Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"Real socialism is, by definition, democratic. It is economic as well as political democracy."
5 views
Skip to first unread message
BeamMeUpScotty
Dec 11, 2012, 3:58:46 PM12/11/12
to
["....Real socialism is, by definition, democratic. It is economic as
well as political democracy...."]
http://www.redletterpress.org/socialism101.html
SO that conflicts with;
["...Section. 4.
The *Federal Government* *shall guarantee* to every State in this Union
a *Republican* *Form of Government* , and shall protect each of them
against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the
Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic
Violence...."]
We don't have a democracy we have a republic and it is written into the
constitution.
--
*Rumination*
“After the Soviet collapse, Marxism is a relic, a pathetic anachronism
reduced to its last redoubts: North Korea, Cuba, and the English
departments of the more expensive American universities.”
-Charles Krauthammer-
Peter Franks
Dec 11, 2012, 6:58:03 PM12/11/12
to
On 12/11/2012 12:58 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
> ["....Real socialism is, by definition, democratic. It is economic as
> well as political democracy...."]
> http://www.redletterpress.org/socialism101.html
And "democratic" is, by definition, mob rule.
>
> ["....Real socialism is, by definition, democratic. It is economic as
> well as political democracy...."]
> http://www.redletterpress.org/socialism101.html
Charles Bell
Dec 12, 2012, 5:34:18 AM12/12/12
to
On Dec 11, 3:58 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
concept (originated by Pierre Leroux) is one side of a dichotomy with
"individualism" such that "society" is an organic whole into which
individuals fit, and individualism defines "society" as an amorphous
but organizable collection of individuals.
Socialist: "We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions."
& "If you've got a business, you didn't build that." - Potatohead
Obama
Individualist: "There is no such thing as 'society'. There are
individual men and women and their families." - Margaret Thatcher
Defining socialism as essentially only as Marx would define it, as an
economic system in which property and the means of production are
owned by society, obscures the fact that there is more than one form
of socialist economic sysyem, as in Mussolini's and Hitler's
corporatist fascism and today's China state capitalism, and socialism
need not refer to any economic system at all.
<ThenDestroyEveryth...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
> ["....Real socialism is, by definition, democratic. It is economic as
> well as political democracy...."]http://www.redletterpress.org/socialism101.html
>
It does not define "socialism" correctly. Socialism as a philosophical
> ["....Real socialism is, by definition, democratic. It is economic as
> well as political democracy...."]http://www.redletterpress.org/socialism101.html
>
concept (originated by Pierre Leroux) is one side of a dichotomy with
"individualism" such that "society" is an organic whole into which
individuals fit, and individualism defines "society" as an amorphous
but organizable collection of individuals.
Socialist: "We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions."
& "If you've got a business, you didn't build that." - Potatohead
Obama
Individualist: "There is no such thing as 'society'. There are
individual men and women and their families." - Margaret Thatcher
Defining socialism as essentially only as Marx would define it, as an
economic system in which property and the means of production are
owned by society, obscures the fact that there is more than one form
of socialist economic sysyem, as in Mussolini's and Hitler's
corporatist fascism and today's China state capitalism, and socialism
need not refer to any economic system at all.
Peter Franks
Dec 12, 2012, 11:50:58 AM12/12/12
to
of the type: compulsion.
Socialism is /forced/ on the people, and participation is mandatory.
Capitalism, with all of its failures and exploitations, remains free.
Participation is optional.
Topaz
Dec 12, 2012, 7:27:36 PM12/12/12
to
The term "Corporatism" derives from Catholic doctrine and has nothing
to do with corporations or capitalism.
Corporatism was derived as a substitute for Marxism, a third way, so
to speak. Corporatists are hardly pro-big-business and anti-labor.
Chas
Of course Mussolini did not mean that corporations as in the USA
should have more power or profits.
"Corporativism wants each individual to see his or her own specific
place in the organic order as a whole. Only through this view can we
at last lay the clashes between classes aside and start working for
common goals again"
Benito Mussolini
Mussolini was against capitalism.
"He had a profound contempt for those whose overriding ambition was to
be rich. It was a mania, he thought, a kind of disease, and he
comforted himself with the reflection that the rich were rarely happy"
Here Hibbert (1962, p. 47) is describing a lifelong attitude of
Mussolini that continued right into his time as Italy's Prime Minister
- when he refused to take his official salary.
"There was much truth in the comment of a Rome newspaper that the new
fasci did not aim at the defence of the ruling class or the existing
State but wanted to lead the revolutionary forces into the Nationalist
camp so as to prevent a victory of Bolshevism.
even after coming to power, to take drives in the country with his
wife and stop at various farmhouses on the way for a chat with the
family there. He would enjoy discussing the crops, the weather and all
the usual rural topics and obviously just liked the feeling of being
one of the people. His claim to represent the people was not just
theory but heartfelt. And he never gave up his "anti-bourgeois"
rhetoric.
His policies were basically protectionist. He controlled the
exchange-rate of the Italian currency and promoted that old favourite
of the economically illiterate - autarky - meaning that he tried to
get Italy to become wholly self-sufficient rather than rely on foreign
trade. He wanted to protect Italian products from competing foreign
products.
By 1939 he had doubled Italy's grain
production from its traditional level, enabling Italy to cut wheat
imports by 75% (Smith, 1967, p. 92).
He made Capri a bird sanctuary (Smith, 1967, p. 84) and
in 1926 he issued a decree reducing the size of newspapers to save
wood pulp. And, believe it or not, he even mandated gasohol - i.e.
mixing industrial alcohol with petroleum products to make fuel for
cars (Smith, 1967, p. 87).
Mussolini also disliked the population drift from rural areas into
the big cities and in 1930 passed a law to put a stop to it unless
official permission was granted he advocated private enterprise within
a strict set of State controls designed, among other things, to
prevent abuse of monopoly power (Gregor, 1979, Ch. 5).
...a big expansion of public works and a great improvement in social
insurance measures. He also set up the "Dopolavoro" (after work)
organization to give workers cheap recreations of various kinds (cf.
the Nazi Kraft durch Freude movement). His public health measures
(such as the attack on tuberculosis and the setting up of a huge
maternal and child welfare organization) were particularly notable for
their rationality and efficiency and, as such, were rewarded with
great success. For instance, the incidence of tuberculosis dropped
dramatically and infant mortality declined by more than 20% (Gregor,
p. 259).
"instituted a programme of public works hitherto unrivalled in modern
Europe. Bridges, canals and roads were built, hospitals and schools,
railway stations and orphanages, swamps were drained and land
reclaimed, forest were planted and universities were endowed."
In 1929 Mussolini and Pope Pius
12th signed the Lateran treaty - which is still the legal basis for
the existence of the Vatican State to this day - and Pius in fact at
one stage called Mussolini "the man sent by Providence". The treaty
recognized Roman Catholicism as the Italian State religion as well as
recognizing the Vatican as a sovereign state. What Mussolini got in
exchange was acceptance by the church - something that was enormously
important in the Italy of that time.
the great hatred that existed in prewar
Germany between the Nazis and the "Reds". And the early Fascists
battled the "Reds" too, of course.
The 1919 election manifesto, for instance, contained policies of
worker control of industry, confiscation of war profits, abolition of
the Stock exchange, land for the peasants and abolition of the
Monarchy and nobility. Further, Mussolini never ceased to inveigh
against "plutocrats".
He wanted a harmonious and united Italy for all Italians of all
classes and was sure that achieving just treatment for the workers
needed neither revolution nor any kind of artificially enforced
equality.
This made Italian Fascism a much more popular creed than Stalin's
Communism. This is perhaps most clearly seen by the always persuasive
"voting with your feet" criterion. Mussolini made no effort to prevent
Italians from emigrating and although some anti-Fascists did, net
emigration actually FELL under Mussolini. Compare this with Stalin and
the Berlin wall.
Mussolini gained power through political rather than revolutionary
means. His famous march on Rome was only superficially revolutionary.
The King of Italy and the army approved of him because of his
pragmatic policies so did not oppose the march. So this collusion
ensured that Mussolini's "revolution" was essentially bloodless.
His considerable popularity for many years among a wide range of
Italians shows how effective his recipe for achieving that was.
In his "corporate state", Mussolini was the first to create ...a
system of capitalism under tight government control. And his corporate
state was one where the workers had (at least in theory) equal rights
with management.
REFERENCES Amis, M. (2002) Koba the Dread : laughter and the twenty
million.
N.Y.: Talk Miramax
Carsten, F.L. (1967) The rise of Fascism. London: Methuen. Funk &
Wagnall's New Encyclopedia (1983) Funk & Wagnall's Galbraith, J.K.
(1969) The affluent society. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gilmour, I.H.J.L. (1978) Inside right. London: Quartet.
Greene, N. (1968) Fascism: An anthology. N.Y.: Crowell. Gregor, A.J.
(1979) Italian Fascism and developmental dictatorship Princeton, N.J.:
Univ. Press.
Hagan, J. (1966) Modern History and its themes. Croydon, Victoria,
Australia: Longmans.
Hibbert, C. (1962) Benito Mussolini Geneva: Heron Books. Herzer, I.
(1989)
The Italian refuge: Rescue of Jews during the holocaust. Washington,
D.C.:
Catholic University of America Press
Horowitz, D. (1998) Up from multiculturalism. Heterodoxy, January.
See: http://www.cspc.org/het/multicul.htm Lenin, V.I. (1952)
"Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder. In:
Selected Works, Vol. II, Part 2. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing
House.
Martino, A. (1998) The modern mask of socialism. 15th John Bonython
lecture,
Centre for Independent Studies, Sydney. See
http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL98.htm
Muravchik, J. (2002) Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism
San Francisco: Encounter Books.
Smith, D.M. (1967) The theory and practice of Fascism. In: Greene, N.
Fascism: An anthology N.Y.: Crowell.
Steinberg, J. (1990) All or nothing: The Axis and the holocaust
London:
Routledge.
http://www.ihr.org/ http://heretical.com/
http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
Charles Bell
Dec 13, 2012, 5:55:19 AM12/13/12
to
by direct or indirect means, to do as he otherwise would not do. The
only debate in a free nation is on the necessity of various ways and
laws to use force to RESTRICT -- to not do as one otherwise would do
-- and never about coercion.
> Capitalism, with all of its failures and exploitations, remains free.
> Participation is optional
fraud. Solyndra, Obamacare, and the Chevy Volt are "capitalism" with
both force and fraud. How I wanted Romney, or a single GOP candidate
standing for any office, to have explained that. Or to have even
mentioned it obliquely.
Charles Bell
Dec 13, 2012, 6:24:30 AM12/13/12
to
On Dec 12, 7:27 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The term "Corporatism" derives from Catholic doctrine and has nothing
> to do with corporations or capitalism.
>
The actual word choice for exactly the same concept is immaterial.
> The term "Corporatism" derives from Catholic doctrine and has nothing
> to do with corporations or capitalism.
>
Hitler was known to have admired Mussolini who rose to power a decade
before Hitler and had an economic model to display and copy.
"National Socialism of the German Worker's Party" contained elements
that had nothing to do with (Giovanni) Gentile-Mussolini's Corporatism
but its economics was identical.
> Corporatism was derived as a substitute for Marxism, a third way, so
> to speak. Corporatists are hardly pro-big-business and anti-labor.
below) leading, not to anarchy, as communists seek [*], but to a
permanent state of socialism: Rejection of individualism, acceptance
of collectivism, with the state as the ultimate location of authority.
[*] Mussolini had been an anarcho-syndicalist, and whatever his
method, he believe his economics were inherently worker-friendly. It
is difficult to tell if Hitler ever gave a damn about Workers.
> Of course Mussolini did not mean that corporations as in the USA
> should have more power or profits.
>
mean -- but always did mean in practice -- that fascist corporations
were built from existing corporations by legislatively and
administratively eliminating competition. That is why Google and GE,
etc. are vying for Obamafascist preference.
> "Corporativism wants each individual to see his or her own specific
> place in the organic order as a whole. Only through this view can we
> at last lay the clashes between classes aside and start working for
> common goals again"
> Benito Mussolini
>
> Mussolini was against capitalism.
>
Khomeini were not? And Obama, where is he on that subject?
Topaz
Dec 13, 2012, 10:15:08 PM12/13/12
to
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:55:19 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
<cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>Yes, COERCION, which, also properly defined, is forcing an individual,
>by direct or indirect means, to do as he otherwise would not do. The
>only debate in a free nation is on the necessity of various ways and
>laws to use force to RESTRICT -- to not do as one otherwise would do
>-- and never about coercion.
What if a libertarian didn't mind driving on dirt roads and didn't
<cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>Yes, COERCION, which, also properly defined, is forcing an individual,
>by direct or indirect means, to do as he otherwise would not do. The
>only debate in a free nation is on the necessity of various ways and
>laws to use force to RESTRICT -- to not do as one otherwise would do
>-- and never about coercion.
want to pay taxes to have the roads paved. Would you COERCE him, or
reduce his taxes?
Topaz
Dec 13, 2012, 10:24:13 PM12/13/12
to
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 03:24:30 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
<cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>The actual word choice for exactly the same concept is immaterial.
>Hitler was known to have admired Mussolini who rose to power a decade
>before Hitler and had an economic model to display and copy.
>"National Socialism of the German Worker's Party" contained elements
>that had nothing to do with (Giovanni) Gentile-Mussolini's Corporatism
>but its economics was identical.
>
<cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>The actual word choice for exactly the same concept is immaterial.
>Hitler was known to have admired Mussolini who rose to power a decade
>before Hitler and had an economic model to display and copy.
>"National Socialism of the German Worker's Party" contained elements
>that had nothing to do with (Giovanni) Gentile-Mussolini's Corporatism
>but its economics was identical.
>
>. . . as a different form of socialism (see quote from Mussolini
>below) leading, not to anarchy, as communists seek [*], but to a
>permanent state of socialism: Rejection of individualism, acceptance
>of collectivism, with the state as the ultimate location of authority.
Here is part of a speech by Rudolf Hess in East Prussia in July 1934
>below) leading, not to anarchy, as communists seek [*], but to a
>permanent state of socialism: Rejection of individualism, acceptance
>of collectivism, with the state as the ultimate location of authority.
"Our nation has the good fortune today to be led largely by front
soldiers, by front soldiers who carried the virtues of the front to
the leadership of the state.
The rebuilding of the Reich was guided by the spirit of the front. It
was the spirit of the front that created National Socialism.
In the face of looming death at the front, ideas of social standing
and class collapsed. At the front, the sharing of common joys and
common sorrows led to a previously unknown camaraderie between
citizens. At the front, everyone could see that the common fate
towered above the individual fate."
>[*] Mussolini had been an anarcho-syndicalist, and whatever his
>method, he believe his economics were inherently worker-friendly. It
>is difficult to tell if Hitler ever gave a damn about Workers.
"Who concerned himself with creating good workplaces before? Today the
"Beauty in Labor Office" sees to it that productive people work in
worthy surroundings, not in dirty workplaces. The "Kraft durch Freude"
organization provides German workers with vacations and relaxation.
They travel to the mountains and the beach, and have the chance, often
for the first time, to explore their beautiful fatherland. They travel
in their own ships to the magical southern seas and countries, or to
the splendid beauty of the north. Each German citizen today enjoys the
wonderful achievements of German theater and German music, the best
German orchestras, the best German operas, theaters and films.
Citizens listen to the radio, and play any kind of sport they wish.
There new activities result not in dissipation, distraction and
carnal pleasure, rather in genuine pleasure in physical activity,
nature and culture. He who works hard should be able to enjoy life too
so that he better appreciates his people. The specter of unemployment
no longer haunts the nation. Millions have already found work again,
and those who still have not are cared for by the entire nation. Labor
representatives see to it that the rights of workers and their honor
are not violated, and the factory manager is as responsible for his
employees and they are responsible with him for the success of the
plant in which they together work...
Everyone knows that there is only one man to thank, Adolf Hitler, the
creator of National Socialism, who put the common good above the
individual good, who replaced class struggle of "above and below" and
"right and left" with a new message of the honor of labor and of
service to the people. The National Socialist Labor Service will see
to it that this teaching that makes the German worker the bearer of
the state never vanishes. It is seeing to it that every German
citizen, whatever his occupation may be, first works with his hands
for the good of the nation."
>Yes, the meaning for "corporations" is different, and that does not
>mean -- but always did mean in practice -- that fascist corporations
>were built from existing corporations by legislatively and
>administratively eliminating competition. That is why Google and GE,
>etc. are vying for Obamafascist preference.
By James Miller, PhD
Unfortunately, Fascism has an undeserved bad reputation. Regardless of
this reputation, Fascism is a very sensible economic and social
ideology. There are a few different "flavors" of Fascism, but
basically they all come down to the following.
Fascism is an economic system in which a nation's government plays a
central role in monitoring all banking, trade, production, and labor
activity which takes place within the nation. Such monitoring is done
for the sole purpose of safeguarding & advancing the nation and its
people. Under Fascism, the government will not approve of any business
activity unless that business has a positive impact on the nation as a
whole and the people of the nation - this is the axiom which
determines everything under Fascism.
In other words, the government asks, "Is XYZ Enterprises good for our
nation and our people?" If yes, it's approved. If no, it's not
approved. When they ask, "Is it good?", they mean, "Is XYZ Enterprises
good for the workers, do they pay a fair wage, do they produce a
product or provide a service which advances our nation & our people
technologically, morally, spiritually, health-wise, etc???" For
example, a pornography company would not be allowed because
pornography corrupts people generally and exploits & degrades women
particularly. Also, "free" trade agreements (such as what the U.S. has
with China) would never be allowed because such trade agreements
result in companies sending jobs overseas (where labor is dirt cheap).
Such an activity, of course, would undermine a nation's labor class.
This is entirely unnacceptable and thus not allowed under a Fascist
economic model.
Fascism is based on free enterprise - but with constraints (the
primary constraint being, "Is the particular economic activity in
question good for our nation?"). Also, a businessman can become
wealthy in a Fascist country, and the government has no objection to
this (this is in stark contrast to Communism). Fascism also encourages
private ownership of property (again, in stark contrast to Communism
where private property is not allowed).
In a nutshell, Fascism basically tells entrepreneurs, "Go ahead and
start a business, earn a lot of money, be successful, but don't
produce any products or services which damage our nation and our
nation's people... and make sure you treat your workers fair and pay
them a living wage. If you don't do these things, we'll shut you
down."
The above is the economic aspect of Fascism. There is also a
cultural/social aspect to Fascism as well. Under Fascism, government
plays a key role in monitoring: film, theatre, art, literature, music,
education, etc in order to maintain a high moral standard, keep things
clean and respectable, promote a strong sense of patriotism and honor,
and prevent the dissemination of depraved filth which corrupts
society.
A few other things to mention. Fascism encourages respect for the
enviroment as Fascists understand that nature is the giver of life and
thus must be preserved. Contrast this environmental view with that of
Capitalism which too often takes the short term view and foolishly
believes that pollution is a necessary byproduct of profit.
Also, under Fascism, if a person doesn't like things, he/she can leave
the country. Contrast this with Communism where if you don't like
things, you better keep your mouth shut. And, of course, there is no
option to leave the country. You will submit or else be sent to a
re-education camp where you'll be brainwashed to accept the Communist
system. And if you still resist, you'll probably be killed. Again,
there is no leaving. Submit or suffer the consequences.
Lastly, Fascism holds women in very high regard. Women are the
carriers of new life. They are expected to be educated, worldly, and
well read. Women are encouraged to pursue their interests and have a
career but only if a career won't interfere with her family's needs;
family comes first, always. Women are encouraged to be strong yet
feminine.
In Germany, the NSDAP essentially followed the above described Fascist
system.
###
For SERIOUS conservative writing, please visit my website:
http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com
>> Mussolini was against capitalism.
>>
>
>And you presume/allege Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Nassar, Batista, Ayatollah
>Khomeini were not?
Jewish version. Here are some quotes from Mein Kampf:
"There were millions and millions of workmen who began by being
hostile to the Social Democratic Party; but their defences were
repeatedly stormed and finally had to surrender. Yet this defeat was
due to the stupidity of the bourgeois parties, who had opposed every
demand put forward by the working class. The short-sighted refusal to
making an effort towards improving labour conditions, the refusal to
adopt measures which would insure the workmen in case of accidents in
the factories, the refusal to forbid child labour, the refusal to
consider protective measures for female workers, especially expectant
mothers--all this was of assistance to the Social Democratic leaders,
who were thankful for every opportunity which they could exploit for
forcing the masses into their net. Our bourgeois parties can never
repair the damage that resulted from the mistake that was made. For
they sowed the seeds of hatred when they opposed all efforts at social
reform. And thus they gave, at least, apparent grounds to justify the
claim put forward by the Social Democrats--namely that they alone
stand up for the interest of the working class.
"And this became the principle ground for the moral
justification of the actual existance of the Trades Unions, so that
the labour organizations became from that time onwards the chief
political recruiting ground to swell the ranks of the Social
Democratic Party."
"the Jew seized upon the manifold possiblities which the
situation offered him for the future. While on the one hand he
organized capitalistic methods of exploitation to their ultimate
degree of efficiency, he curried favour with the victims of his policy
and his power and in a short while became the leader of their struggle
against himself. 'Against himself' is here only a figurative way of
speaking; for this 'Great Master of Lies' knows how to appear in the
guise of the innocent and throw the guilt on others. Since he had the
impudence to take a personal lead among the masses, they never for a
moment suspected that they were falling prey to one of the most
infamous deceits ever practiced. And yet that is what it actually
was."
> And Obama, where is he on that subject?
Franklin Roosevelt did some things to help people. But he didn't
really upset the money bag parasites who rule over us. Only Hitler did
that.
When Hitler came to power, Germany was hopelessly broke. The Treaty
of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations on the German people,
demanding that Germans repay every nation's cost of the (First World)
war. These costs totaled three times the value of all the property in
Germany.
Jewish currency speculators caused the German mark to plummet,
precipitating one of the worst runaway inflations in modern times. A
wheelbarrow full of 100 billion-mark banknotes could not buy a loaf of
bread. The national treasury was empty. Countless homes and farms
were lost to Jewish speculators and private banks. Germans lived in
hovels. They were starving.
Nothing like this had ever happened before - the total destruction of
the national currency, plus the wiping out of people's savings and
businesses. On top of all this came a global depression. Germany had
no choice but to succumb to debt slavery under international Jewish
bankers until 1933, when the National Socialists came to power. At
that point, the German government thwarted the international Jewish
banking cartels by issuing its own money. World Jewry responded by
declaring a global economic boycott of Germany.
Hitler began a national credit program by devising a plan of public
works that included flood control, repair of public buildings and
private residences, and construction of new roads, bridges, canals,
and port facilities. All these were paid for with money that no
longer came from the private international Jewish bankers.
The projected cost of these various programs was fixed at one billion
units of the national currency. To pay for this, the German
government issued bills of exchange, called Labor Treasury
Certificates. In this way, the National Socialists put people to
work.
Under the National Socialists, Germany's money wasn't backed by gold.
It was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the
government. Hitler said, "For every mark issued, we require the
equivalent of a mark's worth of work done, or goods produced." Workers
spent those Certificates on other people's goods and services, thus
creating more jobs for more people. In this way, the German people
climbed out of the crushing debt imposed on them by the Jew bankers.
Within two years, the unemployment problem had been solved, and
Germany was back on it's feet. It had a solid, stable currency with
no debt, and no inflation, at a time when millions of people in the US
and other Western countries were still out of work. Within five
years, Germany went from being the poorest nation in Europe to the
richest!
Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, despite the global
boycott by Jew-owned enterprises, and the denial of foreign credit by
Jew-owned banks. Germany succeeded in this by exchanging equipment
and commodities directly with other countries, using a barter system
that cut the Jew bankers out of the picture. Germany flourished, since
barter eliminates national debt and trade deficits.
Germany's economic freedom was short-lived; but it left several
monuments, including the famous Autobahn, the world's first extensive
superhighway. This economic freedom made Hitler extremely popular with
the German people. Germany was rescued from English economic theory,
which says that all currency must be borrowed against the gold owned
by a private and secretive banking cartel - such as the Federal
Reserve, or the European Central Bank - rather than issued by the
government for the benefit of the people.
In "Billions For The Bankers, Debts For The People" (1984), Shelton
Emry commented:
"Germany issued debt-free and interest-free money from 1935 on, which
accounts for Germany's startling rise from the depression to a world
power in five years. The German government financed its entire
operations from 1935 to 1945 without gold, and without debt. It took
the entire Capitalist and Communist worlds to destroy the German
revolution, and bring Europe back under the heel of the Jewish
bankers."
BeamMeUpScotty
Dec 13, 2012, 11:33:00 PM12/13/12
to
--
*Rumination*
#21 - You can't make chicken salad with chicken shit.
Peter Franks
Dec 13, 2012, 11:55:14 PM12/13/12
to
On 12/13/2012 7:15 PM, Topaz wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:55:19 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
> <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Yes, COERCION, which, also properly defined, is forcing an individual,
>> by direct or indirect means, to do as he otherwise would not do. The
>> only debate in a free nation is on the necessity of various ways and
>> laws to use force to RESTRICT -- to not do as one otherwise would do
>> -- and never about coercion.
>
> What if a libertarian didn't mind driving on dirt roads and didn't
> want to pay taxes to have the roads paved. Would you COERCE him, or
> reduce his taxes?
Then he drives on (private) dirt roads and buys tax-free fuel. Just
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:55:19 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
> <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Yes, COERCION, which, also properly defined, is forcing an individual,
>> by direct or indirect means, to do as he otherwise would not do. The
>> only debate in a free nation is on the necessity of various ways and
>> laws to use force to RESTRICT -- to not do as one otherwise would do
>> -- and never about coercion.
>
> What if a libertarian didn't mind driving on dirt roads and didn't
> want to pay taxes to have the roads paved. Would you COERCE him, or
> reduce his taxes?
like farmers do w/ their equipment.
Charles Bell
Dec 14, 2012, 5:50:31 AM12/14/12
to
On Dec 13, 10:15 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:55:19 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:55:19 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
>
> <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >Yes, COERCION, which, also properly defined, is forcing an individual,
> >by direct or indirect means, to do as he otherwise would not do. The
> >only debate in a free nation is on the necessity of various ways and
> >laws to use force to RESTRICT -- to not do as one otherwise would do
> >-- and never about coercion.
>
> What if a libertarian didn't mind driving on dirt roads and didn't
> want to pay taxes to have the roads paved. Would you COERCE him, or
> reduce his taxes?
>
I would suggest he read Montesquieu regarding taxation. If one gets
>
> >Yes, COERCION, which, also properly defined, is forcing an individual,
> >by direct or indirect means, to do as he otherwise would not do. The
> >only debate in a free nation is on the necessity of various ways and
> >laws to use force to RESTRICT -- to not do as one otherwise would do
> >-- and never about coercion.
>
> What if a libertarian didn't mind driving on dirt roads and didn't
> want to pay taxes to have the roads paved. Would you COERCE him, or
> reduce his taxes?
>
his mind right about the difference between what is coercive taxation
and a reckoning of accounts payable, which may involve a method of
voluntary taxation -- fees, schedules, licensing -- or direct
taxation through excise and property taxation which is measured in
direct proportion to what it is for which one needs government
protection, then one can at least discern the difference between a
good citizen who will pay for what he gets and a free-rider. Roads,
bridges, etc. of an infrastructure are one thing and stealing from
Paul to give to Peter is another thing. At the very least, I would
respect the Social Compact that is the U.S. Constitution -- and what
is more -- I expect every single person who has immigrated to the
U.S.A., or merely traveled through on a student visa, since 1789 and
his descendents to have equal respect for that Compact and to fully
reject the ways, customs, laws, and traditions of the old country and
not seek to realize the Dreams From His Foreign Socialist Father
through lies, force and fraud.
Charles Bell
Dec 14, 2012, 6:02:42 AM12/14/12
to
On Dec 13, 10:24 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 03:24:30 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
>
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 03:24:30 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
>
> <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >The actual word choice for exactly the same concept is immaterial.
> >Hitler was known to have admired Mussolini who rose to power a decade
> >before Hitler and had an economic model to display and copy.
> >"National Socialism of the German Worker's Party" contained elements
> >that had nothing to do with (Giovanni) Gentile-Mussolini's Corporatism
> >but its economics was identical.
>
> >. . . as a different form of socialism (see quote from Mussolini
> >below) leading, not to anarchy, as communists seek [*], but to a
> >permanent state of socialism: Rejection of individualism, acceptance
> >of collectivism, with the state as the ultimate location of authority.
>
> Here is part of a speech by Rudolf Hess in East Prussia in July 1934
>
> "Our nation has the good fortune today to be led largely by front
> soldiers, by front soldiers who carried the virtues of the front to
> the leadership of the state.
> The rebuilding of the Reich was guided by the spirit of the front. It
> was the spirit of the front that created National Socialism.
> In the face of looming death at the front, ideas of social standing
> and class collapsed. At the front, the sharing of common joys and
> common sorrows led to a previously unknown camaraderie between
> citizens. At the front, everyone could see that the common fate
> towered above the individual fate."
>
Hess, Goebbels, and Hitler, to the extent they dealt with German
> >The actual word choice for exactly the same concept is immaterial.
> >Hitler was known to have admired Mussolini who rose to power a decade
> >before Hitler and had an economic model to display and copy.
> >"National Socialism of the German Worker's Party" contained elements
> >that had nothing to do with (Giovanni) Gentile-Mussolini's Corporatism
> >but its economics was identical.
>
> >. . . as a different form of socialism (see quote from Mussolini
> >below) leading, not to anarchy, as communists seek [*], but to a
> >permanent state of socialism: Rejection of individualism, acceptance
> >of collectivism, with the state as the ultimate location of authority.
>
> Here is part of a speech by Rudolf Hess in East Prussia in July 1934
>
> "Our nation has the good fortune today to be led largely by front
> soldiers, by front soldiers who carried the virtues of the front to
> the leadership of the state.
> The rebuilding of the Reich was guided by the spirit of the front. It
> was the spirit of the front that created National Socialism.
> In the face of looming death at the front, ideas of social standing
> and class collapsed. At the front, the sharing of common joys and
> common sorrows led to a previously unknown camaraderie between
> citizens. At the front, everyone could see that the common fate
> towered above the individual fate."
>
nationalism, made wonderful speeches for Germans to hear, but to any
extent anyone at all puts any Collective -- clan, tribe, race,
religion -- above the moral right to life of the individual is simply
wrong in every detail devolved from speeches, and subscribe to, or
pretend to subscribe to, and proselytize a political philosophy that
is fundamentally evil . . .
> Everyone knows that there is only one man to thank, Adolf Hitler, the
> creator of National Socialism, who put the common good above the
> individual good,
Peter Franks
Dec 14, 2012, 9:30:55 AM12/14/12
to
On 12/13/2012 7:24 PM, Topaz wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 03:24:30 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
> <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Everyone knows that there is only one man to thank, Adolf Hitler, the
> creator of National Socialism, who put the common good above the
> individual good...
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 03:24:30 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
> <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Everyone knows that there is only one man to thank, Adolf Hitler, the
> creator of National Socialism, who put the common good above the
And in the process, destroys the individual and freedoms thereof,
subsequently destroying the individual. Which in turns destroys the
society -- this 'common' you speak of. Kind of ironic isn't it. Well,
it is down right stupid...
> [National Socialism] is seeing to it that every German
> citizen, whatever his occupation may be, first works with his hands
> for the good of the nation.
"is seeing to it" -- code for: forcing.
> for the good of the nation.
Socialism FORCES everyone to work for the 'good' of the nation.
Well, at least the perception of 'good' by those in power.
Funny thing: how can something be 'good' when it destroys you in the
process?
The ONLY thing good about socialism is when it is eliminated.
Topaz
Dec 14, 2012, 5:57:11 PM12/14/12
to
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 02:50:31 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
<cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>I would suggest he read Montesquieu regarding taxation. If one gets
>his mind right about the difference between what is coercive taxation
>and a reckoning of accounts payable, which may involve a method of
>voluntary taxation -- fees, schedules, licensing -- or direct
>taxation through excise and property taxation which is measured in
>direct proportion to what it is for which one needs government
>protection, then one can at least discern the difference between a
>good citizen who will pay for what he gets and a free-rider. Roads,
>bridges, etc. of an infrastructure are one thing and stealing from
>Paul to give to Peter is another thing. At the very least, I would
>respect the Social Compact that is the U.S. Constitution -- and what
>is more -- I expect every single person who has immigrated to the
>U.S.A., or merely traveled through on a student visa, since 1789 and
>his descendents to have equal respect for that Compact and to fully
>reject the ways, customs, laws, and traditions of the old country and
>not seek to realize the Dreams From His Foreign Socialist Father
>through lies, force and fraud.
>
We should all pay our fair share for orphans and other people in need.
<cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>I would suggest he read Montesquieu regarding taxation. If one gets
>his mind right about the difference between what is coercive taxation
>and a reckoning of accounts payable, which may involve a method of
>voluntary taxation -- fees, schedules, licensing -- or direct
>taxation through excise and property taxation which is measured in
>direct proportion to what it is for which one needs government
>protection, then one can at least discern the difference between a
>good citizen who will pay for what he gets and a free-rider. Roads,
>bridges, etc. of an infrastructure are one thing and stealing from
>Paul to give to Peter is another thing. At the very least, I would
>respect the Social Compact that is the U.S. Constitution -- and what
>is more -- I expect every single person who has immigrated to the
>U.S.A., or merely traveled through on a student visa, since 1789 and
>his descendents to have equal respect for that Compact and to fully
>reject the ways, customs, laws, and traditions of the old country and
>not seek to realize the Dreams From His Foreign Socialist Father
>through lies, force and fraud.
>
Providing for orphans is more important than paving the roads. Those
who don't agree with that should be kicked in the aft end and then
forced to pay anyway, or they can leave the country.
Charles Bell
Dec 14, 2012, 6:03:26 PM12/14/12
to
On Dec 14, 5:57 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 02:50:31 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
>
>
>
>
>
> <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >I would suggest he read Montesquieu regarding taxation. If one gets
> >his mind right about the difference between what is coercive taxation
> >and a reckoning of accounts payable, which may involve a method of
> >voluntary taxation -- fees, schedules, licensing -- or direct
> >taxation through excise and property taxation which is measured in
> >direct proportion to what it is for which one needs government
> >protection, then one can at least discern the difference between a
> >good citizen who will pay for what he gets and a free-rider. Roads,
> >bridges, etc. of an infrastructure are one thing and stealing from
> >Paul to give to Peter is another thing. At the very least, I would
> >respect the Social Compact that is the U.S. Constitution -- and what
> >is more -- I expect every single person who has immigrated to the
> >U.S.A., or merely traveled through on a student visa, since 1789 and
> >his descendents to have equal respect for that Compact and to fully
> >reject the ways, customs, laws, and traditions of the old country and
> >not seek to realize the Dreams From His Foreign Socialist Father
> >through lies, force and fraud.
>
> We should all pay our fair share for orphans and other people in need.
Says who?
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 02:50:31 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
>
>
>
>
>
> <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >I would suggest he read Montesquieu regarding taxation. If one gets
> >his mind right about the difference between what is coercive taxation
> >and a reckoning of accounts payable, which may involve a method of
> >voluntary taxation -- fees, schedules, licensing -- or direct
> >taxation through excise and property taxation which is measured in
> >direct proportion to what it is for which one needs government
> >protection, then one can at least discern the difference between a
> >good citizen who will pay for what he gets and a free-rider. Roads,
> >bridges, etc. of an infrastructure are one thing and stealing from
> >Paul to give to Peter is another thing. At the very least, I would
> >respect the Social Compact that is the U.S. Constitution -- and what
> >is more -- I expect every single person who has immigrated to the
> >U.S.A., or merely traveled through on a student visa, since 1789 and
> >his descendents to have equal respect for that Compact and to fully
> >reject the ways, customs, laws, and traditions of the old country and
> >not seek to realize the Dreams From His Foreign Socialist Father
> >through lies, force and fraud.
>
> We should all pay our fair share for orphans and other people in need.
> Providing for orphans is more important than paving the roads.
roads.
> Those
> who don't agree with that should be kicked in the aft end and then
> forced to pay anyway, or they can leave the country.
>
Yes, coercion, thuggery, theft, is what is socialism.
> Those
> who don't agree with that should be kicked in the aft end and then
> forced to pay anyway, or they can leave the country.
>
BeamMeUpScotty
Dec 14, 2012, 6:04:33 PM12/14/12
to
--
*Rumination*
#41 - When we lived under a constitution we were a Nation of LAWS.
Topaz
Dec 14, 2012, 6:18:39 PM12/14/12
to
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 03:02:42 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
<cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Hess, Goebbels, and Hitler, to the extent they dealt with German
>nationalism, made wonderful speeches for Germans to hear, but to any
>extent anyone at all puts any Collective -- clan, tribe, race,
>religion -- above the moral right to life of the individual is simply
>wrong in every detail devolved from speeches, and subscribe to, or
>pretend to subscribe to, and proselytize a political philosophy that
>is fundamentally evil . . .
Not caring about other citizens is fundamentally evil. What is this
<cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Hess, Goebbels, and Hitler, to the extent they dealt with German
>nationalism, made wonderful speeches for Germans to hear, but to any
>extent anyone at all puts any Collective -- clan, tribe, race,
>religion -- above the moral right to life of the individual is simply
>wrong in every detail devolved from speeches, and subscribe to, or
>pretend to subscribe to, and proselytize a political philosophy that
>is fundamentally evil . . .
talk of individualism except not caring about other citizens? No one
cares if someone wants to go fishing all by himself or whatever.
Individualists don't want to pay taxes for orhpans and others need. In
a great nation of course orphans would be provided for, and all adults
who are willing to work should also have food and shelter. Since
individualists don't care about anyone else, why should anyone care
about them or what they want?
The tax should be ten percent on income. And those who have over a
million dollars should also pay ten percent of that per year. Who
cares about any individualist that wants to put all the burden on the
generous people. We should have a nation that doesn't care about such
individualists.
Topaz
Dec 14, 2012, 6:34:03 PM12/14/12
to
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 06:30:55 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:
>And in the process, destroys the individual and freedoms thereof,
>subsequently destroying the individual. Which in turns destroys the
>society -- this 'common' you speak of. Kind of ironic isn't it. Well,
>it is down right stupid...
How would paying ones fair share for orphans and others in need
destroy an individual? Or is there some other unnamed thing you mean
by individualism.
Your freedom is also undefined. If you want to be free to sell heroin
to children in playgrounds I don't agree with that freedom.
Libertarians always say they want freedom. But they never say what
they want to be free to do.
It's clear that individualism means not paying their fair share for
orphans. Who knows what they mean by freedom. They never talk straight
because then it would be obvious that there views are reprehensible.
>"is seeing to it" -- code for: forcing.
People should be forced to pay their fair share for orphans and others
in need. Since individualism is based on not caring about other
citizens, no one should care about individualists.
>
>Socialism FORCES everyone to work for the 'good' of the nation.
Everyone should work. And all work should be good for the nation.
>Well, at least the perception of 'good' by those in power.
Having paved roads and having the orphans provided for is good. You
are the one who uses undefined words.
>
>Funny thing: how can something be 'good' when it destroys you in the
>process?
>
>The ONLY thing good about socialism is when it is eliminated.
>
Libertarians and capitalists declare that they would be destroyed if
they paid their fair share for the orphans. How amusing.
wrote:
>And in the process, destroys the individual and freedoms thereof,
>subsequently destroying the individual. Which in turns destroys the
>society -- this 'common' you speak of. Kind of ironic isn't it. Well,
>it is down right stupid...
destroy an individual? Or is there some other unnamed thing you mean
by individualism.
Your freedom is also undefined. If you want to be free to sell heroin
to children in playgrounds I don't agree with that freedom.
Libertarians always say they want freedom. But they never say what
they want to be free to do.
It's clear that individualism means not paying their fair share for
orphans. Who knows what they mean by freedom. They never talk straight
because then it would be obvious that there views are reprehensible.
>"is seeing to it" -- code for: forcing.
in need. Since individualism is based on not caring about other
citizens, no one should care about individualists.
>
>Socialism FORCES everyone to work for the 'good' of the nation.
>Well, at least the perception of 'good' by those in power.
are the one who uses undefined words.
>
>Funny thing: how can something be 'good' when it destroys you in the
>process?
>
>The ONLY thing good about socialism is when it is eliminated.
>
they paid their fair share for the orphans. How amusing.
Peter Franks
Dec 14, 2012, 6:47:19 PM12/14/12
to
On 12/14/2012 3:18 PM, Topaz wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 03:02:42 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
> <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Hess, Goebbels, and Hitler, to the extent they dealt with German
>> nationalism, made wonderful speeches for Germans to hear, but to any
>> extent anyone at all puts any Collective -- clan, tribe, race,
>> religion -- above the moral right to life of the individual is simply
>> wrong in every detail devolved from speeches, and subscribe to, or
>> pretend to subscribe to, and proselytize a political philosophy that
>> is fundamentally evil . . .
>
> Not caring about other citizens is fundamentally evil.
Right.
> <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Hess, Goebbels, and Hitler, to the extent they dealt with German
>> nationalism, made wonderful speeches for Germans to hear, but to any
>> extent anyone at all puts any Collective -- clan, tribe, race,
>> religion -- above the moral right to life of the individual is simply
>> wrong in every detail devolved from speeches, and subscribe to, or
>> pretend to subscribe to, and proselytize a political philosophy that
>> is fundamentally evil . . .
>
> Not caring about other citizens is fundamentally evil.
Forcing people to care about others is fundamentally more evil.
Peter Franks
Dec 14, 2012, 6:53:24 PM12/14/12
to
On 12/14/2012 3:34 PM, Topaz wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 06:30:55 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> And in the process, destroys the individual and freedoms thereof,
>> subsequently destroying the individual. Which in turns destroys the
>> society -- this 'common' you speak of. Kind of ironic isn't it. Well,
>> it is down right stupid...
>
> How would paying ones fair share for orphans and others in need
> destroy an individual?
I never said that. This time re-read with an emphasis on comprehension.
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 06:30:55 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> And in the process, destroys the individual and freedoms thereof,
>> subsequently destroying the individual. Which in turns destroys the
>> society -- this 'common' you speak of. Kind of ironic isn't it. Well,
>> it is down right stupid...
>
> How would paying ones fair share for orphans and others in need
> destroy an individual?
If you already did that, then you are a twisted propagandist with a
warped agenda.
> Or is there some other unnamed thing you mean
> by individualism.
>
> Your freedom is also undefined. If you want to be free to sell heroin
> to children in playgrounds I don't agree with that freedom.
> Libertarians always say they want freedom. But they never say what
> they want to be free to do.
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
"within the limits of the law," because law is often but the tyrant's
will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
— Thomas Jefferson
> It's clear that individualism means not paying their fair share for
> orphans. Who knows what they mean by freedom. They never talk straight
> because then it would be obvious that there views are reprehensible.
>
>> "is seeing to it" -- code for: forcing.
>
> People should be forced to pay their fair share for orphans and others
> in need. Since individualism is based on not caring about other
> citizens, no one should care about individualists.
interpretation of good.
You are an enemy of freedom. Plain and simple.
>> Socialism FORCES everyone to work for the 'good' of the nation.
>
> Everyone should work. And all work should be good for the nation.
I never said "should". I said "FORCE". You've propagandized my
statement, but I don't play those weak minded games.
Let's de-propagandize your statement to the fact of what you are saying:
Everyone MUST work. And all work MUST be good for the nation.
You complain about undefined? Define "good". Now define it objectively.
BeamMeUpScotty
Dec 14, 2012, 8:35:29 PM12/14/12
to
On 12/14/2012 6:34 PM, Topaz wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 06:30:55 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> And in the process, destroys the individual and freedoms thereof,
>> subsequently destroying the individual. Which in turns destroys the
>> society -- this 'common' you speak of. Kind of ironic isn't it. Well,
>> it is down right stupid...
>
> How would paying ones fair share for orphans and others in need
> destroy an individual? Or is there some other unnamed thing you mean
> by individualism.
>
> Your freedom is also undefined. If you want to be free to sell heroin
> to children in playgrounds I don't agree with that freedom.
> Libertarians always say they want freedom. But they never say what
> they want to be free to do.
>
> It's clear that individualism means not paying their fair share for
> orphans. Who knows what they mean by freedom. They never talk straight
> because then it would be obvious that there views are reprehensible.
>
>> "is seeing to it" -- code for: forcing.
>
> People should be forced to pay their fair share for orphans and others
> in need. Since individualism is based on not caring about other
> citizens, no one should care about individualists.
>
>>
>> Socialism FORCES everyone to work for the 'good' of the nation.
>
> Everyone should work. And all work should be good for the nation.
And anyone that chooses NOT to "work" but instead write or maybe do
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 06:30:55 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> And in the process, destroys the individual and freedoms thereof,
>> subsequently destroying the individual. Which in turns destroys the
>> society -- this 'common' you speak of. Kind of ironic isn't it. Well,
>> it is down right stupid...
>
> How would paying ones fair share for orphans and others in need
> destroy an individual? Or is there some other unnamed thing you mean
> by individualism.
>
> Your freedom is also undefined. If you want to be free to sell heroin
> to children in playgrounds I don't agree with that freedom.
> Libertarians always say they want freedom. But they never say what
> they want to be free to do.
>
> It's clear that individualism means not paying their fair share for
> orphans. Who knows what they mean by freedom. They never talk straight
> because then it would be obvious that there views are reprehensible.
>
>> "is seeing to it" -- code for: forcing.
>
> People should be forced to pay their fair share for orphans and others
> in need. Since individualism is based on not caring about other
> citizens, no one should care about individualists.
>
>>
>> Socialism FORCES everyone to work for the 'good' of the nation.
>
> Everyone should work. And all work should be good for the nation.
what Einstein did when he was thinking about E=mc^2 and wasn't really
doing anything that could be quantified as "work" or being productive,
should be put to death?
Nothing like that common sense Socialism is there? ;)
--
*Rumination*
#25 - I'd rather be FREE and poor, than to have my life micromanaged by
Socialists.
Topaz
Dec 14, 2012, 10:15:25 PM12/14/12
to
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:03:26 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
<cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> We should all pay our fair share for orphans and other people in need.
>
>Says who?
me
<cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>> We should all pay our fair share for orphans and other people in need.
>
>Says who?
>
>> Providing for orphans is more important than paving the roads.
>
>
>There's always opportunites for orphans to earn their keep paving
>roads.
>
>> Those
>> who don't agree with that should be kicked in the aft end and then
>> forced to pay anyway, or they can leave the country.
>>
> Yes, coercion, thuggery, theft, is what is socialism.
anyone care about capitalists or what they want? If they don't want to
pay their fair share for the orphans, they can leave the country or
suffer our wrath.
Topaz
Dec 14, 2012, 10:17:57 PM12/14/12
to
Topaz
Dec 14, 2012, 10:21:47 PM12/14/12
to
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:47:19 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:
>Right.
>
>Forcing people to care about others is fundamentally more evil.
Socialism isn't about forcing people to care about other people,
although it would be nice if they did. Socialism is about forcing them
to cough up the dough for orphans and other needy citizens.
We should all pay our fair share. We should not leave the burden just
to those who are generous. The greedy should pay too.
wrote:
>Right.
>
>Forcing people to care about others is fundamentally more evil.
although it would be nice if they did. Socialism is about forcing them
to cough up the dough for orphans and other needy citizens.
We should all pay our fair share. We should not leave the burden just
to those who are generous. The greedy should pay too.
Topaz
Dec 14, 2012, 10:49:37 PM12/14/12
to
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:53:24 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
>This time re-read with an emphasis on comprehension.
OK, I read it again, it's hot air. If there is any hidden meaning it
can only mean you don't want to pay your fair share to provide for
orphans and other citizens in need.
> If you already did that, then you are a twisted propagandist with a
>warped agenda.
You are a twisted propagandist with a warped agenda.
>
>> Or is there some other unnamed thing you mean
>> by individualism.
>>
>> Your freedom is also undefined. If you want to be free to sell heroin
>> to children in playgrounds I don't agree with that freedom.
>> Libertarians always say they want freedom. But they never say what
>> they want to be free to do.
>
>(The right) of freedom is NOT undefined.
>
>Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
>limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
>"within the limits of the law," because law is often but the tyrant's
>will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
>
>— Thomas Jefferson
So it's the Rede:
This web site explains what is going on with the "left" and the
"right" in the modern economic sense.
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call the sodomites
"gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize prostitution,
drugs, greed, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
the nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
because sodomites practice their perversion on the beach. When the
liberals say they are for freedom this is kind of thing they are
talking about. Of course people should be free to do what they want
most of the time. There is no argument there. Liberals are talking
about being free to do things that many people object to and want
outlawed. Their philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion, would
not allow the law that says drivers have to stop at the red lights.
Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold on grocery store
shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their philosophy would
result in chaos and degeneracy.
Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
but good laws would make a nation good.
The Communists were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
government and have an anarchy.
Old fashioned rightists care about the future. Libertarians only
care about the present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare
future like Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are
not interested and insist that nothing is more important than the
freedom of individuals to be as selfish as they want.
>Your agenda is quite simply: People should be forced to do good, YOUR
>interpretation of good.
People should be forced to not do bad. I don't know what you are
talking about except for paying taxes. Yes, we should all pay our fair
share to pave the roads, install the street lights, and provide for
the orphans. My interpretation of good is plain common sense.
>You are an enemy of freedom. Plain and simple.
If you want to be free to sell heroin to children in playgrounds, I am
an enemy of that freedom. If you want to be free to do something else
you failed twice to say what it is. It must be too reprehensible to
mention.
>
>>> Socialism FORCES everyone to work for the 'good' of the nation.
>>
>> Everyone should work. And all work should be good for the nation.
>
>Propaganda flows from every word you write.
>
>I never said "should". I said "FORCE". You've propagandized my
>statement, but I don't play those weak minded games.
Well adults on welfare should be forced to work, if they want to get
the check. Everyone else should also work, but I don't say that
everyone should be forced to work. Maybe the wealthy could loaf
around. Anyway, everyone should get a vacation.
>
>Let's de-propagandize your statement to the fact of what you are saying:
>
>Everyone MUST work. And all work MUST be good for the nation.
Well I'm not that crazy about the wealthy loafing around all the time.
But I didn't say they must work.
And no work should be for the harm of the nation. Maybe some things
could be just neutral.
>
>You complain about undefined? Define "good". Now define it objectively.
Good is something that makes things better for most citizens. Having
food and shelter is good. Having paved roads and street lights are
good. Having harmless entertainment is good. What is so unclear?
wrote:
>>
>>> And in the process, destroys the individual and freedoms thereof,
>>> subsequently destroying the individual. Which in turns destroys the
>>> society -- this 'common' you speak of. Kind of ironic isn't it. Well,
>>> it is down right stupid...
>>
>> How would paying ones fair share for orphans and others in need
>> destroy an individual?
>
>I never said that.
Then how is one supposed to decipher your hot air?
>>
>>> And in the process, destroys the individual and freedoms thereof,
>>> subsequently destroying the individual. Which in turns destroys the
>>> society -- this 'common' you speak of. Kind of ironic isn't it. Well,
>>> it is down right stupid...
>>
>> How would paying ones fair share for orphans and others in need
>> destroy an individual?
>
>I never said that.
>This time re-read with an emphasis on comprehension.
can only mean you don't want to pay your fair share to provide for
orphans and other citizens in need.
> If you already did that, then you are a twisted propagandist with a
>warped agenda.
>
>> Or is there some other unnamed thing you mean
>> by individualism.
>>
>> Your freedom is also undefined. If you want to be free to sell heroin
>> to children in playgrounds I don't agree with that freedom.
>> Libertarians always say they want freedom. But they never say what
>> they want to be free to do.
>
>(The right) of freedom is NOT undefined.
>
>Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
>limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
>"within the limits of the law," because law is often but the tyrant's
>will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
>
>— Thomas Jefferson
This web site explains what is going on with the "left" and the
"right" in the modern economic sense.
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call the sodomites
"gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
The right is for outlawing homosexual perversion,
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It puts the
good of the nation first and ahead of the freedom of individuals to
corrupt the culture of the nation.
Leftists believe in the Rede of Witchcraft which states-- If it
harm none, do what will you will. This sounds nice, but like the apple
that the witch gave to Snow White it has poison within. The Rede of
Witchcraft is the Bible of liberalism. It would legalize prostitution,
drugs, greed, etc.
The right is for building a great nation. Leftists care only
about individual freedom and are opposed to any laws that would make
the nation better. There are beaches where normal families will not go
because sodomites practice their perversion on the beach. When the
liberals say they are for freedom this is kind of thing they are
talking about. Of course people should be free to do what they want
most of the time. There is no argument there. Liberals are talking
about being free to do things that many people object to and want
outlawed. Their philosophy, taken to its logical conclusion, would
not allow the law that says drivers have to stop at the red lights.
Their philosophy would allow heroin to be sold on grocery store
shelves and allow ads promoting heroin on TV. Their philosophy would
result in chaos and degeneracy.
Libertarians are liberals who want freedom for the Ebenezer
Scrooges to be as greedy as they want. They have the same philosophy
as other leftist who want to legalize heroin and prostitution, namely
that the state can't tell them what they can't do. People don't like
laws stopping them from doing things, and we should sympathize with
that, but sometimes that is not the most important thing. Capitalists
want freedom for greed, other liberals want freedom for degeneracy,
but good laws would make a nation good.
The Communists were leftist and they said they were fighting for
freedom. In Spain they sided with the anarchists. The Communists and
the anarchists were the same people or the same type of people. The
Communists were for having government but only temporarily. They said
that their government was necessary only until the whole world was
Communist. After the world was Communist they wanted to dissolve the
government and have an anarchy.
Old fashioned rightists care about the future. Libertarians only
care about the present. If their philosophy results in a nightmare
future like Soylent Green or some other futuristic nightmare they are
not interested and insist that nothing is more important than the
freedom of individuals to be as selfish as they want.
>Your agenda is quite simply: People should be forced to do good, YOUR
>interpretation of good.
talking about except for paying taxes. Yes, we should all pay our fair
share to pave the roads, install the street lights, and provide for
the orphans. My interpretation of good is plain common sense.
>You are an enemy of freedom. Plain and simple.
an enemy of that freedom. If you want to be free to do something else
you failed twice to say what it is. It must be too reprehensible to
mention.
>
>>> Socialism FORCES everyone to work for the 'good' of the nation.
>>
>> Everyone should work. And all work should be good for the nation.
>
>Propaganda flows from every word you write.
>
>I never said "should". I said "FORCE". You've propagandized my
>statement, but I don't play those weak minded games.
the check. Everyone else should also work, but I don't say that
everyone should be forced to work. Maybe the wealthy could loaf
around. Anyway, everyone should get a vacation.
>
>Let's de-propagandize your statement to the fact of what you are saying:
>
>Everyone MUST work. And all work MUST be good for the nation.
But I didn't say they must work.
And no work should be for the harm of the nation. Maybe some things
could be just neutral.
>
>You complain about undefined? Define "good". Now define it objectively.
food and shelter is good. Having paved roads and street lights are
good. Having harmless entertainment is good. What is so unclear?
Topaz
Dec 14, 2012, 10:54:18 PM12/14/12
to
On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:35:29 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>And anyone that chooses NOT to "work" but instead write
Writing is considered work.
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>And anyone that chooses NOT to "work" but instead write
> or maybe do
>what Einstein did when he was thinking about E=mc^2 and wasn't really
>doing anything that could be quantified as "work" or being productive,
>should be put to death?
uranium. What is that compared to the experts who actually created
nuclear power? But anyway work is not just physical labor. It is any
activity that does some good.
>
>Nothing like that common sense Socialism is there? ;)
having to write it.
Charles Bell
Dec 15, 2012, 5:39:58 AM12/15/12
to
On Dec 14, 10:15 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:03:26 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
>
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:03:26 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
>
> <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> >> We should all pay our fair share for orphans and other people in need.
>
> >Says who?
>
> me
>
>
Such an imperative coming from God is more impressive than coming from
>
> >> We should all pay our fair share for orphans and other people in need.
>
> >Says who?
>
> me
>
>
you, methinks.
>
> > Yes, coercion, thuggery, theft, is what is socialism.
>
> Capitalism is based on not caring about other people.
to stay put in their delusions.
Topaz
Dec 15, 2012, 6:29:07 AM12/15/12
to
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 02:39:58 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
<cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Such an imperative coming from God is more impressive than coming from
>you, methinks.
You're wasting your time on usenet then. I haven't seen God post here.
<cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Such an imperative coming from God is more impressive than coming from
>you, methinks.
>Capitalism is the aether for freedom. Freedom agitates those who wish
>to stay put in their delusions.
capitalism is that it puts no special value on people. Capitalism is
based on supply and demand. A capitalist company that made potato
chips for example would need--X number of potatoes, Y amount of salt,
and Z number of human beings for labor. The human beings have no more
value than the potatoes or the salt. And they consider it good to pay
the humans as little as they possibly can to increase their profits.
According to capitalist theory people must compete to see who
will work for the least pennies per hour. They say everyone must
compete with the people in Mexico and China to see who will work for
the fewest pennies. If a company makes billions in profit while paying
its employees starvation wages that is perfectly fine. At least the
sacred laws of supply and demand are not violated. If the people die
of starvation that is fine too. You can always get more people. If
there is not enough work for everyone to do then they think people
need to die off. Ebenezer Scrooge did everything right according to
the capitalists and followed the beliefs and values of capitalism.
The apologists for the Scrooges correctly point out that
people only start business for a profit. Of course that is true.
Anyone can see that communism is a big mistake. But wouldn't people
start the business for only millions in profits rather than billions?
What if there were laws that made sure working people got a reasonable
share of the profit? Would that be so terrible?
In a hypothetical case suppose technology progressed so far that
all
the work were done by machines. Huge farms gathering food and all
automated. You would think everything would be great, but under
capitalism the people would starve because there wouldn't be enough
jobs.
Capitalists oppose welfare and say that orphans and other needy
people should be helped by charity. How much charity would there be
when capitalists openly say that selfishness is a great virtue? If
there was no welfare then the charitable people would have to pay for
everything while most people would not pay one thin dime. We have
welfare so people all pay their fair share. It is part of having
civilization.
We have many laws that make things better for people.
There are laws that give people extra pay if they work over forty
hours. There are laws that ensure people will have retirement.
Capitalism is for doing away with the laws so businesses can be free
to be as greedy as possible.There are laws that keep people from
getting ripped off when they buy a house. Capitalism is against that.
Capitalism is bad for people.
Charles Bell
Dec 15, 2012, 7:01:48 AM12/15/12
to
On Dec 15, 6:29 am, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 02:39:58 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
>
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 02:39:58 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
>
> <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >Such an imperative coming from God is more impressive than coming from
> >you, methinks.
>
> You're wasting your time on usenet then. I haven't seen God post here.
>
We can only expect God to post here as to what one should selflessly
> >Such an imperative coming from God is more impressive than coming from
> >you, methinks.
>
> You're wasting your time on usenet then. I haven't seen God post here.
>
do for orphans, and not you.
> >Capitalism is the aether for freedom. Freedom agitates those who wish
> >to stay put in their delusions.
>
> Capitalism and Communism are both bad. The problem with
> capitalism is that it puts no special value on people.
either omniscient or infallible, freedom with God or freedom without
God has the property that every man has the capacity for free will in
thought and action, and thus for every agreement there is
disagreement, but more powerful than an omniscient and infallible God,
be He present here or not or over there or not, is the socialist who
takes away what that God has had for men: free will.
Peter Franks
Dec 15, 2012, 11:28:59 AM12/15/12
to
On 12/14/2012 7:21 PM, Topaz wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:47:19 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Right.
>>
>> Forcing people to care about others is fundamentally more evil.
>
> Socialism isn't about forcing people to care about other people,
> although it would be nice if they did. Socialism is about forcing them
> to cough up the dough for orphans and other needy citizens.
Which is forcing people to care about other people. Which is exactly
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:47:19 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Right.
>>
>> Forcing people to care about others is fundamentally more evil.
>
> Socialism isn't about forcing people to care about other people,
> although it would be nice if they did. Socialism is about forcing them
> to cough up the dough for orphans and other needy citizens.
what I just said. Which is what you disagree with and then precisely
and specifically proved my point!
> We should all pay our fair share. We should not leave the burden just
> to those who are generous. The greedy should pay too.
In your socialist anti-freedom society, the above becomes:
We MUST all pay our fair share. We MUST not leave the burden just to
those who are generous. The greedy MUST pay too.
Can you still not see that?
Peter Franks
Dec 15, 2012, 11:35:20 AM12/15/12
to
On 12/14/2012 7:49 PM, Topaz wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:53:24 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> And in the process, destroys the individual and freedoms thereof,
>>>> subsequently destroying the individual. Which in turns destroys the
>>>> society -- this 'common' you speak of. Kind of ironic isn't it. Well,
>>>> it is down right stupid...
>>>
>>> How would paying ones fair share for orphans and others in need
>>> destroy an individual?
>>
>> I never said that.
>
> Then how is one supposed to decipher your hot air?
No deciphering needed. Just read what I write, not what you want to hear.
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:53:24 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>> And in the process, destroys the individual and freedoms thereof,
>>>> subsequently destroying the individual. Which in turns destroys the
>>>> society -- this 'common' you speak of. Kind of ironic isn't it. Well,
>>>> it is down right stupid...
>>>
>>> How would paying ones fair share for orphans and others in need
>>> destroy an individual?
>>
>> I never said that.
>
> Then how is one supposed to decipher your hot air?
>> This time re-read with an emphasis on comprehension.
>
> OK, I read it again, it's hot air. If there is any hidden meaning it
> can only mean you don't want to pay your fair share to provide for
> orphans and other citizens in need.
I VOLUNTARILY contribute over 10% of my gross income each year to help
those in need and for other good.
It is MY CHOICE. And I FREELY MAKE IT.
Your problem is that you want to FORCE me to make it.
Your entire agenda and paradigm is hinged on FORCE. COMPULSION. YOU
MUST OBEY. YOU MUST DO.
My entire paradigm is hinged on FREEDOM. You have CHOICE. You have AGENCY.
However, those words scare you. Hence you re-write subtly re-write them
to hide the cold dark truth of your agenda: the loss of freedom.
Do you even understand that your whole point is to eliminate freedom?
Seriously, do you understand that?
Topaz
Dec 15, 2012, 6:33:56 PM12/15/12
to
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 04:01:48 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
<cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>We can only expect God to post here as to what one should selflessly
>do for orphans, and not you.
The man who started the Salvation Army said that Christianity can be
<cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>We can only expect God to post here as to what one should selflessly
>do for orphans, and not you.
summed up in one word - "others".
Capitalism can be summed up in one word - "self". Satanism is also
summed up by the word - "self".
One of the greatest pro-Christian movies was "A Christmas Carol", the
one about Ebenezer Scrooge. Now the Christians are for capitalism.
What could be more pathetic?
>There being no God present in this discussion, and since no man is
>either omniscient or infallible, freedom with God or freedom without
>God has the property that every man has the capacity for free will in
>thought and action, and thus for every agreement there is
>disagreement, but more powerful than an omniscient and infallible God,
>be He present here or not or over there or not, is the socialist who
>takes away what that God has had for men: free will.
for the orphans, and to pay for policemen. Those who think this
infringes on their free will don't belong in civilization. We should
have a civilization without them. They are free to leave.
Topaz
Dec 15, 2012, 6:49:10 PM12/15/12
to
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 08:28:59 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:
>>> Forcing people to care about others is fundamentally more evil.
>>
>> Socialism isn't about forcing people to care about other people,
>> although it would be nice if they did. Socialism is about forcing them
>> to cough up the dough for orphans and other needy citizens.
>
>Which is forcing people to care about other people. Which is exactly
>what I just said. Which is what you disagree with and then precisely
>and specifically proved my point!
We should all pay our fair share to provide for the orphans. Those who
don't want to pay their fair share are fundamentally evil.
>
>> We should all pay our fair share. We should not leave the burden just
>> to those who are generous. The greedy should pay too.
>
>That happens in a free society.
A good society puts the greedy in their place. People should not be
free to be a greedy as the want. The state should come down on them
with deadly force if necessary.
>
>In your socialist anti-freedom society, the above becomes:
>
>We MUST all pay our fair share. We MUST not leave the burden just to
>those who are generous. The greedy MUST pay too.
>
>Can you still not see that?
I see that is good.
wrote:
>>> Forcing people to care about others is fundamentally more evil.
>>
>> Socialism isn't about forcing people to care about other people,
>> although it would be nice if they did. Socialism is about forcing them
>> to cough up the dough for orphans and other needy citizens.
>
>Which is forcing people to care about other people. Which is exactly
>what I just said. Which is what you disagree with and then precisely
>and specifically proved my point!
don't want to pay their fair share are fundamentally evil.
>
>> We should all pay our fair share. We should not leave the burden just
>> to those who are generous. The greedy should pay too.
>
>That happens in a free society.
free to be a greedy as the want. The state should come down on them
with deadly force if necessary.
>
>In your socialist anti-freedom society, the above becomes:
>
>We MUST all pay our fair share. We MUST not leave the burden just to
>those who are generous. The greedy MUST pay too.
>
>Can you still not see that?
Topaz
Dec 15, 2012, 7:04:28 PM12/15/12
to
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 08:35:20 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:
>No deciphering needed. Just read what I write, not what you want to hear.
>
have the roads paved, and to pay for the policemen. Those who don't
like that don't belong in civilizations. They are free to leave.
>
>I VOLUNTARILY contribute over 10% of my gross income each year to help
>those in need and for other good.
You are not the main problem. The problem is those who want it to
voluntary and then choose not to give anything.
>
>It is MY CHOICE. And I FREELY MAKE IT.
>
>Your problem is that you want to FORCE me to make it.
That is not a problem. Those who choose not to pay their fair share
don't belong in civilization. If a group of people live in a house,
they pay their fair share for the heat and air conditioning, and the
electricity. Those who choose not to pay their fair share are thrown
out.
>
>Your entire agenda and paradigm is hinged on FORCE. COMPULSION. YOU
>MUST OBEY. YOU MUST DO.
When it comes to paying taxes for policemen, yes, you do have to.
>
>My entire paradigm is hinged on FREEDOM. You have CHOICE. You have AGENCY.
There are no countries based on your paradigm because it is nonsense.
>
>However, those words scare you. Hence you re-write subtly re-write them
>to hide the cold dark truth of your agenda: the loss of freedom.
>
>Do you even understand that your whole point is to eliminate freedom?
>Seriously, do you understand that?
It's wrong to say "freedom" without saying what you want to be free to
do. If you want to be free to sell heroin to children in playgrounds
you should not have that freedom.
If you don't want to pay your fair share to have policemen protect
the nation, you should not be allowed in the nation.
wrote:
>No deciphering needed. Just read what I write, not what you want to hear.
>
>Here's a word that you socialists will never understand: voluntary.
We should all pay our fair share to provide for the orphans, and to
have the roads paved, and to pay for the policemen. Those who don't
like that don't belong in civilizations. They are free to leave.
>
>I VOLUNTARILY contribute over 10% of my gross income each year to help
>those in need and for other good.
voluntary and then choose not to give anything.
>
>It is MY CHOICE. And I FREELY MAKE IT.
>
>Your problem is that you want to FORCE me to make it.
don't belong in civilization. If a group of people live in a house,
they pay their fair share for the heat and air conditioning, and the
electricity. Those who choose not to pay their fair share are thrown
out.
>
>Your entire agenda and paradigm is hinged on FORCE. COMPULSION. YOU
>MUST OBEY. YOU MUST DO.
>
>My entire paradigm is hinged on FREEDOM. You have CHOICE. You have AGENCY.
>
>However, those words scare you. Hence you re-write subtly re-write them
>to hide the cold dark truth of your agenda: the loss of freedom.
>
>Do you even understand that your whole point is to eliminate freedom?
>Seriously, do you understand that?
do. If you want to be free to sell heroin to children in playgrounds
you should not have that freedom.
If you don't want to pay your fair share to have policemen protect
the nation, you should not be allowed in the nation.
Peter Franks
Dec 15, 2012, 7:14:58 PM12/15/12
to
On 12/15/2012 3:33 PM, Topaz wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 04:01:48 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
> <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>> We can only expect God to post here as to what one should selflessly
>> do for orphans, and not you.
>
> The man who started the Salvation Army said that Christianity can be
> summed up in one word - "others".
>
> Capitalism can be summed up in one word - "self". Satanism is also
> summed up by the word - "self".
>
> One of the greatest pro-Christian movies was "A Christmas Carol", the
> one about Ebenezer Scrooge. Now the Christians are for capitalism.
> What could be more pathetic?
One of the greatest lies foisted by the socialist/communist/etc. crowd
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 04:01:48 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
> <cbe...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>> We can only expect God to post here as to what one should selflessly
>> do for orphans, and not you.
>
> The man who started the Salvation Army said that Christianity can be
> summed up in one word - "others".
>
> Capitalism can be summed up in one word - "self". Satanism is also
> summed up by the word - "self".
>
> One of the greatest pro-Christian movies was "A Christmas Carol", the
> one about Ebenezer Scrooge. Now the Christians are for capitalism.
> What could be more pathetic?
is that capitalism is the opposite of socialism.
It isn't.
The opposite of socialism is freedom.
Chew on that.
Peter Franks
Dec 15, 2012, 7:17:15 PM12/15/12
to
On 12/15/2012 3:49 PM, Topaz wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 08:28:59 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Forcing people to care about others is fundamentally more evil.
>>>
>>> Socialism isn't about forcing people to care about other people,
>>> although it would be nice if they did. Socialism is about forcing them
>>> to cough up the dough for orphans and other needy citizens.
>>
>> Which is forcing people to care about other people. Which is exactly
>> what I just said. Which is what you disagree with and then precisely
>> and specifically proved my point!
>
> We should all pay our fair share to provide for the orphans. Those who
> don't want to pay their fair share are fundamentally evil.
Here we go again. Your propaganda machine is running at full speed.
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 08:28:59 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Forcing people to care about others is fundamentally more evil.
>>>
>>> Socialism isn't about forcing people to care about other people,
>>> although it would be nice if they did. Socialism is about forcing them
>>> to cough up the dough for orphans and other needy citizens.
>>
>> Which is forcing people to care about other people. Which is exactly
>> what I just said. Which is what you disagree with and then precisely
>> and specifically proved my point!
>
> We should all pay our fair share to provide for the orphans. Those who
> don't want to pay their fair share are fundamentally evil.
You are implying MUST and saying SHOULD, as if those two were
interchangeable.
THEY AREN'T.
>>> We should all pay our fair share. We should not leave the burden just
>>> to those who are generous. The greedy should pay too.
>>
>> That happens in a free society.
>
> A good society puts the greedy in their place. People should not be
> free to be a greedy as the want. The state should come down on them
> with deadly force if necessary.
>
>
>>
>> In your socialist anti-freedom society, the above becomes:
>>
>> We MUST all pay our fair share. We MUST not leave the burden just to
>> those who are generous. The greedy MUST pay too.
>>
>> Can you still not see that?
>
> I see that is good.
as good.
And there you go.
Peter Franks
Dec 15, 2012, 7:19:32 PM12/15/12
to
On 12/15/2012 4:04 PM, Topaz wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 08:35:20 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> No deciphering needed. Just read what I write, not what you want to hear.
>>
>> Here's a word that you socialists will never understand: voluntary.
>
> We should all pay our fair share to provide for the orphans, and to
> have the roads paved, and to pay for the policemen. Those who don't
> like that don't belong in civilizations. They are free to leave.
>
>>
>> I VOLUNTARILY contribute over 10% of my gross income each year to help
>> those in need and for other good.
>
> You are not the main problem. The problem is those who want it to
> voluntary and then choose not to give anything.
That is FREEDOM.
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 08:35:20 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> No deciphering needed. Just read what I write, not what you want to hear.
>>
>> Here's a word that you socialists will never understand: voluntary.
>
> We should all pay our fair share to provide for the orphans, and to
> have the roads paved, and to pay for the policemen. Those who don't
> like that don't belong in civilizations. They are free to leave.
>
>>
>> I VOLUNTARILY contribute over 10% of my gross income each year to help
>> those in need and for other good.
>
> You are not the main problem. The problem is those who want it to
> voluntary and then choose not to give anything.
>> It is MY CHOICE. And I FREELY MAKE IT.
>>
>> Your problem is that you want to FORCE me to make it.
>
> That is not a problem. Those who choose not to pay their fair share
> don't belong in civilization. If a group of people live in a house,
> they pay their fair share for the heat and air conditioning, and the
> electricity. Those who choose not to pay their fair share are thrown
> out.
>
>>
>> Your entire agenda and paradigm is hinged on FORCE. COMPULSION. YOU
>> MUST OBEY. YOU MUST DO.
>
> When it comes to paying taxes for policemen, yes, you do have to.
>
>>
>> My entire paradigm is hinged on FREEDOM. You have CHOICE. You have AGENCY.
>
> There are no countries based on your paradigm because it is nonsense.
I'm just a warrior here, fighting for freedom.
Topaz
Dec 16, 2012, 6:27:04 AM12/16/12
to
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:14:58 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:
>One of the greatest lies foisted by the socialist/communist/etc. crowd
>is that capitalism is the opposite of socialism.
>
>It isn't.
>
>The opposite of socialism is freedom.
>
>Chew on that.
by Robert Locke
Libertarianism is the idea that individual freedom should be the sole
rule of ethics and government. Libertarianism makes it legal to do
things society presently restrains, like get more money, have more
sex, or take more drugs...
The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple:
freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in
life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is
not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected
to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the
same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian
tycoon's wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things
imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations
that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen,
entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice.
But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness
for most real people and the principal issues that concern
governments...
Furthermore, the reduction of all goods to individual choices
presupposes that all goods are individual. But some, like national
security, clean air, or a healthy culture, are inherently collective.
It may be possible to privatize some, but only some, and the efforts
can be comically inefficient. Do you really want to trace every
pollutant in the air back to the factory that emitted it and sue?
the libertarian principle of "an it harm none, do as thou wilt"...
Libertarians need to be asked some hard questions. What if a free
society needed to draft its citizens in order to remain free?...
Libertarianism's abstract and absolutist view of freedom leads to
bizarre conclusions. Like slavery, libertarianism would have to allow
one to sell oneself into it. (It has been possible at certain times in
history to do just that by assuming debts one could not repay.) And
libertarianism degenerates into outright idiocy when confronted with
the problem of children, whom it treats like adults, supporting the
abolition of compulsory education and all child-specific laws, like
those against child labor and child sex. It likewise cannot handle the
insane and the senile.
Libertarians argue that radical permissiveness, like legalizing drugs,
would not shred a libertarian society because drug users who caused
trouble would be disciplined by the threat of losing their jobs or
homes if current laws that make it difficult to fire or evict people
were abolished. They claim a "natural order" of reasonable behavior
would emerge. But there is no actual empirical proof that this would
happen...
And is society really wrong to protect people against the negative
consequences of some of their free choices? While it is obviously fair
to let people enjoy the benefits of their wise choices and suffer the
costs of their stupid ones, decent societies set limits on both these
outcomes. People are allowed to become millionaires, but they are
taxed. They are allowed to go broke, but they are not then forced to
starve. They are deprived of the most extreme benefits of freedom in
order to spare us the most extreme costs. The libertopian alternative
would be perhaps a more glittering society, but also a crueler one.
Empirically, most people don't actually want absolute freedom, which
is why democracies don't elect libertarian governments. Irony of
ironies, people don't choose absolute freedom. But this refutes
libertarianism by its own premise, as libertarianism defines the good
as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. Paradoxically,
people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians.
The political corollary of this is that since no electorate will
support libertarianism, a libertarian government could never be
achieved democratically but would have to be imposed by some kind of
authoritarian state, which rather puts the lie to libertarians' claim
that under any other philosophy, busybodies who claim to know what's
best for other people impose their values on the rest of us.
Libertarianism itself is based on the conviction that it is the one
true political philosophy and all others are false. It entails
imposing a certain kind of society, with all its attendant pluses and
minuses, which the inhabitants thereof will not be free to opt out of
except by leaving.
And if libertarians ever do acquire power, we may expect a farrago of
bizarre policies. Many support abolition of government-issued money in
favor of that minted by private banks. But this has already been
tried, in various epochs, and doesn't lead to any wonderful paradise
of freedom but only to an explosion of fraud and currency debasement
followed by the concentration of financial power in those few banks
that survive the inevitable shaking-out. Many other libertarian
schemes similarly founder on the empirical record.
A major reason for this is that libertarianism has a na�ve view of
economics that seems to have stopped paying attention to the actual
history of capitalism around 1880. There is not the space here to
refute simplistic laissez faire, but note for now that the
second-richest nation in the world, Japan, has one of the most
regulated economies, while nations in which government has essentially
lost control over economic life, like Russia, are hardly economic
paradises. Legitimate criticism of over-regulation does not entail
going to the opposite extreme.
Libertarian na�vet� extends to politics. They often confuse the
absence of government impingement upon freedom with freedom as such.
But without a sufficiently strong state, individual freedom falls prey
to other more powerful individuals. A weak state and a
freedom-respecting state are not the same thing, as shown by many a
chaotic Third-World tyranny.
Libertarians are also na�ve about the range and perversity of human
desires they propose to unleash. They can imagine nothing more
threatening than a bit of Sunday-afternoon sadomasochism, followed by
some recreational drug use and work on Monday. They assume that if
people are given freedom, they will gravitate towards essentially
bourgeois lives, but this takes for granted things like the deferral
of gratification that were pounded into them as children without their
being free to refuse. They forget that for much of the population,
preaching maximum freedom merely results in drunkenness, drugs,
failure to hold a job, and pregnancy out of wedlock. Society is
dependent upon inculcated self-restraint if it is not to slide into
barbarism, and libertarians attack this self-restraint. Ironically,
this often results in internal restraints being replaced by the
external restraints of police and prison, resulting in less freedom,
not more...
Libertarianism is philosophically incapable of evolving a theory of
how to use freedom well because of its root dogma that all free
choices are equal, which it cannot abandon except at the cost of
admitting that there are other goods than freedom. Conservatives
should know better.
wrote:
>One of the greatest lies foisted by the socialist/communist/etc. crowd
>is that capitalism is the opposite of socialism.
>
>It isn't.
>
>The opposite of socialism is freedom.
>
>Chew on that.
Libertarianism is the idea that individual freedom should be the sole
rule of ethics and government. Libertarianism makes it legal to do
things society presently restrains, like get more money, have more
sex, or take more drugs...
The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple:
freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in
life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is
not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected
to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the
same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian
tycoon's wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things
imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations
that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen,
entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice.
But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness
for most real people and the principal issues that concern
governments...
Furthermore, the reduction of all goods to individual choices
presupposes that all goods are individual. But some, like national
security, clean air, or a healthy culture, are inherently collective.
It may be possible to privatize some, but only some, and the efforts
can be comically inefficient. Do you really want to trace every
pollutant in the air back to the factory that emitted it and sue?
the libertarian principle of "an it harm none, do as thou wilt"...
Libertarians need to be asked some hard questions. What if a free
society needed to draft its citizens in order to remain free?...
Libertarianism's abstract and absolutist view of freedom leads to
bizarre conclusions. Like slavery, libertarianism would have to allow
one to sell oneself into it. (It has been possible at certain times in
history to do just that by assuming debts one could not repay.) And
libertarianism degenerates into outright idiocy when confronted with
the problem of children, whom it treats like adults, supporting the
abolition of compulsory education and all child-specific laws, like
those against child labor and child sex. It likewise cannot handle the
insane and the senile.
Libertarians argue that radical permissiveness, like legalizing drugs,
would not shred a libertarian society because drug users who caused
trouble would be disciplined by the threat of losing their jobs or
homes if current laws that make it difficult to fire or evict people
were abolished. They claim a "natural order" of reasonable behavior
would emerge. But there is no actual empirical proof that this would
happen...
And is society really wrong to protect people against the negative
consequences of some of their free choices? While it is obviously fair
to let people enjoy the benefits of their wise choices and suffer the
costs of their stupid ones, decent societies set limits on both these
outcomes. People are allowed to become millionaires, but they are
taxed. They are allowed to go broke, but they are not then forced to
starve. They are deprived of the most extreme benefits of freedom in
order to spare us the most extreme costs. The libertopian alternative
would be perhaps a more glittering society, but also a crueler one.
Empirically, most people don't actually want absolute freedom, which
is why democracies don't elect libertarian governments. Irony of
ironies, people don't choose absolute freedom. But this refutes
libertarianism by its own premise, as libertarianism defines the good
as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. Paradoxically,
people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians.
The political corollary of this is that since no electorate will
support libertarianism, a libertarian government could never be
achieved democratically but would have to be imposed by some kind of
authoritarian state, which rather puts the lie to libertarians' claim
that under any other philosophy, busybodies who claim to know what's
best for other people impose their values on the rest of us.
Libertarianism itself is based on the conviction that it is the one
true political philosophy and all others are false. It entails
imposing a certain kind of society, with all its attendant pluses and
minuses, which the inhabitants thereof will not be free to opt out of
except by leaving.
And if libertarians ever do acquire power, we may expect a farrago of
bizarre policies. Many support abolition of government-issued money in
favor of that minted by private banks. But this has already been
tried, in various epochs, and doesn't lead to any wonderful paradise
of freedom but only to an explosion of fraud and currency debasement
followed by the concentration of financial power in those few banks
that survive the inevitable shaking-out. Many other libertarian
schemes similarly founder on the empirical record.
A major reason for this is that libertarianism has a na�ve view of
economics that seems to have stopped paying attention to the actual
history of capitalism around 1880. There is not the space here to
refute simplistic laissez faire, but note for now that the
second-richest nation in the world, Japan, has one of the most
regulated economies, while nations in which government has essentially
lost control over economic life, like Russia, are hardly economic
paradises. Legitimate criticism of over-regulation does not entail
going to the opposite extreme.
Libertarian na�vet� extends to politics. They often confuse the
absence of government impingement upon freedom with freedom as such.
But without a sufficiently strong state, individual freedom falls prey
to other more powerful individuals. A weak state and a
freedom-respecting state are not the same thing, as shown by many a
chaotic Third-World tyranny.
Libertarians are also na�ve about the range and perversity of human
desires they propose to unleash. They can imagine nothing more
threatening than a bit of Sunday-afternoon sadomasochism, followed by
some recreational drug use and work on Monday. They assume that if
people are given freedom, they will gravitate towards essentially
bourgeois lives, but this takes for granted things like the deferral
of gratification that were pounded into them as children without their
being free to refuse. They forget that for much of the population,
preaching maximum freedom merely results in drunkenness, drugs,
failure to hold a job, and pregnancy out of wedlock. Society is
dependent upon inculcated self-restraint if it is not to slide into
barbarism, and libertarians attack this self-restraint. Ironically,
this often results in internal restraints being replaced by the
external restraints of police and prison, resulting in less freedom,
not more...
Libertarianism is philosophically incapable of evolving a theory of
how to use freedom well because of its root dogma that all free
choices are equal, which it cannot abandon except at the cost of
admitting that there are other goods than freedom. Conservatives
should know better.
Topaz
Dec 16, 2012, 6:31:05 AM12/16/12
to
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:17:15 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:
>Here we go again. Your propaganda machine is running at full speed.
>
>You are implying MUST and saying SHOULD, as if those two were
>interchangeable.
If a group of people share a house, they should all pay their share
for the electricity and other bills. If they don't want to pay their
fair share they should be thrown out of the house.
>MUST eliminates freedom. Therefore you see the elimination of freedom
>as good.
>
>And there you go.
A major reason for this is that libertarianism has a naďve view of
wrote:
>Here we go again. Your propaganda machine is running at full speed.
>
>You are implying MUST and saying SHOULD, as if those two were
>interchangeable.
for the electricity and other bills. If they don't want to pay their
fair share they should be thrown out of the house.
>MUST eliminates freedom. Therefore you see the elimination of freedom
>as good.
>
>And there you go.
economics that seems to have stopped paying attention to the actual
history of capitalism around 1880. There is not the space here to
refute simplistic laissez faire, but note for now that the
second-richest nation in the world, Japan, has one of the most
regulated economies, while nations in which government has essentially
lost control over economic life, like Russia, are hardly economic
paradises. Legitimate criticism of over-regulation does not entail
going to the opposite extreme.
Libertarian naďveté extends to politics. They often confuse the
history of capitalism around 1880. There is not the space here to
refute simplistic laissez faire, but note for now that the
second-richest nation in the world, Japan, has one of the most
regulated economies, while nations in which government has essentially
lost control over economic life, like Russia, are hardly economic
paradises. Legitimate criticism of over-regulation does not entail
going to the opposite extreme.
absence of government impingement upon freedom with freedom as such.
But without a sufficiently strong state, individual freedom falls prey
to other more powerful individuals. A weak state and a
freedom-respecting state are not the same thing, as shown by many a
chaotic Third-World tyranny.
Libertarians are also naďve about the range and perversity of human
But without a sufficiently strong state, individual freedom falls prey
to other more powerful individuals. A weak state and a
freedom-respecting state are not the same thing, as shown by many a
chaotic Third-World tyranny.
desires they propose to unleash. They can imagine nothing more
threatening than a bit of Sunday-afternoon sadomasochism, followed by
some recreational drug use and work on Monday. They assume that if
people are given freedom, they will gravitate towards essentially
bourgeois lives, but this takes for granted things like the deferral
of gratification that were pounded into them as children without their
being free to refuse. They forget that for much of the population,
preaching maximum freedom merely results in drunkenness, drugs,
failure to hold a job, and pregnancy out of wedlock. Society is
dependent upon inculcated self-restraint if it is not to slide into
barbarism, and libertarians attack this self-restraint. Ironically,
this often results in internal restraints being replaced by the
external restraints of police and prison, resulting in less freedom,
not more...
Libertarianism is philosophically incapable of evolving a theory of
how to use freedom well because of its root dogma that all free
choices are equal, which it cannot abandon except at the cost of
admitting that there are other goods than freedom. Conservatives
should know better.
threatening than a bit of Sunday-afternoon sadomasochism, followed by
some recreational drug use and work on Monday. They assume that if
people are given freedom, they will gravitate towards essentially
bourgeois lives, but this takes for granted things like the deferral
of gratification that were pounded into them as children without their
being free to refuse. They forget that for much of the population,
preaching maximum freedom merely results in drunkenness, drugs,
failure to hold a job, and pregnancy out of wedlock. Society is
dependent upon inculcated self-restraint if it is not to slide into
barbarism, and libertarians attack this self-restraint. Ironically,
this often results in internal restraints being replaced by the
external restraints of police and prison, resulting in less freedom,
not more...
Libertarianism is philosophically incapable of evolving a theory of
how to use freedom well because of its root dogma that all free
choices are equal, which it cannot abandon except at the cost of
admitting that there are other goods than freedom. Conservatives
should know better.
Topaz
Dec 16, 2012, 6:35:02 AM12/16/12
to
On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:19:32 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:
>That is FREEDOM.
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It put the
wrote:
>That is FREEDOM.
>
>No, it is just evidence of the pervasive degenerative nature of socialism.
>
>I'm just a warrior here, fighting for freedom.
>No, it is just evidence of the pervasive degenerative nature of socialism.
>
>I'm just a warrior here, fighting for freedom.
This web site explains what is going on with the "left" and the
"right" in the modern economic sense.
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call the sodomites
"gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
The right was for outlawing homosexual perversion,
"right" in the modern economic sense.
http://www.michaeljournal.org/myth.htm
The meaning of "right" and "left" has changed. I stay with the
original meaning for the same reason I refuse to call the sodomites
"gay". The word "gay" was originally a good thing.
prostitution, abortions, heroin, and other bad things. It put the
Peter Franks
Dec 16, 2012, 10:37:55 AM12/16/12
to
On 12/16/2012 3:31 AM, Topaz wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:17:15 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Here we go again. Your propaganda machine is running at full speed.
>>
>> You are implying MUST and saying SHOULD, as if those two were
>> interchangeable.
>
> If a group of people share a house, they should all pay their share
> for the electricity and other bills. If they don't want to pay their
> fair share they should be thrown out of the house.
Did you hear that "whoosh!" sound?
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:17:15 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Here we go again. Your propaganda machine is running at full speed.
>>
>> You are implying MUST and saying SHOULD, as if those two were
>> interchangeable.
>
> If a group of people share a house, they should all pay their share
> for the electricity and other bills. If they don't want to pay their
> fair share they should be thrown out of the house.
Is it is the sound of what I said flying 50,000' above your head.
Good day.
Peter Franks
Dec 16, 2012, 10:38:42 AM12/16/12
to
Good day.
BeamMeUpScotty
Dec 16, 2012, 4:49:06 PM12/16/12
to
On 12/14/2012 10:54 PM, Topaz wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:35:29 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>
>> And anyone that chooses NOT to "work" but instead write
>
> Writing is considered work.
>
>> or maybe do
>> what Einstein did when he was thinking about E=mc^2 and wasn't really
>> doing anything that could be quantified as "work" or being productive,
>> should be put to death?
>
> Einstein basicly said that you can get a lot of energy from a chunk of
> uranium. What is that compared to the experts who actually created
> nuclear power? But anyway work is not just physical labor. It is any
> activity that does some good.
>
The Church defined so many things to be a waste of time.... NOW you
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:35:29 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>
>> And anyone that chooses NOT to "work" but instead write
>
> Writing is considered work.
>
>> or maybe do
>> what Einstein did when he was thinking about E=mc^2 and wasn't really
>> doing anything that could be quantified as "work" or being productive,
>> should be put to death?
>
> Einstein basicly said that you can get a lot of energy from a chunk of
> uranium. What is that compared to the experts who actually created
> nuclear power? But anyway work is not just physical labor. It is any
> activity that does some good.
>
want a Polit Bureau of Socialists to decide what is a waste of time....
Check out the "GREAT LEAP FORWARD" and you'll see that Mao figured so
many things were a waste of time and NOT "good" activities and those
centrally controlled Socialist decisions were the cause of roughly 40
million people starving to death...
--
*Rumination*
#40 - The truth is always the truth, it doesn't matter if it's
discovered by accident or by genius, it's always the truth.
Charles Bell
Dec 16, 2012, 9:39:47 PM12/16/12
to
On Dec 15, 6:33 pm, Topaz <mars1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 04:01:48 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
>
> On Sat, 15 Dec 2012 04:01:48 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
>
> <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >We can only expect God to post here as to what one should selflessly
> >do for orphans, and not you.
>
> The man who started the Salvation Army said that Christianity can be
> summed up in one word - "others".
>
<<We have established that faith, without any good works, makes just.
> >We can only expect God to post here as to what one should selflessly
> >do for orphans, and not you.
>
> The man who started the Salvation Army said that Christianity can be
> summed up in one word - "others".
>
It does not follow from that, however, that we should not do good
works; rather it means that morally upright works do not remain
lacking. About such works the "works-holy" people know nothing; they
invent for themselves their own works in which are neither peace nor
joy nor assurance nor love nor hope nor steadfastness nor any kind of
genuine Christian works or faith.>> -- Martin Luther
> Capitalism can be summed up in one word - "self".
Peter Franks
Dec 17, 2012, 1:10:46 AM12/17/12
to
On 12/15/2012 3:33 PM, Topaz wrote:
> Capitalism can be summed up in one word - "self".
Have you ever stopped and thought that every last living thing found in
nature is focused on "self"?
Does that make everything bad?
Topaz
Dec 17, 2012, 9:45:36 PM12/17/12
to
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:10:46 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:
>Have you ever stopped and thought that every last living thing found in
>nature is focused on "self"?
>
>Does that make everything bad?
Wild animals for the most part don't have civilization. The wolf is
bad from the point of view of the sheep. I don't know why anyone would
call wild animals "good".
Libertarians and capitalists are like animals in the jungle.
Socialists are not like that.
wrote:
>Have you ever stopped and thought that every last living thing found in
>nature is focused on "self"?
>
>Does that make everything bad?
bad from the point of view of the sheep. I don't know why anyone would
call wild animals "good".
Libertarians and capitalists are like animals in the jungle.
Socialists are not like that.
Peter Franks
Dec 17, 2012, 10:05:28 PM12/17/12
to
On 12/17/2012 6:45 PM, Topaz wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:10:46 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Have you ever stopped and thought that every last living thing found in
>> nature is focused on "self"?
>>
>> Does that make everything bad?
>
> Wild animals for the most part don't have civilization. The wolf is
> bad from the point of view of the sheep. I don't know why anyone would
> call wild animals "good".
>
> Libertarians and capitalists are like animals in the jungle.
> Socialists are not like that.
Right you are. Animals in the jungle have survived and progressed for
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:10:46 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Have you ever stopped and thought that every last living thing found in
>> nature is focused on "self"?
>>
>> Does that make everything bad?
>
> Wild animals for the most part don't have civilization. The wolf is
> bad from the point of view of the sheep. I don't know why anyone would
> call wild animals "good".
>
> Libertarians and capitalists are like animals in the jungle.
> Socialists are not like that.
millennia.
Socialists are like every animal in its own cage, isolated from
everything else. Survival is limited to one generation and there is
only regression. I guess that appeals to you.
Topaz
Dec 17, 2012, 10:06:26 PM12/17/12
to
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:37:55 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:
>>>
say they "must". I am not in power anywhere so I can only say they
"should" pay taxes. Anyway this semantics is trivial. You mistake
ignoring it and moving on with something above ones head.
On the other hand it's possible for a country to not need taxes. In
Iran people don't pay taxes because the country gets a lot of money
from the oil. But there needs to be a good reason. Libertarian
philosophies are not a good reason.
wrote:
>>>
>>> You are implying MUST and saying SHOULD, as if those two were
>>> interchangeable.
>>
>> If a group of people share a house, they should all pay their share
>> for the electricity and other bills. If they don't want to pay their
>> fair share they should be thrown out of the house.
>
>Did you hear that "whoosh!" sound?
>
>Is it is the sound of what I said flying 50,000' above your head.
>
>Good day.
In most countries people must pay taxes. But only those in power can
>>> interchangeable.
>>
>> If a group of people share a house, they should all pay their share
>> for the electricity and other bills. If they don't want to pay their
>> fair share they should be thrown out of the house.
>
>Did you hear that "whoosh!" sound?
>
>Is it is the sound of what I said flying 50,000' above your head.
>
>Good day.
say they "must". I am not in power anywhere so I can only say they
"should" pay taxes. Anyway this semantics is trivial. You mistake
ignoring it and moving on with something above ones head.
On the other hand it's possible for a country to not need taxes. In
Iran people don't pay taxes because the country gets a lot of money
from the oil. But there needs to be a good reason. Libertarian
philosophies are not a good reason.
Topaz
Dec 17, 2012, 10:20:55 PM12/17/12
to
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 07:38:42 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:
>And now here we go, resorting to posting other people's crap.
>
>Good day.
What you write is crap and my outstanding posts demolish your crap:
"Must I remind you that the FDA is the outgrowth of the "Pure Food and
Drug Act," which was the result of companies selling all kinds of
tainted food and drugs! Left to their own accord, corporations will
do anything that improves the bottom line."
Sparky
wrote:
>And now here we go, resorting to posting other people's crap.
>
>Good day.
"Must I remind you that the FDA is the outgrowth of the "Pure Food and
Drug Act," which was the result of companies selling all kinds of
tainted food and drugs! Left to their own accord, corporations will
do anything that improves the bottom line."
Sparky
Topaz
Dec 17, 2012, 10:36:48 PM12/17/12
to
On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:49:06 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>The Church defined so many things to be a waste of time
Name some of them. They did outlaw gambling, not because it was a
<ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>The Church defined so many things to be a waste of time
waste of time, but because people were going into poverty because of
it.
>.... NOW you
>want a Polit Bureau of Socialists to decide what is a waste of time....
should look for a way to stop people from going into poverty, while
still allowing them to have fun.
> Check out the "GREAT LEAP FORWARD" and you'll see that Mao figured so
>many things were a waste of time and NOT "good" activities and those
>centrally controlled Socialist decisions were the cause of roughly 40
>million people starving to death...
seemingly look like a waste of time. Anyway Communists may say they
own the word "Socialist" and they are the only socialists. But we
don't have to accept that.
ADOLF HITLER
NUREMBERG
SPEECH OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1936
..If I had wished I could have substituted officials for employers,
but nature and reality select best. We do not wish bureaucratic
economics as in Russia, nor do we wish to establish economic democracy
here.
Yet that does not mean either that we wish to let things drift as they
please. Our fundamental economic principles are, first, to unite all
the forces existing...
Topaz
Dec 17, 2012, 11:03:18 PM12/17/12
to
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 19:05:28 -0800, Peter Franks <no...@none.com>
wrote:
>Right you are. Animals in the jungle have survived and progressed for
>millennia.
They progressed through evolution which was based on survival of the
fittest. I am for the same result, but I am not that cruel. Those who
are on welfare because they are inferior should be sterilized.
>
>Socialists are like every animal in its own cage, isolated from
>everything else. Survival is limited to one generation and there is
>only regression. I guess that appeals to you.
I don't know where you get the idea that Socialists are like animals
in separate cages. Maybe it's because they don't like to eat other.
You are right about regression. Right now people on welfare are having
more children than the tax payers. You are absolutely correct, that
has to stop. Besides sterilizing those who are on welfare due to
genetic inferiority, I would make "mother" a real job with a real
paycheck. The most intelligent people should be having dozens of
children. The beginning of the movie "Idiocracy" is absolutely true.
wrote:
>Right you are. Animals in the jungle have survived and progressed for
>millennia.
fittest. I am for the same result, but I am not that cruel. Those who
are on welfare because they are inferior should be sterilized.
>
>Socialists are like every animal in its own cage, isolated from
>everything else. Survival is limited to one generation and there is
>only regression. I guess that appeals to you.
in separate cages. Maybe it's because they don't like to eat other.
You are right about regression. Right now people on welfare are having
more children than the tax payers. You are absolutely correct, that
has to stop. Besides sterilizing those who are on welfare due to
genetic inferiority, I would make "mother" a real job with a real
paycheck. The most intelligent people should be having dozens of
children. The beginning of the movie "Idiocracy" is absolutely true.
BeamMeUpScotty
Dec 17, 2012, 11:24:52 PM12/17/12
to
On 12/17/2012 10:36 PM, Topaz wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:49:06 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The Church defined so many things to be a waste of time
>
> Name some of them. They did outlaw gambling, not because it was a
> waste of time, but because people were going into poverty because of
> it.
Sex and porn
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:49:06 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The Church defined so many things to be a waste of time
>
> Name some of them. They did outlaw gambling, not because it was a
> waste of time, but because people were going into poverty because of
> it.
Idle hands
vanity
mapping the solar system
Alchemy
>> .... NOW you
>> want a Polit Bureau of Socialists to decide what is a waste of time....
>
> I would have some laws regarding gambling but I wouldn't outlaw it. We
> should look for a way to stop people from going into poverty, while
> still allowing them to have fun.
--
*Rumination*
#68 - The Leftists spend a lot of time perfuming that pig we call
Socialism, and the perfume never lasts till morning either.
BeamMeUpScotty
Dec 17, 2012, 11:34:13 PM12/17/12
to
On 12/17/2012 10:36 PM, Topaz wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:49:06 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The Church defined so many things to be a waste of time
>
> Name some of them. They did outlaw gambling, not because it was a
> waste of time, but because people were going into poverty because of
> it.
> <ThenDestro...@blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>
>> The Church defined so many things to be a waste of time
>
> Name some of them. They did outlaw gambling, not because it was a
> waste of time, but because people were going into poverty because of
> it.
Sex and porn
Idle hands
vanity
mapping the solar system
Alchemy
Idle hands
vanity
mapping the solar system
Alchemy
>> .... NOW you
>> want a Polit Bureau of Socialists to decide what is a waste of time....
>
> I would have some laws regarding gambling but I wouldn't outlaw it. We
> should look for a way to stop people from going into poverty, while
> still allowing them to have fun.
Praying is free....
>> want a Polit Bureau of Socialists to decide what is a waste of time....
>
> I would have some laws regarding gambling but I wouldn't outlaw it. We
> should look for a way to stop people from going into poverty, while
> still allowing them to have fun.
It may even be fun for all I know.
Peter Franks
Dec 18, 2012, 9:13:33 AM12/18/12
to
On 12/17/2012 7:06 PM, Topaz wrote:
> Anyway this semantics is trivial.
Pure propaganda.
> Anyway this semantics is trivial.
0 new messages