thought
police before he finally got opposed. Imagine a world with ALL businesses
run like his.
>Communism rewards the poltical animal, liberianism does the opposite.
I give a shit about "communism". But it is the BEST example of a
sillyassed notion taken serioulsy...........like libertarianism would be if
it were ever seriously considered
trolling for whackos
>Your political spectrum is defined by racism, and all the bigots are on the
>right wing?
>Thus, the Democratic party is right wing. It is the party of race based
>political policies, divisive politics by race, racist grouping used
instead
>of demographics for government set aside preferences, the little race boxes
>on government forms, census gathering of racial statistics.
>Democrats have designated only one racial group to discriminate against:
>white, and only the males. White males are for this reason, also known as
>"the new jews".
>It worked for Hitler!
>Chip
.......On the other hand, a head-in-the-sand approach seems to work just
fine for you. You seem to want to pretend that conquest of African
peoples, their enslavement and the ensuing and protracted racism practiced
against them, never happened in America. This make about as much sense as
pretending that if you ignore a mugger waving a knife at you, he will get
frustrated and go away.
Your intellectually dishonest pre-occupation with semantics of political
"left and "right" dodges the real issue that people have been hurt by racism
and that racism continues to exist in America today. Additionally, to
accuse those who would go so far as to address the issue at all and to
accuse them as being the ones most guilty of racism, also smacks of
intellectual dishonesty.
The fact is, everyone is racist and prejudiced to some degree or another, at
some time or another. Facing up to that fact is the first step in its
remedy. Racism is an unhappy part of the human condition and is not going
to go away anytime soon, so deal with it. (...or refuse to, in your case.)
NM
http://www.nurwibsco.com/spectrum.htm
NM
Perhaps you should figure out what "strawman" means while you're at it
;)
http://www.nurwibsco.com/spectrum.htm
rose...@idt.net wrote:
>
> b1s" <cocl...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > The academic Left claims that 'fascism' is a Right phenomenon, and
> >'anarchism' is a Left phenomenon.
>
> Don't stand to close to your strawman
>
> He's liable to burn
>
> You haven't shown a scintilla of facts or evidence that the premise is
> correct
>
> WHO makes that claim?
>
> Where can I find the article, fact, data, or authority that claims that?
b1s
That's like fighting murder by killing all of it's potential victims.
Chip
b1s
Don't open it!
Freeware antivirus available at link below.
Chip
b1s
b1s
Don't open it!
Chip
b1s wrote in message <9GiV4.6824$bt1....@typhoon1.san.rr.com>...