Killing the American Dream
SewHard
of all the government intervention.. they are tired of minorities get all
the government handouts.. they are tired of affirmative action.. they are
tired of all the minority programs and the poor programs... they are too
stupid to realize that once the ball gets rolling everyone gets
squashed... all of the great society programs and the help programs... get
rid of them all.. let people get jobs and pay for their own education..
enough tax money for all of these programs......
Rich Travsky
>There is a bill that will in effect massively cut federal funding for
>higher education. It goes on the floor on March 1.
>
>This is not some set of small rinky dink cuts. It will basically
>eliminate funding for Stafford, Pell, Perkins, work study plus it will
>make tuition exemptions taxable. That is basically all the money that
>government gives to schools.
>
>What effect will it have? Not much, except for probably killing
>higher education in the US, getting rid of needblind admissions, and
>making almost impossible to go to grad school unless you happen to be
>very wealthy.
Yes, return with us to halcyon days of yesteryear, when it was mainly
the wealthy who had access to higher education. Ahh!
You working class wipers_of_other_peoples_bottoms got uppity once
you got educated...
> [...]
RT
Entropy, all is entropy...
Daniel Davidson
Since Newt and the gang have shown they are only interested in the social
welfare of *wealthy* Americans, I won't waste my time argueing that social
welfare of *all* Americans is critical to America's national security.
But there is, still, at least one *serious* problem with the Contract on
Education that even those dedicated to reactionary political correctness
might think of:
At present, despite straw man arguements against affirmative action,
US higher education is substantially concerned with excellence, ability,
rigour, competence, and depth of knowledge. The criteria for success in
US colleges is not ability to pay, but ability to *learn* and *produce*.
If the Republicans destroy the present system of meager financial
assistance for those who qualify, many students, despite their potential,
will not pursue their education goals.
Just because your family is wealthy does not mean that you will make a
good teacher, researcher, or physician. Like the present political
process, if we limit education only to those who can come up with 10 to
20 thousand dollars a year for 4 to 10 years, we will end up with a less
educated population. And because many with talent will fail to make it,
fewer people of high potential will be trained for important positions.
Now I know that *some* will always find away, but this does not justify
the Republican's higher education policy. Anyone can, in theory, run for
president. But in reality, and that is what I'm talking about -- reality --
despite any other qualities, only those with access to tens of millions
of dollars can seriously entertain the thought. This has caused severe
rot in US politics, where (for example) only those with PACs can get
any real action on the House and Senate floor.
Education should be available to *any* American with the strengths
necessary to succeed. Limiting education to only those with the money to
pay distorts the goals of the education process. It will not be good for
America's people, or for their security.
--
== Daniel Davidson ==
San Francisco State University
davi...@mercury.sfsu.edu
It is considered appropriate to sustain conditions which
are against the best interests of almost everyone.
Don Pajerek
writes:
>
>Education should be available to *any* American with the strengths
>necessary to succeed. Limiting education to only those with the money to
>pay distorts the goals of the education process. It will not be good for
>America's people, or for their security.
The Republicans used to say, with regard to welfare, "You shouldn't
give a hungry man a fish, you should teach him how to fish". With the
combination of welfare cuts, education cuts, and the proposed elimination
of the minimum wage, it seems clear that even this noble philosophy has been
renounced.
Don Pajerek
Standard disclaimers apply.
Billy Beck
Lynn,
>I am a 30-year-old white male.
>
>I had no money of my own to spend on my college education.
>
>I received a bachelor's degree in Computer Science paid for with government
>money...
Uhmm, excuse me, but that would be *stolen* money. Let's see if we can
keep this clear: the government *never* _ever_ gives anything away which it
has not _first_ taken from somebody else by main force or its immediate
threat...just like any common robber.
>...and a small amount of private scholarships.
I would commend this. It is the only ethically defensible way to go for a
man in your position.
>Between the interest on my government-guaranteed student loans, and my
>income taxes as a single wage earner near $50,000/year, I have more than
>paid back the government for my education.
Swell. Tell it to the parents of three children who didn't get _their_ money
back from the government.
>I contributed to American success in Operation Desert Storm, the space
>shuttle program, and my efforts support the gathering of intelligence
>on a daily basis by our national security agencies.
>Without federal aid to higher education, none of this would have happened.
So what? What's your point?
Is it that the whole enterprise was worthwhile?
TO WHOM, Lynn? ME? Let me tell you: I don't give a clap-ridden _fuck_ if
they are stealing money every April 15th in order to provide milk for starving
babies.
This is not to say that there are no "needy" people out there. The point is that
their "need" is not a claim on *my* property. Should these people be helped?
I would refer you to that seminal genius of libertarian thought (Robert LeFerve)
who goes un-noticed in these days when The Party is out there angling for their
shot at the big time like a herd of common whores:
"In a free culture, you will not be stopped."
Dig deep, Lynn. If you feel like helping, jump right in. I'll thank you to keep your
hands (and those of your agents) off my property. I swear you the same courtesy.
Billy
Herman Rubin
Billy Beck <bill...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Lynn,
>>I am a 30-year-old white male.
>>I had no money of my own to spend on my college education.
>>I received a bachelor's degree in Computer Science paid for with government
>>money...
> Uhmm, excuse me, but that would be *stolen* money. Let's see if we can
>keep this clear: the government *never* _ever_ gives anything away which it
>has not _first_ taken from somebody else by main force or its immediate
>threat...just like any common robber.
>>...and a small amount of private scholarships.
> I would commend this. It is the only ethically defensible way to go for a
>man in your position.
I am much older. Likewise, my parents had no money to spend on my
college education, at a time when it was much cheaper. I did go on
scholarships, and I resent that our financial status was a factor in
receiving those scholarships. There were no federal funds to speak
of for education at the time.
The private eduational system has always had scholarships for bright
children, less now because the government has made it harder by doing
many things. The state universities, if they were any good, had to
compete with the private schools. The private schools were largely
supported by endowment income, and they, together with the better
state universities, competed for students and faculty in the world
educational market. The good universities were all research institutions,
and while there were some rich kids there who might not have been
interested in learning, the rest were. There were good undergraduate
schools as well, and none of them would lower the standards of their
courses for weak students.
So what do we have now? We have a large number of bodies going to
the universities, most of whom could not meet the elementary school
graduation requirements of my time, and certainly not the college
preparatory requirements of that time. We have "students" who want
to get a degree, not to learn. We fire faculty who make an attempt
to educate students, and promote those who make them happy machines.
This was brought about by a particular school of education, but also
by the actions of the federal and state governments. We are really
stuck on the tar baby, and it will take years to extricate ourselves.
--
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!a.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Bruce McQuain
>>I have no patience for tax protestors. Are you a tax protestor?
>
> That would be *such* a handy label for you, wouldn't it?
>
> I am a man who is determined to keep what I produce.
I'll pop in here and surprise Beck...he's NOT a "tax protestor".
Believe me when I say that as I've battled the man over many subjects
(taxes among them) for over three years. To pigeon-hole Beck as a "tax
protestor" is to VASTLY underestimate what he's about.
>>>>I contributed to American success in Operation Desert Storm, the
>>>>space shuttle program, and my efforts support the gathering of
>>>>intelligence on a daily basis by our national security agencies.
>>>>Without federal aid to higher education, none of this would have
>>>>happened.
>
>>> So what? What's your point?
>
>>> Is it that the whole enterprise was worthwhile?
>
>>Yeah, that is my point.
>
> Oh, yeah? Well, what if I was able to force *you* to pay for new
>exhaust pipes on my Harley? I mean, it would be worth it to me. What
>would you have to say about it?
Tis all about values, isn't it Lynn? Of what is of value to whom?
Where you feel it to be fine to expropriate money for those
things/programs YOU value (listed above), I believe Beck has called your
ethical bluff here. Why shouldn't he be able to use the power of
government to expropriate wealth for those things HE values from YOU?
>>> TO WHOM, Lynn? ME? Let me tell you: I don't give a clap-ridden
>>>_fuck_ if they are stealing money every April 15th in order to
>>>provide milk for starving babies.
>
>>Are you a person of influence? Or intelligence? Why should we care
>>what you think?
Excuse me, but are YOU a person of influence or intelligence? What an
incredibly arrogant dismissal in a venue established for discussion.
>>
>>> I would refer you to that seminal genius of libertarian thought
>>> (Robert LeFerve) who goes un-noticed in these days when The Party
>>> isout there angling for their shot at the big time like a herd of
>>> common whores:
>>
>>> "In a free culture, you will not be stopped."
>
>>Oh. You're a libertarian. That explains a lot.
Your rush to label has you miss the point here...in a free country,
you will NOT be stopped from helping whomever or whatever you deem
worthy of help. However, a *free* country does NOT expropritate wealth
at the point of a gun to fund those "projects" only a portion of that
society feel are worthy or of value.
As an aside, don't attempt to tag Beck as a libertarian
either...you'll have your most luck understanding him (if you MUST have
a label) as an anarcho-capitalist. Now he may disagree with me, but
that IS my opinion formed through those three years of discussion.
>>Sorry, but that's just not the way the system works.
Of course that's also the way the system of "armed robbery" works, but
I doubt that I'd see the same blase response if you were it's victim,
would I?
>>You live in this country, you make money, you pay some of it as taxes.
>>You also get the benefits of living in this country.
Now you've cut to the crux of my disagreement with Beck. But there is
a deeper discussion to be had here than that "like it or leave it" I see
rising on the horizon.
>>You don't have to like it.
That's correct, so our choices ARE?
>
> You don't know me, but lots of people do, and they would swear
>that I'm a good man who brings harms to no person.
To which I'll attest having actually met the man and having gone
further to understand him than a cursory attempt at labeling and
dismissing.
Have the courage to look UNDER the rock, Lynn...instead of saying the
rock's ALWAYS been there and we've just got to accept that fact.
Understand that the "system" has become STIFLING, that it has become a
means of social engineering and that it has created an intrusive
government that continues to get larger and more arrogant.
I ask you what the choices are above...I see them as change the system
WITHIN it's structure or outside of the structure...but I find the
alternative "leave it" as unacceptable.
> Remember this: on the day when they come to take me away and
>dispose of my life, they will do it in *your* name.
>
> I wouldn't have them do that to you in *my* name.
Which is, indeed the bottom line. Unless you're willing to put those
pipes on Beck's Harley because HE finds them of value to him and YOU
accept that government has the right to expropritate money in HIS name
to do so (think of the PRINCIPLE here, Lynn), then they will indeed put
him away in YOUR name.
Oh...hi, Billy...good to find you on here.
McQ
Billy Beck
Col. McQuain,
> I'll pop in here and surprise Beck...
`Ello, Brother-Man!
I just popped on to take care of some biz, and check out the buzz here.
It's good to see ya.
You might have noticed that I didn't comment on your "predictions" post at
The D!. I didn't have anything to say. You know why.
I won't hammer this nail at the moment (I'm working a large midtown
model under a tight deadline). I will, however, glance at it and probably get
back on tonight.
Cheers, Mate.
Billy
Raptor
>law...@xmission.xmission.com (Raptor) writes:
>>I am a 30-year-old white male.
>>I had no money of my own to spend on my college education.
>>I received a bachelor's degree in Computer Science paid for with government
>>money and a small amount of private scholarships.
>>Between the interest on my government-guaranteed student loans, and my
>>income taxes as a single wage earner near $50,000/year, I have more than
>>paid back the government for my education.
>>I contributed to American success in Operation Desert Storm, the space
>>shuttle program, and my efforts support the gathering of intelligence
>>on a daily basis by our national security agencies.
>>Without federal aid to higher education, none of this would have happened.
>I admire your success but I think you are incorrect in assuming that
>federal aid is the only way you would have been helped. In the absence
>of federal aid there would be other sources of aid. It is not possible
>to determine the behavior of complex systems by removing one variable, and
>you should know that. No question, it would be different, but you cannot
>say what the differences would be.
If you can guarantee to me that people in the position I was in will
continue to have the same level of access to college educations, then
I will consent to nearly any proposal.
However, cases like mine illustrate that at least in many cases, federal
assistance to higher education is a Good Thing.
My position on government spending is that the government should spend to
the point of positive return, and not spend beyond the point of diminshing
returns. Arguments based on Constitutional separation of powers do not
mean much to me, since the Constitution is a document written purposefully
vaguely, and personal interpretations are as varied as people.
If it works, don't fix it. Federal assistance to higher education works.
The system isn't perfect, as someone else has pointed out, but the problems
aren't inherent in the funding, but in the process. If freshmen aren't
capable of long division, then that's a problem with primary education.
If professors need to publish or perish, that's a problem with scholastic
standards at the higher level.
>Rhetorical arguments tend to pick the variable most important to the
>support of a viewpoint and assume that that variable is singly
>responsible for the outcome. All sides do this and it does not contribute
>much to discussions.
>Often such arguments spring from anger and the desire for a fast comeback.
>Before federal aid to higher education there was higher education for
>the non-rich. Work, scholarships, foundations, etc have all been
>available without the government.
In my case, they wouldn't have sufficed at the levels they were at then.
I would probably have not been able to attend college at least for several
years, and I would not have made the contributions I have. (I'm not
being totally altruistic about this - I make no bones about the fact
that I benefitted personally from student loans. The point is, I think
I've paid it back, and so have many other people.())
It would be very helpful if someone dug up default numbers for GSLs.
--
Lynn Wallace ||"I've said all along that this is not all written in
law...@xmission.com|| stone."
|| Newt Gingrich, on the Contract with America, Feb 13, 1995
"Then there's you, but you need therapy."
spa...@voyager.net
n
References: <3inme6$4...@vixa.voyager.net> <alan.79...@amdahl.com>
Distribution:
Alan Bomberger (al...@oes.amdahl.com) wrote:
: spa...@voyager.net writes:
: >grich,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
: >Followup-To: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt
-gi
: >ngrich,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
: >References: <3iikib$3...@agate.berkeley.edu>
: ><3ijbsh$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>: Distribution:
: >SewHard (sew...@aol.com) wrote:
: >: don't say anything... this is what Americans voted for .. they are tired
: >
: >
: > What I want to know is...all those white males earning $6/hr who
: >voted Republican...after the Republicans repeal the minimum wage and kick
: >people off welfare and cut back student financial aid for college...how
: >are they going to vote when all those people kicked off welfare start
: >coming after *their* jobs and the intense competition drives *their*
: >wages down to $4.25 or less per hour?
: Not so subtlely you have put your finger on an insidious problem.
: The middle class is also very dependent on the current government
: interference in the marketplace.
: The $6 worker is paying taxes to keep $4 workers ON welfare. This
: is a form of blackmail. Now in reality this practice can continue
: after the feds get out of the welfare business. The $6 workers may
: still find it useful to pay to keep $4 workers ON welfare but
: must no do so using state or local taxes. If they choose to
: do so, not much will have changed except the power center which moves
: closer to the voter. Even this is a great step forward (backward toward
: the system to founders designed).
:
: --
: Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
: Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
: It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
The power center will be closer to the *middle class* voter. The
power center will be no nearer the $6/hr or $4/hr voter than it is today.
Many states and local governments have regressive tax structures which
tax the working poor at higher rates than the middle class, presumably
because the working poor are removed from the state and local power centers.
Alan Daniels
(Raptor) writes:
[some deletion...]
>I would probably have not been able to attend college at least for
several years, and I would not have made the contributions I have. (I'm
not being totally altruistic about this - I make no bones about the fact
that I benefitted personally from student loans. The point is, I think
I've paid it back, and so have many other people.())
>It would be very helpful if someone dug up default numbers for GSLs.
The issue of defaulting on loans should be pretty simple to take
care of. There is already an automatic paycheck deduction system in
place for Social Security, unemployment insurance, and income tax. Why
not just have an automatic deduction system for education loan payments?
Alan Daniels.
a...@ix.netcom.com.
Dave Mandelin
Raptor <law...@xmission.xmission.com> wrote:
>
>>>I am a 30-year-old white male.
>
>>>I had no money of my own to spend on my college education.
>
>>>I received a bachelor's degree in Computer Science paid for with government
>>>money and a small amount of private scholarships.
>
>>>Between the interest on my government-guaranteed student loans, and my
>>>income taxes as a single wage earner near $50,000/year, I have more than
>>>paid back the government for my education.
>
>>>I contributed to American success in Operation Desert Storm, the space
>>>shuttle program, and my efforts support the gathering of intelligence
>>>on a daily basis by our national security agencies.
>
>>>Without federal aid to higher education, none of this would have happened.
>
>continue to have the same level of access to college educations, then
>I will consent to nearly any proposal.
>
>However, cases like mine illustrate that at least in many cases, federal
>assistance to higher education is a Good Thing.
Time for an Economic Reality Check. I think it would be fair to
characterize most of your argument as a cost-benefit analysis of
government education financing assistance.
It was certainly a good thing that you got to go to college, enjoyed
it, and subsequently got a job you like. It is also a good thing that
you became more economically productive as a result.
But you neglect to mention that either you took up a place in a
college that could have been used by another potential student,
which is bad for that student, or you caused economic resources
to be diverted away from other things to your education, which is
a little bit bad for a lot of people. Also, you weren't producing
very much while you were in school.
Until you can show that the "good" side of the ledger outwieghs the
"bad" side, you have not illustrated anything except for the fact
that the national government assistance helped YOU.
Notice that I completely ignored your tax contributions. This is
because in a sensible cost-benefit analysis, we want to know how
national gov assistance affects the nation as a whole, not the
national gov. Government taxation and spending just moves produce
around. It doesn't create any. But see below...
>My position on government spending is that the government should spend to
>the point of positive return, and not spend beyond the point of diminshing
>returns. Arguments based on Constitutional separation of powers do not
>mean much to me, since the Constitution is a document written purposefully
>vaguely, and personal interpretations are as varied as people.
Aha! Now you have destroyed your own argument. It is a theorem of
economics that "return" is maximized by a free market. So your
position is that the government should spend $0 on education financing
assistance.
My position is: if education is so great (which I believe it is) and
profitable, then no assistance should be needed. Students and their
families can apply for home equity loans and other bank loans. Another
idea, which I owe to Milton Friedman, is that of a student selling
equity in his education to an investor. The investor pays for the
student's education, and after the student graduates, he is obligated
to return a certain fraction of his income to the investor for a certain
amount of time. Defaults are then impossible. If there truly were a
shortage of college grads, employers would start paying for students
who promised to work for them upon graduation. The typical college
grad has over a $1 million lifetime income, so even the poorest of
students have a lot to offer investors.
These ways of financing education have several advantages: they don't
give free money to middle class families that don't need it (which
the current system does), equity investors will want students to
follow a program of study that will lead to a good job, and students
paid for by employers will automatically get/fill a job.
It would also probably cut down on the number of English majors, etc,
which is bad, because people do enjoy those programs, but I don't
see we should allow some people that privilege at everyone else's
expense. I think it would better match students to jobs, which is
good for students, employers, and consumers.
>If it works, don't fix it. Federal assistance to higher education works.
Not a very revealing statement if you don't say what "works" means.
Gary Weston
: On Thu, 23 Feb 1995 12:54:23 -0700 in article <mwalker-2302...@mwalker.murray.novell.com>, Mel Walker wrote:
: > In article <3iikib$3...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
: > cam...@gauss.eecs.berkeley.edu (Mike Williamson) wrote:
: > > There is a bill that will in effect massively cut federal funding for
: > > higher education. It goes on the floor on March 1.
: > What is the designation of the bill, so that we can specifically refer to
: > it (should we wish to write)?
: And is cutting federal funds for higher education of necessity a bad
: thing? One need only look at the quality of posts from .edu sites to see
: what happens when *anyone* is able to get a college education,
: regardless of merit.
Yeah, and without federal funds for higher education Phil Gramm would
probably be a shipping clerk somewhere.
Hell, cutting federal funds for higher education may not be all bad.
--
Gary Weston vi...@crl.com |Nunca entra en disputas.
Petaluma, CA Pues, de vez en cuando...
asdf
(Billy Beck) wrote:
Gee billy, those are some brutal brutal words. Do you see any good in
government? Has the government given you any service? Has the government
so for managed not to park a soviet made intercontiental balistic missile
in you maggot infested livingroom?
You are not seeing everything. You see some of the inefficiencies of
government and say they are stealing STEALING your property. Nothing
personal but you are making a fool of yourself.
As far as I can tell, Freedom dosn't mean FREE. Many things in life can
be free like...picking you nose. Go ahead pick it. Its free.
PS Your sight of the problems in the government is off. Welfare is a
drop in the bucket in the Federal budget. A drop. DING. It dosn't
fucking hurt..it just hurts your eyes. What you dont see is the Billion
and Billion of dollars that is spent every year on the interest on the
National MUTHA FUCKin DEBT. That money goes to the rich. I don't hear you
complaining about that FUCHFACE.....FUCK THE "milk for starving babies"
QUICk give that money to the rich.
get you head out of you ass.
dre
Billy Beck
Yo,
>> Let me tell you: I don't give a clap-ridden _fuck_ if they are stealing
>>money every April 15th in order to provide milk for starving babies.
>Gee billy, those are some brutal brutal words. Do you see any good in
>government? Has the government given you any service? Has the government
>so for managed not to park a soviet made intercontiental balistic missile
>in you maggot infested livingroom?
I beg your questionable pardon? I wonder who you think you're talking
to. I suppose it'll be made clear as I proceed.
Before I do, however, I suppose I should answer your questions. I mean,
fair is fair, eh wot?
No: I do not see any good in government.
Your second question is largely irrelevant (however, the answer is: none that I
could avoid). The real question is: where do they get it before they give it away?
This is important, and I'd appreciate it if you'd try to answer it for me.
As for the Soviet ICBMs: you're talking to the wrong guy in the wrong tone. My
Dad seperated out of SAC in 1974. I grew up in the cross-hairs, and I know enough
to understand that the thrust of your question is arguable, at best.
>You are not seeing everything. You see some of the inefficiencies of
>government and say they are stealing STEALING your property. Nothing
>personal but you are making a fool of yourself.
Nothing personal, but yo, dumbass: the theft *preceeds* the inefficiencies, okay?
My point has nothing to do with "ineffiencies". (Frankly, I'm glad the goddamned
governments aren't *more* efficient than they are at what they do. If they were, the
rest of us would never get anything done.)
The rank fact of the matter is that they are stealing my property.
>As far as I can tell, Freedom dosn't mean FREE. Many things in life can
>be free like...picking you nose. Go ahead pick it. Its free.
Well, then...that's as far as you can tell.
>PS Your sight of the problems in the government is off. Welfare is a
>drop in the bucket in the Federal budget. A drop. DING.
You're absolutely correct.
I say: get rid of it all. Start lopping off whole departments with a chain-saw.
>It dosn't
>fucking hurt..it just hurts your eyes. What you dont see is the Billion
>and Billion of dollars that is spent every year on the interest on the
>National MUTHA FUCKin DEBT. That money goes to the rich. I don't hear you
>complaining about that FUCHFACE.....FUCK THE "milk for starving babies"
>QUICk give that money to the rich.
>get you head out of you ass.
Now you're blithering. You don't hear me complaining about the what?
Billy
laster scott
And we know that "theorems of economics" are always right, forever!!!
>
>My position is: if education is so great (which I believe it is) and
>profitable, then no assistance should be needed. Students and their
>families can apply for home equity loans and other bank loans. Another
>idea, which I owe to Milton Friedman, is that of a student selling
>equity in his education to an investor. The investor pays for the
>student's education, and after the student graduates, he is obligated
>to return a certain fraction of his income to the investor for a certain
>amount of time. Defaults are then impossible. If there truly were a
>shortage of college grads, employers would start paying for students
>who promised to work for them upon graduation. The typical college
>grad has over a $1 million lifetime income, so even the poorest of
>students have a lot to offer investors.
In other words: free markets fix everything. Even when companies facing
shrinking profits and tax laws that makes it cheaper to buy out and sell
off assets of smaller companies, they will be able to forget the short
term and invest in the long term education of the US population. Or maybe
"smart" companies will just move operations to the countries that do invest
in education. All the new free trade laws make it easier than ever.
Scott
Raptor
If I had not gone to college, chances are that I would not be
contributing nearly as much to the nation as I am now, either as
services or tax dollars.
You ignore the fact that college assistance is rendered on an equal-
opportunity basis, for the most part. (Since I am a white male, I
don't think you'd have much success arguing against it on Affirmative
Action grounds.) Therefore, your complaint about my "taking someone
else's place" is groundless, since a place should be available to
them.
As for comparitive worth, that's beyond my ability to assess. I know
in my case, I've given back a helluva lot more than what was spent on
me. In light of that, I find it hard to take complaints about the
spending of the money seriously.
>Notice that I completely ignored your tax contributions. This is
>because in a sensible cost-benefit analysis, we want to know how
>national gov assistance affects the nation as a whole, not the
>national gov. Government taxation and spending just moves produce
>around. It doesn't create any. But see below...
I believe it's almost an axiom of economics that an educated workforce
is a productive one.
You can ignore my tax contributions all you want. I think I'll ignore
yours and any claim you have over them. After all, it's just moving
money around. I hope you don't plan on complaining about college aid
because they're using your tax money without your permission...
>>My position on government spending is that the government should spend to
>>the point of positive return, and not spend beyond the point of diminshing
>>returns. Arguments based on Constitutional separation of powers do not
>>mean much to me, since the Constitution is a document written purposefully
>>vaguely, and personal interpretations are as varied as people.
>Aha! Now you have destroyed your own argument. It is a theorem of
>economics that "return" is maximized by a free market. So your
>position is that the government should spend $0 on education financing
>assistance.
How solid is this so-called theorem? What is "return?" The "free
market" is both mythical and non-magical. There are merely "more
free" and "less free" markets.
>My position is: if education is so great (which I believe it is) and
>profitable, then no assistance should be needed. Students and their
>families can apply for home equity loans and other bank loans.
What about students who don't have homes, or credit, but have talent?
Are we to waste that ability because someone didn't happen to have
money?
Another
>idea, which I owe to Milton Friedman, is that of a student selling
>equity in his education to an investor. The investor pays for the
>student's education, and after the student graduates, he is obligated
>to return a certain fraction of his income to the investor for a certain
>amount of time. Defaults are then impossible. If there truly were a
>shortage of college grads, employers would start paying for students
>who promised to work for them upon graduation. The typical college
>grad has over a $1 million lifetime income, so even the poorest of
>students have a lot to offer investors.
Been there, done that. The investor is called "the government" and
the indenture is called "taxes."
>These ways of financing education have several advantages: they don't
>give free money to middle class families that don't need it (which
>the current system does), equity investors will want students to
>follow a program of study that will lead to a good job, and students
>paid for by employers will automatically get/fill a job.
I wonder how much risk an investor would be willing to underwrite. The
government is willing to incur considerable risk because we call it a
"social program." Few private investors would be willing to spend money
on an inner-city minority child, I would think.
>It would also probably cut down on the number of English majors, etc,
>which is bad, because people do enjoy those programs, but I don't
>see we should allow some people that privilege at everyone else's
>expense. I think it would better match students to jobs, which is
>good for students, employers, and consumers.
What goes around, comes around.
>>If it works, don't fix it. Federal assistance to higher education works.
>Not a very revealing statement if you don't say what "works" means.
Positive return on the dollar is how I define it.
Rick Abrams
Finally, a conservative gets close to the end objective: a return to
slavery! Come on folks, get up on the auction block. What am I bid
for this strapping young computer programmer?
In just a moment, the treat I promised, a doctor, tops in her class.
(And not bad looking either. heh-heh-heh)
Pardon me, but I just gotta' run down to the local college and
check out the livestock^H^H^H^H^H^H^H graduating class.
>
>These ways of financing education have several advantages: they don't
>give free money to middle class families that don't need it (which
>the current system does), equity investors will want students to
>follow a program of study that will lead to a good job, and students
>paid for by employers will automatically get/fill a job.
>
>It would also probably cut down on the number of English majors, etc,
>which is bad, because people do enjoy those programs, but I don't
>see we should allow some people that privilege at everyone else's
>expense. I think it would better match students to jobs, which is
>good for students, employers, and consumers.
>
>>If it works, don't fix it. Federal assistance to higher education works.
>
>Not a very revealing statement if you don't say what "works" means.
--
rha
Fred L. Yaffe
(Billy Beck) wrote:
Billy
you don't know what you are talking about. Government is very
important. Without government you would be one fucked puppy. Without
government your property could never be protected. Of course if it were
up to you it would be every man for himself. Sounds Great. Why don't you
go live in the Jungle or sumthin: don't for get to write. HA HA HA!!!
dre
PS your a fool why don't you go fuck yourself. FAGGOT
dre
Mark Kauderer
Dave Mandelin <mand...@yar.cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
Aha! Now you have destroyed your own argument. It is a theorem of
economics that "return" is maximized by a free market. So your position is
that the government should spend $0 on education financing assistance.
MK: First, though I am a hardcore anarcho-capitalist I know of no such
theorem. I suspect that any such theorem you may have invented is simply
a tautology from your (presumably ridiculous) definitions. While markets
do tend to be more efficient than nonmarkets over long periods of time
there is no guarantee of that in any specific market, to my knowledge. I
believe in free markets because they are MORALLY superior to government.
The economic efficiency is just an added bonus.
A better argument against government funding of higher education
is based on affirmative action. Affirmative action violates every decent
impulse. It judges people based on which (Government specified) group
that person happens to fall into according to the government. This is
ABSOLUTELY incompatible with respect for human rights. Thus government
funding should be prohibited to organizations such as universities which
have systematically judged people not as individuals but as automatons in
a grouping. The effect, of course, has been to get precisely those
individuals who do act just like mindless cogs in a wheel. They know
their career is indebted to the affirmative action bureaucrats that
picked them and will never thus bite the hand that feeds them. As someone
who taught at a state university for a while I can assure you that the
universities are being filled up with semi-incompetents who know only one
thing: the Government is always right and only the Government can solve
problems. Note that the individuals chosen by affirmative action are not
even the best candidates of the Government favored race. The bureaucrats
know that someone truly qualified doesn't need them. Thus the bureaucrats
will try to hire the LEAST qualified applicant of the Government favored
race, because those people will take orders more readily. For all these
reasons you can be sure there will be a huge cry of protest if and when
affirmative action is ever overturned-a whole generation of incompetents
stands to lose their livelihood. While I agree that taxation is never
justified, funding higher education is a fairly small sin were it not for
the odious policy of affirmative action and its destruction of the
American education system, which before such policies were implemented
was generally regarded as the top such institutions on the planet.
When the history of how the American dream was killed by statists
affirmative action will play a major role. It is the classic example of
a policy which has impoverished almost everyone and society as a whole
(not to mention its role in constantly reminding Americans every day of
what Government designated race they are and how that will effect the
rest of their lives).
Mark Kauderer
I hate democrats, republicans,liberals, conservatives, leftists, and
rightists. Aside from them I love my fellow human coinhabiters just
because that's the kind of guy I am.
Earl EVLETH p 74208
: Dave Mandelin <mand...@yar.cs.wisc.edu> wrote:
: I hate democrats, republicans,liberals, conservatives, leftists, and
: rightists. Aside from them I love my fellow human coinhabiters just
: because that's the kind of guy I am.
Love'em all if only to end up not hating oneself.
Michael J. Edelman
: In article <3j7pst$7...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, bill...@ix.netcom.com
: (Billy Beck) wrote:
Hmm. English major, Sociology or EdD candidate?
--m
Caliban
: Billy
: you don't know what you are talking about. Government is very
: important. Without government you would be one fucked puppy. Without
: government your property could never be protected. Of course if it were
: up to you it would be every man for himself. Sounds Great. Why don't you
: go live in the Jungle or sumthin: don't for get to write. HA HA HA!!!
: dre
: PS your a fool why don't you go fuck yourself. FAGGOT
: dre
Well, thanks for your comments -- I always enjoy reading
anything that makes libertarians look good, even by comparison!
--
Caliban
cal...@gate.net
"Whoever dies with the most skills wins."
bab
> As for comparitive worth, that's beyond my ability to assess. I know
> in my case, I've given back a helluva lot more than what was spent on
> me. In light of that, I find it hard to take complaints about the
> spending of the money seriously.
Two comments. First off, you say you have "given back" more than you
took. Well, the problem is that it was stolen money to begin with. You
"gave it back" to the government, not to the people who created the
wealth that you used to finance your education. Those people probably
wanted to do something else with that wealth, which would have increased
*their* wellbeing, rather than yours and the politicians and bureaucrats.
Second, if getting a college education is such a profitable endeavor,
there should be no lack of private enterprisers who would loan the money
in exchange for a piece of future earnings. If we got rid of the
government financing programs, this kind of business would probably
become one of the popular ways of financing higher education. Of course,
this would probably not be much of an option for folks who want to study
some field that doesn't have much employment demand, but then they don't
pay much in taxes, either.
Raptor
> If I want to creep up on you and tear your fucking *heart* out with a pair
>of Vice-Grips, I will. I will simply wait until they're not looking (after all; they're easy
>to see, and nobody knows what I look like), and if you're grisly, gore-pumping end
>is what I really want, I'll have it. They won't stop me because they can't.
> If you don't believe me, go ask a cop.
You might get away with it once, or maybe twice, or maybe more. But the
chances are against your getting away with it more than once.
Because we have government and its protections.
So you're short-sighted. Don't feel too bad, we all are sometimes.
(Except me.)
Gregory S. Richardson
>You might get away with it once, or maybe twice, or maybe more. But the
>chances are against your getting away with it more than once.
>
>Because we have government and its protections.
^^^^^^^^^^^
sentences one and two disprove the claim made in sentence three.
government, or the police in particular, isn't able to protect anybody
from harm. the best they can do is catch and imprison somebody who
has already inflicted harm. imprisoning someone who has committed a
crime is a form of protection, since it disables that particular
criminal. but that's a secondary, after-the-fact sort of protection.
if i get away with ripping one person's heart out with vice grips,
government protection hasn't done that one person much good. and you
clearly state that doing it once is entirely possible.
the strongest practical argument for gun rights i know builds on this
inability of government to protect anybody before the crime. in
short, 1) they can't protect everybody anyway, and 2) even in a
situation where the police could have protected someone and failed to
do so, they can't be held responsible.
anyway, the original post (i've deleted his name) was right: if he
wants to creep up on you and rip your heart out with vice grips, no
governmental authority stands in his way *before the fact.* then when
you're dead (closed casket funeral, please!) maybe he'll get caught
and put in jail.
some protection!
Raptor
>In article <3jfpd0$g...@umbc9.umbc.edu>, sla...@umbc.edu (laster scott) wrote:
>>
>> Or maybe
>> "smart" companies will just move operations to the countries that do invest
>> in education. All the new free trade laws make it easier than ever.
>>
>> Scott
>I think this is what would happen also. As Ross Perot says "now Mexican
>labor is even cheaper than ever." Contrary to what people believe
>Mexicans are hard workers. Funny thing is they are also smart. American
>companies can go to mexico and find engineers that are just as good as
>engineers int he US, only they work for about twenty thousand a year.
>Peanuts. So as good old Ross says, ".....have little or no environmental
>controls, why would I ever build a company in the U.S.?" (Nightline).
Given that America's lead in many high-tech industry sectors is
unchallenged, it's clear that companies are not moving to Mexico to
take advantage of cheap labor.
There must be something besides labor costs happening here. Perhaps it's
the infrastructure and labor force as a whole.
Of course, there's the old standby response of, "If labor costs were all
that mattered, Bangladesh and Haiti would be the superpowers of the world."
Raptor
>In <3jlfgd$8...@xmission.xmission.com> law...@xmission.xmission.com (Raptor) writes:
>>bill...@ix.netcom.com (Billy Beck) writes:
>>> If I want to creep up on you and tear your fucking *heart* out with a pair
>>>of Vice-Grips, I will. I will simply wait until they're not looking (after all; they're easy
>>>to see, and nobody knows what I look like), and if you're grisly, gore-pumping end
>>>is what I really want, I'll have it. They won't stop me because they can't.
>>
>>> If you don't believe me, go ask a cop.
>>
>>You might get away with it once, or maybe twice, or maybe more. But the
>>chances are against your getting away with it more than once.
> This is completely beside the point. I recall that my interlocuter had a point
>to make about "protection"?
It is not only not beside the point, it is the point exactly.
The police can't provide protection against a first-time attack, it's true
that the citizen must protect oneself against random violence. But once a
crime is committed, the protections inherent in society and government come
to play. The criminal is typically apprehended and punished. If s/he
commits another crime after the punishment, then there is another victim,
but government takes up the issue again and protects against future attacks.
> Yo, Baby: being a little bit protected is like being a little bit pregnant. Either one
>is or one isn't. I'm not here to discuss odds or probabilities. The topic is protection
>and I'm here to tell you that there is *none*. It is the most gaseous illusion of modern
>times.
Well, stud, I think you're letting your balls do the talking. A little
bit too much testosterone.
>>Because we have government and its protections.
> Yeah.
> I recently had first-hand experience with it when the government "protected" me
>from a drunk driver. Then, they saw to justice in the matter.
> Funny thing, though: my Harley is still gone, the guy is still un-insured, but he's
>making monthly payments to the court on fines that he can't afford, after the
>prosecutor worked a plea deal with without even at glance at me.
And if the prosecutor/court did their jobs, the drunk can't drive legally
now. If s/he does anyway, then stricter measures will be taken, until
the drunk simply can't drive at all.
> I guess we have to finance these various deficits (including state ones)
>_somehow_ eh wot?
What does this have to do with anything? Hell, how did we start talking
about crime and punishment in this thread about financial aid?
asdf
(Billy Beck) wrote:
> >: I hate democrats, republicans,liberals, conservatives, leftists, and
> >: rightists. Aside from them I love my fellow human coinhabiters just
> >: because that's the kind of guy I am.
> >
> >
> >Love'em all if only to end up not hating oneself.
>
> Rank bullshit.
>
> I know precisely who I love, and why.
>
> Thieves don't qualify.
>
>
> Billy
them bones
them bones
....them bones, them prime ribbed bones.
Them theives
Them theives
.
.
.
Them theives, them prime ribbed theives.
Billy Prozac.........get it......need it......quick.
dre
asdf
> anyway, the original post (i've deleted his name) was right: if he
give credit were credit is deserved. Don't be shy. His name is Billy.
People are thrown in jail for saying things like that. Let him shoot his
little pecker off. With any luck he will email the President with a
threat and find the butt of a secret service agents Mr. NineMillimeter in
his skull.
dre
asdf
law...@xmission.xmission.com (Raptor) wrote:
> asdf (asdf) writes:
>
> >In article <3jfpd0$g...@umbc9.umbc.edu>, sla...@umbc.edu (laster scott)
wrote:
> >>
> >> Or maybe
> >> "smart" companies will just move operations to the countries that do invest
> >> in education. All the new free trade laws make it easier than ever.
> >>
> >> Scott
>
>
>
> >I think this is what would happen also. As Ross Perot says "now Mexican
> >labor is even cheaper than ever." Contrary to what people believe
> >Mexicans are hard workers. Funny thing is they are also smart. American
> >companies can go to mexico and find engineers that are just as good as
> >engineers int he US, only they work for about twenty thousand a year.
> >Peanuts. So as good old Ross says, ".....have little or no environmental
> >controls, why would I ever build a company in the U.S.?" (Nightline).
>
> Given that America's lead in many high-tech industry sectors is
> unchallenged, it's clear that companies are not moving to Mexico to
> take advantage of cheap labor.
>
Well if they are not going to move to Mexico, Corporations can use the
threat of moving to Mexico to lower wages. Fact of the matter is that the
real wages in America are declining. The reason is Free Trade. Americans
Cannot compete in a world full of cheap labor. I say cut defense spending
and use that money to persue a more national economic policy. Support R&D
and compete with better not cheaper produces. This alternative will raise
wages and not lower wages as the U.S. policies are doing today.
dre
NAFTA Sucks
Billy Beck
Bruce,
> It's ok if YOU are the beneficiary, but God help anyone who might
> see in what YOU advocate the very same thing you whine about below,
> huh...they can just "fuck off"...right?
> Brilliant argument.
Thank jesus. I thought it was just me.
> And while you're at it, Beck's still waiting on that check from you
> so he can put those pipes on his Harley...where the hell is it?
> Those things are as important to him as someone else footing the
> bill for your education was to you.
Hey, man...It looks like we might have to put this to the vote, and overwhelm this
guy. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work when things are in dispute?
Tell ya what: if you vote for my pipes, I'll vote for your...(psst! whaddya want out of
the deal?)...and we'll make *him* pay for it.
See ya at The Booth, Pal.
Billy
Billy Beck
Gregory,
>with regard to tearing hearts out with vice grips:
Quite, Sir.
>>You might get away with it once, or maybe twice, or maybe more. But the
>>chances are against your getting away with it more than once.
>>
>>Because we have government and its protections.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>sentences one and two disprove the claim made in sentence three.
>government, or the police in particular, isn't able to protect anybody
>from harm. the best they can do is catch and imprison somebody who
>has already inflicted harm.
I must emphatically agree. At the moment of harm, the claim is invalid.
>imprisoning someone who has committed a
>crime is a form of protection, since it disables that particular
>criminal.
Well...
>but that's a secondary, after-the-fact sort of protection.
...I hold that your statement presumes that the convict will _necessarily_
commit another crime.
Absent deliberate statement by the criminal in person, I wouldn't care to defend
that proposition.
>the strongest practical argument for gun rights i know builds on this
>inability of government to protect anybody before the crime. in
>short, 1) they can't protect everybody anyway, and 2) even in a
>situation where the police could have protected someone and failed to
>do so, they can't be held responsible.
I fully agree. I applaud your wise emphasis on the qualifier, "practical".
That leaves lots of field for ethics like mine (property rights) to play in.
>anyway, the original post (i've deleted his name) was right: if he
>wants to creep up on you and rip your heart out with vice grips, no
>governmental authority stands in his way *before the fact.* then when
>you're dead (closed casket funeral, please!) maybe he'll get caught
>and put in jail.
That was me.
Hunter S. Thompson left an indelible stamp on my style.
>some protection!
And such a _bargain_ at the current rates!
Billy
Billy Beck
>> Funny thing, though: my Harley is still gone, the guy is still un-insured, but he's
>>making monthly payments to the court on fines that he can't afford, after the
>>prosecutor worked a plea deal with without even at glance at me.
>And if the prosecutor/court did their jobs, the drunk can't drive legally
>now. If s/he does anyway, then stricter measures will be taken, until
>the drunk simply can't drive at all.
Swell.
I feel ever so much more "protected" now...with two broken vertebrae.
I have a nice, warm feeling of "security"...every time my scars itch.
It's great if he's not out there any more. I feel like going for a ride!...
oh. He can't afford to pay for what he did to me (like in; replacing Piglet)...
>Hell, how did we start talking about crime and punishment in this thread...
(watch the principle ball, Raptor)
>...about financial aid?
....because he's paying the state.
Now. Where did the value of my bike go?
By what right?
Billy
Billy Beck
Yo, Rupture,
>> Nice life, huh?
>Frankly, I think so. In spite of the fact that I have put in more
>than I take out, and continue to do so, and almost certainly dump more
>of my money into the system than you do, both in raw numbers and as a
>proportion.
Swinging!! I really mean that. Good for *you*! You seem to be as happy as you
can be about it all.
>Producers of wealth? I AM one.
Okay. Do you have a point to make?
>I guess I'm just a leetle bit better at dealing with it than you.
My assessment of your implication is evolving. Are you sure of your ground?
While you figure it out, think about this: I say, god bless you if you like what you
see around you and are proud of your part in it.
Do you greatly mind if I have nothing to do with it?
Billy
Billy Beck
Yo, Doktor,
>give credit were credit is deserved. Don't be shy. His name is Billy.
>People are thrown in jail for saying things like that. Let him shoot his
>little pecker off. With any luck he will email the President with a
>threat and find the butt of a secret service agents Mr. NineMillimeter in
>his skull.
Is this what one looks like when one stops thinking?
Billy
Billy Beck
Ripture,
>> You're just don't get it do you? Below you grumble about
>> "indentured servitude" while here you advocate it. Why should *I*
>> be indentured to your fucking college degree program so YOU can
>> benefit? My plans for the money that was taken don't mean a damn
>> thing to you, do they?
>A legal examination of two samples of the types of contracts in
>question would reveal significant fundamental differences.
*Legal*!? ("Legal"...izzat what he said??)
C'mon, man. Don't you know that they make it up as they go along?
Look; everything Hitler did was "legal". For god's sake, we have more lawyers than
anyone *ever* has. Doesn't that tell a bit about the state of the "law"?
I should think more than twice before I'd stand on "law" in River City.
>You are presumably a citizen of this country.
Before I stipulate, I would ask: what precisely, Sir, does that imply?
>You pay taxes. Some of that tax money is returned to you in a variety of ways.
>If you don't like it, find a country that doesn't tax its citizens. Good luck, and
>keep looking.
Extortion. `Nuff said.
>I do not begrudge the money I pay in taxes. It's perfectly irrelevent
>to me that you can't relate.
Yeah, that's nice, Rap, but you see, the fact that you can't relate is far from
"irrelevent" to me. The fact is also that I don't want to pay for things I don't want.
It's a basic human attribute which I possess in abundance: I vastly prefer to choose
my own values, than have them forced upon me.
(Uhmm...question: are we disputing the fact of implicit violence in taxation? I
should hope not.)
You'd never enter the picture except that, well, you, like...*pay* for them to
conduct these raids on my earnings...and I imagine that you, probably, *vote*
different gangs in & out of office...handing The Gun around amongst successive
"administrations", and other messy stuff like that. I know for sure that you have no
sympathetic regard for my right to my property...which saddens me because I'd
never let anybody rob *you* if I could bring my efforts to bear on it...
>If you are opposed to the principle of taxation, then fuck off. I
>could say it more politely, but that's what it comes down to anyway.
>If you're opposed to certain uses of taxes, then we have something to
>discuss.
Like what? What could you possibly discuss? How to divide the carcass?
Billy
eiu.edu
because they probably still live at home with mommy and daddy. They don't
yet understand life. Try getting a job and pay rent and all the bills.
besides Billy and Raptor are singing in unison the Raw Hide theme
Trollin Trollin Trollin
Keep those sumthing sumthin
TROLLING
blah blahblah
blah blah blah
dre
eiu.edu
Baugh) wrote:
> In article <asdf-09039...@panther1429.eiu.edu>, asdf (asdf) wrote:
>
> I see that you're so proud of your ideas that you rush to identify yourself
> with them. Congratulations on the courage this takes.
>
> :threat of moving to Mexico to lower wages. Fact of the matter is that the
> :real wages in America are declining. The reason is Free Trade.
>
> And what made wages fall during administrations with protectionist bents,
> then?
That was my point. Wages didn't fall. I challenge you to find a
country in history that became rich from free trade. You can't because
history shows that protectionist policies always contributed to a growing
economy: an economy where real wages increase with increased production.
The only exception to the rule is Britain. Britain became fabulously
weathy through free trade. This is because Britain had the muscle to go
the world and effectivly take what they wanted. Hence the American
Revolution. Which takes me to a great example were protectionist policies
helped advance a countries. America Flourished during this time of great
expansion. On certain products we had up to two hundred percent
tarriffs. This helped developing industries grow and compete in the
domestic market. Now we are in the later part of the 20th century and we
pass Free Trade agreements. We open owr markets based on the theory of
Comparitive
Advantage. This is the theory that is based on a perfect system. Not
taking in consideration other countries industrial policies. While the
united states practices a more geostratigic policy, the rest of the world
will kick our ass with there geoeconomic policy. To put it simply we
don't support our industries and other countries do. This is a difficult
way to compete in a the world.
So I don't know what you are talking about. And that stuff on libitarianism..
never heard of it.
dre
Bruce Baugh
I see that you're so proud of your ideas that you rush to identify yourself
with them. Congratulations on the courage this takes.
:threat of moving to Mexico to lower wages. Fact of the matter is that the
:real wages in America are declining. The reason is Free Trade.
And what made wages fall during administrations with protectionist bents,
then?
The whole "we can't compete with our little brown brothers" anti-free trade
position is more than a little loathsome. There was a time when it was the
bloated plutocrats who argued that we couldn't or shouldn't deal with our
little brown brothers as equals, and the champions of equality and social
justice who said that we can and should. Now things are reversed. People who
holler about equal rights and justice within their borders seem keen to keep
others who might benefit from those things as far removed as possible.
As Steve Stirling says, all socialism becomes national socialism. And then
National Socialism.
___________bruceab@teleport.com______http://www.teleport.com/~bruceab/_________
Host of Christlib, the mailing list for Christian and/or libertarian discussion
E-mail me for info, or get info from http://www.teleport.com/~bruceab/xlib.html
"Proclaim liberty throughout all the land to all its inhabitants."
Bruce McQuain
Bruce McQuain
>>> You're just don't get it do you? Below you grumble about
>>> "indentured servitude" while here you advocate it. Why should
>>> *I* be indentured to your fucking college degree program so YOU
>>> can benefit? My plans for the money that was taken don't mean a
>>> damn thing to you, do they?
>>A legal examination of two samples of the types of contracts in
>>question would reveal significant fundamental differences.
Yo, Rap...an indenture IS a written contract or agreement...in a
GENERAL sense. So BOTH would be indentures.
Heh...now that you've brought it up, where's my written contract
(signed and agreed to by me) that requires I give up half my
earnings in taxes to the government. Geez, how is it *LEGAL* to
take my stuff without me agreein'?
> *Legal*!? ("Legal"...izzat what he said??)
Whoa...Beck...hold on there, don't be so hasty. I broke the code.
Let's check this guy's gig out before we rain on his parade.
Lesse...legal. Hmmm...if I get his drift, we just get a bigger mob
than he has, pass a few "laws" so we can take the money we need for
the stuff we want and because we've got more guys than he does,
taking that money becomes "legal". We just call 'em tax laws.
Man...I like it, Beck, I like it.
To hell with leathers and pipes...man, a whole new Harley...maybe
two. What the hell, anyone else out there want a piece of old
Raptor? He's buyin'...we got LAWS that say he's buyin'.
Hell don't worry...Like I said, Beck and I are gonna make it
"legal" so you all can sleep well at night. We'll pass "laws" making
theft "legal"...no sweat!
Come on and vote with us...Harley's for everyone.
Contracts? We don' need no steenkin' contracts.
Hot damn...we got the MAJORITY!
McQ
Bruce McQuain
>>mcq...@ix.netcom.com (Bruce McQuain) writes:
> law...@xmission.xmission.com (Raptor) writes:
>>>It was tax money.
>> NAW...say it ain't so. From whence in hell do you suppose it was
>> taken?
>From people like you, me and my parents. Is this news to you?
Interesting answer...I ask you from whence the money was TAKEN. And
you answer, "from people." Freudian slip?
Or an acutal acknowledgement that it is TAKEN, not given. Taken
under pain of imprisonment?
>> You're just don't get it do you? Below you grumble about
>> "indentured servitude" while here you advocate it. Why should *I*
>> be indentured to your fucking college degree program so YOU can
>> benefit? My plans for the money that was taken don't mean a damn
>> thing to you, do they?
>A legal examination of two samples of the types of contracts in
>question would reveal significant fundamental differences.
Such as they're not both WRITTEN contracts signed voluntarily by
both the contractees? By gosh you're right...there isn't a piece of
paper anywhere where I've contracted with this government to provide
me a single thing in return for paying a tax.
Heh...is that "legal?"
>You are presumably a citizen of this country. You pay taxes.
I was born in this country quite by chance. It had nothing to do
with the government and I've never ask the government for a thing.
Nothing about being born here should have "indentured" me to the
government that I know of, do you?
You're right, I DO pay taxes, a LOT of taxes...but I pay them under
duress, under the penalty of law, laws neither I nor a majority of
the rest of this nation ever voted on nor agreed too. I have no say
in how much tax is levied and I have no say in how they are spent.
That is a classic form of slavery...it simply doesn't have real
chains...just virtual ones.
>Some of that tax money is returned to you in a variety of ways. If
>you don't like it, find a country that doesn't tax its citizens.
>Good luck, and keep looking.
Jesus, you sound like a tape loop at a Chamber of Commerce booth.
Because I AM a citizen, and I DO pay taxes, I have an equal right to
say, feel and believe they are STOLEN goods. I can explain the
principle behind that belief quite well.
I've heard you mouth the party line, I've read how you have
benefited, but I've yet to see you defend the extortion of taxation
on principle.
There's a reason for that and I believe you know what it is.
It simply can't be done.
>> It's ok if YOU are the beneficiary, but God help anyone who might
>> see in what YOU advocate the very same thing you whine about
>> below, huh...they can just "fuck off"...right?
> Brilliant argument.
>I do not begrudge the money I pay in taxes.
I DO. I begrudge every freaking penny, mainly because no one ASKED
me to pay, they DEMAND I pay under penalty of imprisonment. Imagine
that...I EARN the money and some entity that doesn't generate a
single stinking CENT in wealth DEMANDS of me, under penalty of
imprisonment to give it what IT deems proper from those earnings.
And should I attempt to keep more than THEY deem proper, *I* am the
"cheat!"
In the Bronx they call that a "protection racket." In Washington,
they call it "investing in America." In the Bronx they break your
legs if you don't pay...in America, they send you to prison.
It matters NOT that they are extortionists, or that they participate
in LEGAL extortion because some motley mob got together and voted
away MY money without my permission or participation to you, does
it? Just so you "benefit", right, Raptor?
It's the "law"...it's "legal". What a crock of shit.
Would I voluntarily contribute to the state for maintainance of
it's proper functions? You bet...why wouldn't I, it's in my best
interest to do so. I might even pay what they think they need...but
I'll tell you how I'd get their attention when they wandered outside
that charter...I'd just withhold my money. WOW...what power. Think
about it...the most powerful tool we could have...WE'd be in charge
again.
If we'd have kept it that way, we most likely wouldn't be in the
damn mess we're in now.
Just as you would fight extortion by any criminal attempting to take
what you've earned without consultation or permission, I won't agree
to it from this thug that calls itself the United States Government.
PRINCIPLE my friend...that's what it is all about.
>It's perfectly irrelevent to me that you can't relate.
Of course it is irrelevant to you...you've made up your mind. If
you made it relevant, you'd have to acknowledge you accepted stolen
goods to go through school. You've all but done that anyway telling
us all how good you are, what a producer you are and that you've put
in more than you've taken...excuse me..."gotten." I almost
slipped...we are afterall in the era of "Newspeak".
>If you are opposed to the principle of taxation, then fuck off. I
>could say it more politely, but that's what it comes down to anyway.
>If you're opposed to certain uses of taxes, then we have something to
>discuss.
There is a single principle involved in taxation...it's called
EXTORTION...and anywhere else, it's a criminal offense.
McQ
Jan Brittenson
law...@xmission.xmission.com (Raptor) wrote:
> It was tax money. If this is the same as stolen money to you, then
> kindly just fuck off.
Sorry to disappoint you, but as long as you keep advocating a policy
of theft, we'll never "fuck off". I've never backed down to a bully,
and I'll be damned if I'm going to back down to scum like you. I doubt
very many here who aren't part of your wealthy tax-educated liberal
elite give chicken shit what you think. You're the one who should pay
back what you've stolen, with interest, to the people who paid for it,
not your own government. When you've paid it back, you're welcome to
"fuck off" yourself.
--
-- Jan Brittenson
bs...@moomix.com
Billy Beck
dre,
>I feel like i'm talking to a baby. How old are you Billy?
What you "feel" like is of virtually no interest to me.
I'm 38 years old. I've been self employed as a lighting designer/
director/master electrician for rock shows since 1977.
I've shown you mine, now you show me yours:
What do you do for a living?
Billy
Billy Beck
Bruce,
>> Thank jesus. I thought it was just me.
>
> Well, ya know Beck...it just depends on who's ox is gettin gored,
> doesn't it? You did note that in his reply to me our friend
> refused to deal with my billing him for your Harley's tail pipes.
> See until then HE was doin' all the stickin' and grinnin'.
Well...I'm not convinced that this is a Wayne King boogie, yet.
I see a really hard head of ignorance. I still don't get it. I don't
understand how anybody could imagine that valuable things simply
*appear*...somehow...ya, know?
> But instead of dealing with the principle of my "taxing" him for
> your "needs" as an intellectually honest person would have done, he
> ignored it's implications.
>
> Too inconvenient for his already made up mind.
Yeah, that's what I mean by a "hard head".
>> Hey, man...It looks like we might have to put this to the vote,
>> and overwhelm this guy. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work
>> when things are in dispute?
>> Tell ya what: if you vote for my pipes, I'll vote for
>> your...(psst! whaddya want out of the deal?)...and we'll make *him*
>> pay for it.
>> See ya at The Booth, Pal.
> Hell with that...let's do it now...I vote he pay, er...I vote we
> "TAX" him to for your pipes.
> And your vote? Great. Isn't majority rule wonderful? 2 to 1.
>
> We get to make him pay...er, "tax" him for our needs and all he gets
> to do is "fuck off" and do it.
Jeezix...d`ya think he's getting the point yet? I wonder what he'd have
to say to a real thug, right up in his face with the Right Now Squeeze,
"Uhmm...excuse me, Sir, but I wonder if I could, please, maybe, get you
to fuck off a bit?"
"For freedom, one must sit in jail." (an unknown dissident, quoted in
Solzhenitsyn)
One wonders if Raper might come away with a different attitude.
> Great system we've got here Beck! What else we need? What the
> hell, the guy said he was a producer...let's ride that freakin' pony
> till it drops from exhaustion.
> What say ya? New leathers?
Why not? He's not squealed once yet.
Billy
Billy Beck
>>>> You're just don't get it do you? Below you grumble about
>>>> "indentured servitude" while here you advocate it. Why should
>>>> *I* be indentured to your fucking college degree program so YOU
>>>> can benefit? My plans for the money that was taken don't mean a
>>>> damn thing to you, do they?
>
>>>A legal examination of two samples of the types of contracts in
>>>question would reveal significant fundamental differences.
>
> Yo, Rap...an indenture IS a written contract or agreement...in a
> GENERAL sense. So BOTH would be indentures.
>
> Heh...now that you've brought it up, where's my written contract
> (signed and agreed to by me) that requires I give up half my
> earnings in taxes to the government. Geez, how is it *LEGAL* to
> take my stuff without me agreein'?
One simply gets out one's Admini-matic legislative wrenches and waits
on the nod from the Parallel Construction Section (KP Detail - where they
cook the concepts), then one simply releases the proper pressure valves
into the congress and - thereyego! - Herd Pudding in an instant!
Eat hearty, Babe.
>> *Legal*!? ("Legal"...izzat what he said??)
>
> Whoa...Beck...hold on there, don't be so hasty. I broke the code.
> Let's check this guy's gig out before we rain on his parade.
I got yer six, Colonel.
> Lesse...legal. Hmmm...if I get his drift, we just get a bigger mob
> than he has, pass a few "laws" so we can take the money we need for
> the stuff we want and because we've got more guys than he does,
> taking that money becomes "legal". We just call 'em tax laws.
That's what I'm painting, too. I wonder if that's the way it really works.
Would he die like a man on the sword he lived with? Would he haul the
train he's riding? He takes pains to assure us that he's returning value on
the "investment" >gag< in his education. The poor sod doesn't undertand
that, where gangs are involved, ethical line gets drawn where ever the *victor*
wishes. (Observe the Nute "Revolutionaries": down with Barney, up with jails
& cops. Same old train, different track. The liberals haven't a leg to stand on,
because *they've* been getting it the same way for a generation now.)
Raptor clearly has no regard for the principle of private property. He's
quite willing to haggle over the proceeds, but he has no problem with
the crime. So...I'm looking around, Bruce, and I don't see anybody but
you & me & him...
> Man...I like it, Beck, I like it.
> To hell with leathers and pipes...man, a whole new Harley...maybe
> two. What the hell, anyone else out there want a piece of old
> Raptor? He's buyin'...we got LAWS that say he's buyin'.
....and I think we can dress it up real nice...
> Come on and vote with us...Harley's for everyone.
>
> Contracts? We don' need no steenkin' contracts.
>
> Hot damn...we got the MAJORITY!
...That's right. We just voted them in.
"The Pile On Raptor By Showing Up At His Door Every Morning So's He
Can Write Us Big Checks Act of 1995."
I just *love* a system like this!
Billy
Billy Beck
Lynn,
>While I think your ideas about how to best spend our money sound good,
It's not your money. It's really not.
Billy
Billy Beck
Roper,
>> I should think more than twice before I'd stand on "law" in River City.
>Have it your way. What other process did you have in mind for comparing
>indentured servitude and taxation? Don't keep us all in suspense.
>Illustrate for us how you equate the two.
"Force."
There can be no serious (are you serious here, Rap?) question that taxation
proceeds from the application of force, or its immediate threat. People, left free
to choose, will not give up their hard-earned money for things which they don't
want. The government understands this, and erects this pretense of "law". Where
it gets the political authority to do so is merely a matter of technique: Stalin got
it from a totalitarian machine; the United States gets it from people like you,
who get together with others of like mind, and overwhelm those who disagree.
No matter how it is structured, the essential attribute of government is this resort
to *force* which it brings to bear on people who hold values different from the
regime, and act on them. In the USSR, they were (at various times) engineers,
"kulaks", and little old ladies. In Nazi Germany, they were Jews. In Thieu's
Vietnam, they were Bhuddists. In Cambodia, they were doctors and teachers.
In each case, they were people who insisted on their own values, pressed
under the might of states which wouldn't permit it. This is the essence of
"involuntary servitude". (Are you being serious here, Lynn?)
>>>You are presumably a citizen of this country.
>> Before I stipulate, I would ask: what precisely, Sir, does that imply?
>
>I explained it thusly:
>
>>>You pay taxes. Some of that tax money is returned to you in a variety of ways.
>>>If you don't like it, find a country that doesn't tax its citizens. Good luck, and
>>>keep looking.
If that is what you mean by citizenship, then: No. I am not a citizen of that
country.
I am a free man, Lynn. You didn't create me, and neither did the gang you run
with. I don't owe you, yourself, any more than a safe passage across my bow.
Whatever else you might make of your "citizenship" has no claim on me, and your
government is no better than you are.
I will not divert the efforts of my life for you, or anyone.
Billy
Billy Beck
>
>b...@io.com (bab) writes:
Lynn,
>I have not only paid more in taxes than I took out during college, I
>PAID THE LOANS BACK.
You gave the money back to the government. Fine.
That has nothing to do with the people who it was first taken from.
Try to understand: there are real people around this country (do you
travel at all?) who live and die in that margin of productivity which gets
diverted into what the government thinks is good. To them, there is no
difference between your education, CIA funding, or mohair subsidies.
They're right, Rap. It was their money. They should have been left
alone to make the best of it for themselves. They earned it.
>I am willing to pay more taxes. I expect everyone else's taxes to go up
>at the same time, except for those who make less money than I do. I
>also expect the extra tax revenue to be used in a manner that will result
>in a lower deficit and debt ratio for the nation.
>Oops. Now what are you going to do?
I'm going to tell you that I have no interest in any of those things. It doesn't
matter to me whether you are willing to pay more taxes; that's your choice,
and I leave you to it. I don't get the same choice, do I? (Is this where you
tell me to "fuck off", Lynn? Please don't do that. I'd hate to find that you're
really that black in your heart.)
I have no interest in seeing others stolen from, at whatever rate, and it
doesn't matter to me what "manner" the "extra" booty is "used" in.
> But I see no reason to change the current system, not being a tax protestor
>at odds with 98% or so of the populace.
Hang tight with that majority, Lynn. That makes it easy to not think about
what's right and wrong.
Billy
James Battista
Billy Beck (bill...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >| I see a really hard head of ignorance. I still don't get it. I don't
: >| understand how anybody could imagine that valuable things simply
: >| *appear*...somehow...ya, know?
: >Does this mean you believe in a labor theory of value?
: Do you mean the which was stated by Marx?
: No. What made you ask that?
: Billy
Locke started it. Second Treatise on Gov't. Basic idea is that you
acquire the right to claim ownership over some object by mixing your
labor in with it. The difference between Locke's and Marx's versions
is that Locke seems to assume that all workers get their marginal
products while Marx, obviously, does not.
jim battista
jim...@acpub.duke.edu
Billy Beck
>: >| I see a really hard head of ignorance. I still don't get it. I don't
>: >| understand how anybody could imagine that valuable things simply
>: >| *appear*...somehow...ya, know?
>: >Does this mean you believe in a labor theory of value?
>: Do you mean the which was stated by Marx?
>: No. What made you ask that?
>Locke started it. Second Treatise on Gov't. Basic idea is that you
>acquire the right to claim ownership over some object by mixing your
>labor in with it. The difference between Locke's and Marx's versions
>is that Locke seems to assume that all workers get their marginal
>products while Marx, obviously, does not.
Thank you, sir. Yes, I fully agree with Locke's ethics. Yet, the finest
crystallization of the principle I ever saw was Rand:
"Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival."
Robert LeFerve rates a very close second with his:
"MMW = HE+NR*T" - "Man's Material Well-being equals Human Effort
plus Natural Resources multiplied by Tools."
All of this is the context in which I remarked to Bruce, about Raptor.
Billy
Billy Beck
Hobson
>I have heard this argument in usenet ad nauseum. Apparently the people
>repeating this nonsense don't know about or believe in the Constitution. In
>Article I Section 8 Congress is specifically given the power to levy and
>collect taxes.
>
>We can all disagree on whether taxes are fairly levied or well spent but
>this kind of argument is just stupid unless you don't accept the
>Constitution as the pre eminent political and legal document of this
>country.
You're absolutely correct.
There is no government on Earth which has a right to what I own. We could
discuss "law" and "constitution" all day long, but they are strictly irrelevent to
the *right* of the matter.
It's too bad that people commonly carry a higher regard for "law" than right,
but I'm not one of them.
Billy
Bruce McQuain
> gmo...@umbc.edu (moore geoffrey ( undc)) sorta wrote:
: >From: A Non-Libertarian FAQ.
: > 6. If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns will show up at
: > your house, initiate force and put you in jail.
:> This is not initiation of force. It is enforcement of contract,
:> in this case an explicit social contract.
: Based on WHAT stunning REASONING do you make this foolish
: assertion...you're equally absurd "social contract" gambit?
> so all contracts are in writing?
Did I say that? Did you read the rest of this where I assert that
verbal contracts are just as binding IF BOTH SIDES AGREE AND ASSENT
to the contract?
: > "explicit social contract" different from any other contract?
: Does it NOT require assent or acceptance by both parties?
>I'm sure that if both parties were capable, that either there's
>nothing to be gained, or nothing to lose.
That's not the question...does a contract require assent from both
parties before it is considered binding?
I'll save you the trouble of looking...the answer is yes.
>since perfect information is such a *great* part of that thing
>you call the free market, why is it that they explicitly allow so
>much false advertising?
You're not an econ major are you?
Perfect competition is the model that requires "perfect
information", NOT free markets.
A free market is simply a market in which there is an absence of
intervention by government and where the forces of supply and
demand are allowed to operate freely.
: >Many libertarians make a big deal of "men with guns" enforcing
: >laws, yet try to overlook the fact that "men with guns" are the
: >basis of enforcement of any complete social system. Even if
: >libertarians reduced all law to "don't commit fraud or initiate
: >force", they would still enforce with guns.
: Will enforce what? The initiation of force to confiscate property
: or the use of defensive force to protect property...hmmmmm?
>did you use defensive force to acquire it?
How would one do that or are we just into a little exercise to see
if we can make a question out of the last comment?
Do you understand the concept of "rightful" ownership?
When you take the time to find out, come talk to me.
: I'll initiate NO force, but I WILL act defensively against the
: initiation of force against me or my property. Do you even begin
: to understand the difference?
> what makes it your property?
Are you familiar with Locke's Second Trietse on Government? Are you
familiar with the concept of property as layed out in there?
Ownership? Are you familiar with derivative property? Proper or
rightful ownership? How property is rightfully acquired?
Then you have no idea how I make it my property, do you?...
>did you build it or manipulate it from some unknowing victim?
...As you prove with this silly question.
>unknowing means imperfect information, false libertarian.
I'm not sure you got on this particular little fleck of info, but I
know of no libertarian that's ever contended that perfect
information is a requirement of a free market, mainly I suppose
because it is NOT...the economic "perfect competition model,"
yes...it requires "perfect information." But, hell, why let a simple
fact stand in your way...you seem determined to ride this horsey
till it drops.
Uh...it's dead, pal. Get off.
: > There are several explicit means by which people make the social
: > contract with government. The commonest is when your parents
: > choose your residency and/or citizenship after your birth.
: By what irredeemable right do my parents choose my residency and
: citizenship and then bind me to a contract without my assent?
>what? you expect your parents to accomplish a libertarian
>ideal, when you can't do it yourself?
And what, pray tell, is the "libertarian" ideal...in your own words
please.
'Splain to me what I can't do myself...coherently if you please.
>exactly what is the argument here?
You tell me...vague questions and false assertions on your part so
far...want to try again and see if you can do better?
: Personally, I find it IMMORAL, i.e. we have no RIGHT, to saddle
: our kids with this debt...and you? I take it from your defense :
: of
>kids with protection from anything else we don't like and then
>considerably skip the point where if society was so free, the kids
>could also make those mistakes and parents could let them die,
>because they can't live on their own.
Yo, logicmeister...care to untangle this for me.
Where does my point even HINT that my refusal to give their rights
away to some entity in the form of a pseudo-contract somehow implies
I'll have to then leave them to their own wiles?
: > In that case, your parents or guardians are contracting for you,
: > exercising their power of custody.
: Custody does not abrogate basic rights my friend, and regardless
: of what my "custodians" say or do, they cannot trade my right to
: property away to the government, no matter how "legal" both make
: it.
>and it's also not your property.
You're saying I don't own myself?
Wrong. PLEASE, do try Locke, won't you?
>If it were truely free, again, and perfect information existed, what
>would keep someone else from not working unless you paid them what
>they knew you could pay. you could never retire.
What? You did inhale, didn't you?
What in the world are you talking about here other than that silly
and inapplicable "perfect information" again?
: I defy you to prove otherwise...without resorting to the
: initiation of force that is.
>i just did.
ROTFL...you did? Damn...I musta missed it.
: > No further explicit action is required on your part to continue
: > the agreement, and you may end it at any time by departing and
: > renouncing your citizenship.
: Bullsnort. Why must I renounce ANYTHING. Why doesn't the
>if you disagree than you can't take all the goods with you.
Why should I have too...take it with me that is? Where am I going?
: for an government engaged in an immoral activity? Afterall it is :
: a creation of the people, and not the other way around...it is OUR
: servant, not the other way around...correct?
>if it's not your people or government, you're free to leave.
Again, why should I have too?
: > Immigrants, residents, and visitors contract through the oath of
: > citizenship (swearing to uphold the laws and constitution),
: > residency permits, and visas.
: A contract they willingly make, right? So why am I not afforded the
: same opportunity? And if I don't care to agree to their terms, why
: can't I just refuse their offer and go it alone? Hell, I'm willing
: to pay my way.
>with what money?
MY money.
>the money's ours too.
Yours? I don't think so. It belongs to those that earn it
regardless of who prints it.
>unless you believe in the barter system, in which case, what land?
I do believe in barter, and cash and electronic transfers, etc.
What's your point?
>you're are already taking rights to the property which you don't want
>us to.
Such as?
: willingly. CHOICE, fella. How does that bind them in any way to
: servitude through taxation? How does that abrogate their right to
: speak out about immorality contained in the document we call the
: Constitution?
>at least we can.
Can what? Abrogate your right to speak out? Bind yourself to
taxation? Speak out about immorality in the Constitution?
Are you able to write more than vague four word sentences?
: Do you propose the Constitution is PERFECT?
>even the fore founders knew it wasnt.
Great...so what's the problem with the identification of taxation as
immoral theft and the call to change it?
: > This contract has a fairly common form: once entered into, it is
: > implicitly continued until explicitly revoked. Many other
: > contracts have this form: some leases, most utility services
: > (such as phone and electricity), etc.
: contract with them...and there are NO exceptions. I have never
: had them turn on electricity, water or the phone until I contacted
: them and verbally agreed to their terms and promised to pay.
>if they killed you for calling them with that be against the social
>contract?
No...it would be a violation of my human rights.
>what if they didn't speak english and they interpereted you wrong?
Then we'd find a impartial arbitrator and pay him to render a
finding or a decison as the case may warrant.
: > Even if it is a restaurant with a minimum charge and they haven't
: > ordered anything. The restaurant gets to set the price and the
: > method of contract so that even your presence creates a debt.
: > What is a libertarian going to do about that? Create a regulation?
: What an absurd little scenario. If you enter into a PRIVATE
: establishment you enter under THEIR terms...they OWN the place,
: THEY
>how do they own the place?
Read Locke...until you understand the concept, it becomes a useless
exercise to attempt to enlighten you...suffice it to say, they are
the rightful owners.
: I most certainly AM coerced to purchase government services. I
: have a CHOICE as to whether I rent or purchase a place to live.
: I have NO CHOICE about getting a permit if I choose then to build
: on to
>with US money,
Yup...do I have a CHOICE?
>and land which you don't own,
I have the deed...what's that tell you?
>have no intention to stay upon,
Really...when did you make that decison for me?
> can't protect,
Presumptive...
>and haven't had time to think about the money you're paying with.
Which has zip to do with this. What if the money came from Mexico?
Would that make the land Mexico's?
: if I want to drive and I have no choice but to submit to their
: licensing if I want to practice certain professions.
>buy your own track of land.
I have...pay attention to the thrust of the statements.
: Property existed BEFORE governments and governments were erected
: to protect property. Governments OWN NOTHING! Anything a
: government has been EXPROPRIATED from the RIGHTFUL owners...and
: you have to go
>they can't own it either than.
WHO can't own it either? Government? The rightful owner?
: Two-finger's Johnny comes in and says you have to give him 100
: bucks a week for your protection. You say you don't need any
: protection. He says the boss and the boys say you do and since
: they know better than you, you best pay the 100 bucks. You say
: everything is fine and since you didn't get to have any say in
: that nor were you consulted, you don't want to pay. He says they
: know what's best for you and you better figure it out, shut up
: and pay it. You refuse to pay the 100 bucks. Two-fingers and a
: couple of friends visit you a couple of nights later and break
: your legs.
> don't forget that the use of dollar bills is a CONTRACT.
Christ...PAY ATTENTION. Seventh line " You refuse to pay".
: > However, libertarians consider contractual rental of land by
: > owners (which is also fundamentally territorial) ethical, and
: > consider coercion of squatters by those owners ethical.
>CLUEFUL, whose land is it, the first person? the second?
Since I didn't write this, I'll have to rely on my experience with
the English language to translate for you...THE OWNER you
twit...whoEVER that is.
>if you pollute my yard, you have transgressed my property, same to
>my air.
That's correct...how very libertarian of you.
>same to advertisements that i don't particularly want to see.
Nope...you have the option of NOT LOOKING...just like TV. YOU
control that particular input.
>if you're so into defense, keep it in your own house.
Uh..well, that's brilliant...where did this come from? Where did I
assert I was "so big into defense?"
: It works for US, is supposed to answer to US and is NOT supposed
: to coerce those IT is sworn to protect.
>THE US ARE THE PEOPLE.
Uh..."US" in my sentences means "us"...you and me.
>it's not like there's some big entity out there called government,
>that you can simply get rid of, or social contract.
Really? Try plugging your taxes, building without a permit, driving
without a license, practicing without a license or any myriad of
other activities that used to be quite unregulated...FREE.
I PROMISE you that eventually a representative of that "big entity"
will come take you away.
>If you want your own land, go to mexico, take up a plot, and no one
>will bother you there, but dont
>a> pay for it with US / Mexican dollars because thats a contract
>b> advertise/ pollute
>c> write the contract in english or spanish, because those are ours
> as well, and they could misunderstand or lie.
I assume you mean for this to have some relevance, but I've got to
tell you it is absolute drivel as far as I can determine.
Want to try again...and if there are anymore like this one out
there...remember don't try this at home...these are professionals out
here...sigh.
McQ
Billy Beck
Rocka-rolla, Baby.
Some people leap through cosmic space to conclusions, with a hope,
a prayer, and a sneaky wink.
Others track them skillfully and ruthlessly, from first sniff, to final
bull's-eye. I hafta tell you...
>> 7. Social Contract? I never signed no steenking social contract.
>> That argument and some of the following libertarian arguments
>> are commonly quoted from Lysander Spooner.
>> The constitution and the laws are our written contracts with the
>> government.
> Oh, and consider this...if what you say is true, then why are we
> claiming we have no right to burden our children with this
> debt...that it is an act of immorality? To hell with 'em,
> right?...let's lay it on, man. We "own" the little suckers, speak
> for 'em and can make contracts for them, just by deciding where to
> live.
...*this* never occurred to me, and I've always been proud of my powers of
logic.
Well *done*, Sir! That paragraph alone is worth half the screaming I've loosed
on the D! in the past three years.
Billy
Billy Beck
>: A contract they willingly make, right? So why am I not afforded the
>: same opportunity? And if I don't care to agree to their terms, why
>: can't I just refuse their offer and go it alone? Hell, I'm willing
>: to pay my way.
>with what money? the money's ours too.
Clearly, this person has no idea what money is.
"Only the government can take perfectly good paper, cover it with
perfectly good ink, and make the combination worthless."
(Milton Friedman)
Billy
Billy Beck
>Great. This means that you're the joint property, at least primarily,
>of your parents and the state. Your parents since you wouldn't exist
>but for their labor...
Rubbish. My parents never set out to "own" me. They are fully aware
that one human being cannot "own" another. That is: one human being
cannot unilaterally dispose of another's life.
>Before you answer, in part, that the state has no property interest in
>you because its money comes from taxpayers, I'd respond that if you
>believe that then you must also believe that anything you buy with
>money that was once your employer's or clients' is their property
>rather than your own.
You don't understand money, any more than that other person I just wrote
to.
It is not the physical artifact of cash, Jim, which is important. The concept
of *value* which it represents is the crux of the biscuit. Cash is simply a medium.
When we pull a fiver out of our pocket at the gas station, we're actually holding,
in physical form, the *value* of that productivity which was necessary to acquisition
of that bill. Value is a concept. I challenge you: go pick me a bushel of values.
You can't. That's because values only exist in our minds. Yet, we trade them all day
long. How do we do that?
With money.
When we accept money from employers or clients, we are actually accepting their
recognition of the value of our productivity. The very best way (indeed; in a modern
economy of the sort which facilitates, for instance, this discussion, it is the *only* way)
for this exchange to take place is with money.
(CAVEAT - don't let Article I, sec. 8, p. 5 of the constitution misguide your understanding:
there is no good reason in the world why congress should bear the exclusive right to coin
money. Indeed, there are very good reasons why this should absolutely not be tolerated. In
the very same way that one can take a gold coin virtually anywhere on the planet and receive
value for it, the *concept* of a medium of values exchange can be extended into any valuable
commodity. There is not a reason in the world why individuals could not, and should not be
permitted, to issue their own currencies based on anything from racing tires to old newsprint.
I would only point out that this is a *buisness* decision just like millions of others which we
conclude on every day, and for which we bear our own responsiblities. I would further point
out that this government is immune to said responsibilities.)
When we accept values from others (employers, clients, etc.) in return for value received,
both are freely granted.
Therefore, your premise of prior ownership (above stated) is defective at its root, and invalid.
Billy
Billy Beck
>I hope your rights are self-enforcing, Billy. Care to enumerate them?
Life. I have a right to my life. That's where it starts, and everything
downstream is simply (but vitally) technique. I refer, specifically, to liberty and
property.
Properly speaking, there are no other rights.
I believe your question has a point lurking behind it, dying to be made.
Care to have a go?
Billy
Stephen Bussey
>be offended that we would acutally take an interest in what's happening to our money.
It isn't (y)our money. It is the government's. They just let us hold it for a
while. I know it is the governments because they say so, and in the words of
Robert Ringer
"I always believe people with guns" :-)
Andrew Winkler
> b- transgression upon -my- land because public property doesnt
exist in free-markets
> c- the language is a contract.
You'll probably want to think this through again.
a) if the use of US currency creates a social contract, then all the banks
aroung the world that convert your currency for you when you are overseas
become subject to that social contract. Watch the war that breaks out when the
US tries to enforce US law on everyone anywhere in the world who has ever
possessed a dollar.
b) This one you need to explain more carefully. Do you mean trespassing?
What land is yours? If you are arguing on ownership from Indians, I'll just
say, as a descendent of Powhatan, my claim is better than yours :-)
c) If language is a contract, then England has claim on all the people in China
who study English. Good luck pressing that claim.
Raptor
>However, I _don't_ think that it's a waste of time to
>discuss whether or not taxation is moral/ethical/productive.
>Do you?
No. But it seems so clear to me as to be nearly self-evident. I've been
through it before with people like those I'm currently flaming, and
the result has been a complete lack of what I consider to be progress.
But if I find that I have the time in the near future...
--
Lynn Wallace ||"I've said all along that this is not all written in
law...@xmission.com|| stone."
|| Newt Gingrich, on the Contract with America, Feb 13, 1995
"Then there's you, but you need therapy."
Raptor
>Raptor (law...@xmission.xmission.com) wrote:
>: mcq...@ix.netcom.com (Bruce McQuain) writes:
>: The two contracts are similar in that both can typically be revoked, or
>: terminated upon completion. You revoke your contract with the government
>: by leaving. No one demanded your signature, but no one's keeping you
>: here either.
>Uh, but what gives the government the right to demand that you
>leave in order to revoke your contract? (When I decide to
>revoke my employment contract -- that is, to quit my job --
>or terminate a contract to lease an automobile, I don't usually
>have to also leave my home.)
The federal government has jurisdiction within the borders of the country.
Your former employer has jurisdiction on its property.
>: > This is our basic disagreement. You continue to point to what it
>: > LEGAL and I continue to address the principle of what is "right" or
>: > moral.
>: FUCK YOUR MORALS.
>:
>Why? Do you not believe in the concept of morality,
>or do you believe in it but simply not care, or what?
Okay, so I've gotten impatient.
Pedophiles (some of them) consider it moral to sexually abuse children.
Some people think taxation is immoral.
I think you can see my point. If not, I might be able to ellucidate.
Raptor
>Raptor (law...@xmission.xmission.com) wrote:
>: mcq...@ix.netcom.com (Bruce McQuain) writes:
>: >mcq...@ix.netcom.com (Bruce McQuain) writes:
>: >>Raptor (law...@xmission.xmission.com) wrote:
>: >>> Never been in a.p.l and I've never been associated with the left.
>: >>> I simply read your stuff and gagged.
>: >>Hiding out then. Which newsgroup do you post from, so that I can
>: >>avoid it in the future?
>: > Any number of them...am I that big a challenge to your preconceived
>: > notions?
>: You are a big waste of time.
>: > I mean, you certainly haven't answered the bulk of the question's
>: > I've put your way...like why the Bronx protection racket is any
>: > different than taxation?
>: To you, I'm sure they're just the same. Tough shit.
>: The difference is that society approves of the latter and has decreed
>: the former to be illegal. Don't like it? Tough shit.
>: Don't think it's moral? Tough shit. I do and 98+% of Americans do too.
>: So LEAVE.
>Lynn, do you get this upset _every_ time someone doesn't
>agree with what you say, or is this a special case for
>some reason?
This is a special case. Those who've followed the thread from the
beginning saw my warnings that I do not show patience with tax protestors.
Those who haven't followed the thread ... now know.:-)
Billy Beck
>He can escape this problem by defining property for himself
>independent of any government.
Quite right. I exist prior to any government. (And so do you,
and everybody else.)
Billy
Raptor
>In <3kduhn$7...@xmission.xmission.com> law...@xmission.xmission.com
>(Raptor) expostulates:
>>> uhmm...that people who think taxation is immoral are sexually abusing
>>>their children? ...izzat it?
>>Well, now that you mention it...
>>My point is that tax protestation is on the same level as unabashed
>>pedophilia.
>>Lynn Wallace
> Thanx, Lynn. I wonder if I could get you to turn to your left while I adjust
>my lights and f stop...
No way bub. The deal's off. Your check bounced.
Bruce McQuain
Bruce McQuain
Billy Beck
>>>My point is that tax protestation is on the same level as unabashed
>>>pedophilia.
>
>>>Lynn Wallace
>
>> Thanx, Lynn. I wonder if I could get you to turn to your left while I adjust
>>my lights and f stop...
>
>No way bub. The deal's off. Your check bounced.
That's okay, Rap. I got the picture.
Billy
Scott Mackey
(Bruce McQuain) wrote:
> Government's sole function then is to protect these property
> rights (the "right" of property in one's self...self-ownership). In
> the absense of such an entity, one was left to protect the meaning of
> "my property" by himself or through banding together with friends and
> neighbors. That normally resulted in a defacto "government" being
> formed.
>
> Locke is very specific and very exhaustive in his discussion of how
> the concept of property if founded. The key is self-ownership. Once
> that concept is understood, the analyisis of counter claims becomes
> very simple.
>
> That, of course, doesn't preclude someone from taking by force
> whatever he or she can take. It does, however, provide us with a
> method of determining whether that acquisition of property is
> legitimate or not, whether retaliatory force is called for or not and
> whether this person is a threat to all of the rest of the world or
> not.
>
> This is the fallacy of your argument. There is no need for
> government without property, which then requires property be existant
> and understood prior to there being government. Governments are
> created to PROTECT property, not own it NOR take it. Lastly, property
> is not at all involved with "things" but with "rights", intrinsically
> linked with "self-ownership", "things" being a derivative of "self-
> ownership".
>
> The "rights" we talk about are the rights associated with the
> property vested in self-ownership and by derivation other properties.
> Government serves the owners of those rights, nothing more.
>
>
> McQ
Bruce,
Well, you certainly seem to have a good grasp of Locke's argument, flaws
and all. The question, however, is, Do you know the criticisms of Locke
and the self-ownership leads to property ownership argument which clearly
point out these flaws. It strikes me as odd for you to state that "Locke
is very specific and very exhaustive in his discussion of how the concept
of property if founded" given the general acceptance, even among
libertarians, that Locke was very vague and non-rigorous in his
explication of the acts that lead to property rights. Moreover, the
problems of arguing that self-ownership somehow leads to property rights
in things are well documented. Do you know them? If so, who have you
read and what is it about them that you reject?
SM
David Innes
>> m...@centerline.com (Mike Huben) writes:
>> There are several explicit means by which people make the social
>> contract with government. The commonest is when your parents
>> choose your residency and/or citizenship after your birth.
>
> By what irredeemable right do my parents choose my residency and
> citizenship and then bind me to a contract without my assent?
>
<Deletia>
>> Immigrants, residents, and visitors contract through the oath of
>> citizenship (swearing to uphold the laws and constitution),
>> residency permits, and visas.
>
> A contract they willingly make, right? So why am I not afforded the
> same opportunity? And if I don't care to agree to their terms, why
> can't I just refuse their offer and go it alone? Hell, I'm willing
> to pay my way.
>
Very interesting point.
I'm prepared to accept Mr. McQuain's assertion that parents
have no right to oblige their children to pay taxes given
his principled stand that parents have no right to confer
citizenship on their offspring either.
Or I'm willing to accept the converse position, that your
parents make you liable to the laws of the land by the
same act that makes you a citizen.
But you can't mix and match.
-- David Innes
----------------------------------------------------------
These are my personal opinions, not those of my employers.
----------------------------------------------------------
David Prenatt
[previous discussion]
: > I tell you, Sir: you have no "contract" with me, nor does this
: > government. Yet, you assert it. I don't think it's too much to ask
: > that you either offer your proof or renounce it.
[Raptor wrote]
: I offer you proof by experiment. Deny any contract whatosever. When the
: IRS comes to you, explain your position and fight it out in a court of law.
The logical fallacy of _ad bacculum_. You offer no proof of a
contract; you offer a demonstration of "might makes right." This does
provide evidence, however, that proves another proposition that many may
may consider self-evident: Yes, you are an intellectually bankrupt fool.
Congratulations. Well done.
Sign Me,
The Court Jester
*****
David F. Prenatt, Jr.
King Hall School of Law, Class of 1995
University of California
Davis, CA 95616
*****
David Prenatt
: . . . there is no meeting of the minds possible. Further, your beliefs
: are un-American, for to allow you to act on them would result eventually
: in the disintegration of the nation. I like the nation and wouldn't want
: that happen. You believe in something that would destroy the nation, so
: I don't think much of your ideas.
Let me get this straight: Four legs good; two legs better! I
don't think so. Taxation *can* be justified under a theory of _in
quantum meruit_, but that does not mean that the absence of taxation is
necessarily evil. If you have thought through the issue of taxation (which
I sincerely doubt), you must realize that there are viable alternatives to
taxation in most cases (e.g., paying for services rendered) or is paying
your own way un-American[sic], Senator McCarthy?
Raptor
>In article <3k5bis$7...@xmission.xmission.com>, law...@xmission.xmission.com (Raptor) writes:
>|> Don't think it's moral? Tough shit. I do and 98+% of Americans do too.
>|> So LEAVE.
>If 98% of Americans think taxation is moral, Why do so many cheat on their income tax?
><Sorry for butting in, I just couldn't help myself :) >
Greed. But it's a whiter shade of greed, since these people do pay their
taxes. Unlike the tax protestors, whose greed is so boundless that they
rationalize a morality argument against taxes in general.
Raptor
>Raptor wrote (in pertinent part) in response to a previous commentator:
>[previous discussion]
>: > I tell you, Sir: you have no "contract" with me, nor does this
>: > government. Yet, you assert it. I don't think it's too much to ask
>: > that you either offer your proof or renounce it.
>[Raptor wrote]
>: I offer you proof by experiment. Deny any contract whatosever. When the
>: IRS comes to you, explain your position and fight it out in a court of law.
> The logical fallacy of _ad bacculum_. You offer no proof of a
>contract; you offer a demonstration of "might makes right." This does
>provide evidence, however, that proves another proposition that many may
>may consider self-evident: Yes, you are an intellectually bankrupt fool.
> Congratulations. Well done.
You may feel free to believe that. I could walk you and Bruce and Billy
through the evidence of the contract, but it wouldn't do any good, and
my patience is already at an end.
Now you can tell yourself that no such proof exists in my mind. Like I
say, you feel free to believe what you want. I don't care.
Billy Beck
>Greed. But it's a whiter shade of greed, since these people do pay their
>taxes. Unlike the tax protestors, whose greed is so boundless that they
>rationalize a morality argument against taxes in general.
Hush yourself, Lynn. You're being foolish..
You're really in no position to discuss, or even mention, greed.
Billy
Billy Beck
>I could walk you and Bruce and Billy through the evidence of the contract...
No, Sir, you couldn't. It flatly does not exist.
Billy
Orpheus
Robert Newshutz <news...@charlie.rchland.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>If 98% of Americans think taxation is moral,
What does taxation have to do with morals?
>Why do so many cheat on their income tax?
Tradition.
It's not a problem with the concept of taxation, but the shoddy
way it is carried out in the USA...tax day is the biggest load
of shit I ever heard of.
><Sorry for butting in, I just couldn't help myself :) >
It's allowed.
-t
--
"Nothing is True. Everything is permitted." -- Naked Lunch
David Prenatt
: >[previous discussion of other commentators]
: >: > I tell you, Sir: you have no "contract" with me, nor does this
: >: > government. Yet, you assert it. I don't think it's too much to ask
: >: > that you either offer your proof or renounce it.
: >[Raptor wrote]
: >: I offer you proof by experiment. Deny any contract whatosever. When the
: >: IRS comes to you, explain your position and fight it out in a court of
: >: law.
[David Prenatt comments]
: > The logical fallacy of _ad bacculum_. You offer no proof of a
: >contract; you offer a demonstration of "might makes right." This does
: >provide evidence, however, that proves another proposition that many may
: >may consider self-evident: Yes, you are an intellectually bankrupt fool.
: >
: > Congratulations. Well done.
[Raptor replies]
: You may feel free to believe that. I could walk you and Bruce and Billy
: through the evidence of the contract, but it wouldn't do any good, and
: my patience is already at an end.
What proof? You offered a fallacious argument as "proof," and I
exposed you for an intellectual fraud. If you could do better, I'm sure
you would.--DFP,Jr.
: Now you can tell yourself that no such proof exists in my mind. Like I
: say, you feel free to believe what you want. I don't care.
This is simply an insincere attempt at saving face. Why not just
stop replying if you don't care what we believe? You clearly *do* care,
but you are too intellectually impotent to reply with a cogent argument
that stands up to logical scrutiny. Put up or shut up, my fine feathered
friend.
Raptor
I willingly pay my taxes, and am willing to pay more under certain
conditions.
You want to keep every bit of your money.
The prosecution rests.
David Prenatt
[previous commentator]
: > Hush yourself, Lynn. You're being foolish..
: > You're really in no position to discuss, or even mention, greed.
[Raptor replied]
: I willingly pay my taxes, and am willing to pay more under certain
: conditions.
: You want to keep every bit of your money.
: The prosecution rests.
The Court, upon its own motion and in the interest of justice,
dismisses Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, as Plaintiff has failed
to plead a cause of action for which relief can be granted, _see_
Rule 12(b)6, much less prove it's case. This Court also finds sanctions
appropriate under Rule 11 as Plaintiff has attempted to prosecute a
frivolous case simply to harass and annoy Defendants.
And where do you think you are going, Raptor? I find you in
contempt and remand you over to custody pending a hearing. Bailiff . . .
Bruce McQuain
Billy Beck
>I willingly pay my taxes, and am willing to pay more under certain
>conditions.
>You want to keep every bit of your money.
>The prosecution rests.
Oh...is that what you call "greed"? (That I "want to keep every bit
of [my] money"?...Hmm...
I would stipulate to "dispose of". Yes. I would agree that I mean
to dispose of every single penny of my wealth by my own exclusive
judgement. I don't know about "keep", Rap. If I "kept" it, I'd probably
starve to death soon enough, and I *know* I'd get bored way before
that. I will, however, dispose of it, on my own terms.)
If that's what you mean, then you betcha: I'm a greedy man.
What's yer point?
Billy
Bruce McQuain
Bruce McQuain
Bruce McQuain
Scott Mackey
(Bruce McQuain) wrote:
> > mac...@leland.stanford.edu (Scott Mackey) writes:
>
> >Well, you certainly seem to have a good grasp of Locke's argument,
> >flaws and all.
>
> Why thank you sir...rather nice of me, wouldn't you say...to present
> it "flaws and all," that is?
>
> >The question, however, is, Do you know the criticisms of Locke
> >and the self-ownership leads to property ownership argument which
> >clearly point out these flaws.
>
> It may be a question in your mind, but it certainly isn't one I find
> demanding an answer with any urgency in mine.
Of course not. Why subject the rhetoric to the rigors of good argument.
It's so much easier to not have to worry about the other arguments.
> >It strikes me as odd for you to state that "Locke is very specific
> >and very exhaustive in his discussion of how the concept
> >of property if founded" given the general acceptance, even among
> >libertarians, that Locke was very vague and non-rigorous in his
> >explication of the acts that lead to property rights.
>
> Well, of course it's my opinion. Since I've never identified myself
> as a libertarian, I'm at a loss to explain why I should be at all
> concerned with what they might think of Locke's concepts concerning
> property.
My point is not that libertarians find him non-rigorous, but that
*everybody* who has seriously studied the subject of property rights finds
his explication to be non-rigorous and vague. The only reason that you
could think otherwise is because you do not know the critiques. Once you
take the time to learn them, you, too, will agree that Locke is
non-rigorous and vague.
> It is your opinion that Locke was very vague and non-rigorous, a
> position I assume you are quite able to defend.
Able? Yes. Willing to do so here? No. Why? Because it has been done
elsewhere, but more on this later.
> >Moreover, the problems of arguing that self-ownership somehow leads
> >to property rights in things are well documented. Do you know them?
>
> Perhaps...is there a point here? If so, I ask that you please make
> it.
See above.
> I will assume you wish ME to point out these "problems".
No. I just wanted to know if you knew them. You apparently do not.
> Personally, I'm of the opinion that others should do so if they wish
> to, support their claim with sound reasoning and thereby start a
> discussion.
I, on the other hand, am of the opinion that a person should try to learn
everything that they can about a subject before they think that they are
ready to talk about it. That is, they should take the time to know what
has been and is being argued before they think that they have something
original or interesting to say.
> That IS why we're all here, no?
It certainly seems to be why most people are here. I, however, am not
interested in arguing with people in this medium. I am interested in
understanding why people believe what they believe. I think you hold a
Lockean position because you do not know the critiques. Am I wrong?
> I'm not at all amused
> with arguing, debating or discussing topics or concepts with myself
> unless well into my cups and having already exhausted those around
> me, have no other choice. Of course then much of anything is
> amusing wouldn't you agree?
>
> >If so, who have you read and what is it about them that you reject?
>
> Is this a final exam or are we just gathering lecture notes?
>
> I'll tell you what, why don't YOU tell ME what you THINK and what it
> is you've found compelling enough to cause you to beam in here,
> implying a challenge to the stated concept of property, ok?
I think what C.B. McPherson, Jeremy Waldron, G. Cohen, Susan Okin, Israel
Scheffler, to name just a few, think. No, I do not blindly follow these
people's pronouncements. I think what they think becaue I think that they
make GOOD arguments. If you are interested in knowing what I find
compelling, then all you have to do is read them. They are readily
available. I am not going to try to give a Reader's Digest version here
for one simple reason. Each of these people write and argue better than
I. They realize that a good argument must be laid out carefully and
completely. Each paragraph is, if not critical, important to the
argument. To omit any of it is to destroy its coherence. If you are
interested in good argument, then read them. You certainly will not find
any in this medium.
Just to re-emphasize my point here. It does not matter to me who makes
the argument, but rather what the arguments are. I do not cite people
because of who they are, but rather what they argue. It is really
annoying how people on the net derogate citations by claiming that they
are just "pissing contests," a "battle of cites," some other nonsense.
Using citations are a way of arguing without having to reinvent the wheel
everytime through. I can't speak for others, but I do not use them to
show how much I have read, but rather as a short hand way of pointing to
an argument so that I don't have to repeat it.
> Then we can have a discussion. But involving myself in a rather
> clumsy attempt at staging an argument from authority (aka a battle of
> the cites) is not something I'm at all interested in.
See above. I think you and I have rather different perceptions of clumsy.
> The concepts and principles stand on their own. One can either
> challenge them logically or is unable too.
Agreed.
> I have very little
> interest <in this type forum> with what others may have said about
> this subject in their critiques.
That's where we diverge.
> However, I have quite a bit of
> interest in what you might have to say about it in this forum.
Once again we diverge.
> Shall we?
No thanks.
> McQ
SM
Billy Beck
>My point is not that libertarians find him non-rigorous, but that
>*everybody* who has seriously studied the subject of property rights finds
>his explication to be non-rigorous and vague.
Wrong.
"Individuals and Their Rights" - Tibor Machan, Open Court Books, 1989,
(242 pages, including notes), ISBN 0-8126--9089-3.
Mr. Machan is professor of philosophy at Auburn University, and his
"critique" is quite well-informed.
>The only reason that you could think otherwise is because you do not
>know the critiques.
Yer busted, Scott, and you need to catch up.
<snip>
Billy
Bruce McQuain
>>mcq...@ix.netcom.com (Bruce McQuain) wrote:
>>>The question, however, is, Do you know the criticisms of Locke
>>>and the self-ownership leads to property ownership argument which
>>>clearly point out these flaws.
>>
>> It may be a question in your mind, but it certainly isn't one I
>> find demanding an answer with any urgency in mine.
>Of course not. Why subject the rhetoric to the rigors of good
>argument.
>It's so much easier to not have to worry about the other arguments.
Or, Objective One, possiblity two...I may have already done so and
no longer have those questions to answer.
Of course you choose to assume otherwise, don't you? Seems my
impression of your intent wasn't at all off here.
>>>It strikes me as odd for you to state that "Locke is very specific
>>>and very exhaustive in his discussion of how the concept
>>>of property if founded" given the general acceptance, even among
>>>libertarians, that Locke was very vague and non-rigorous in his
>>>explication of the acts that lead to property rights.
>>
>> Well, of course it's my opinion. Since I've never identified
>> myself as a libertarian, I'm at a loss to explain why I should be
>> at all concerned with what they might think of Locke's concepts
>> concerning property.
>My point is not that libertarians find him non-rigorous, but that
>*everybody* who has seriously studied the subject of property rights
>finds his explication to be non-rigorous and vague.
Everybody? I don't think so. Everyone YOU may have read, but not
everybody...I believe one exception has already been provided by
another reader here. I would also point to Robert LeFevre, a
CONSUMATE libertarian writer, as another that would disagree with
your assertion.
>The only reason that you could think otherwise is because you do not
>know the critiques.
Well of course...the ONLY reason...absolutely...I should have known.
>Once you take the time to learn them, you, too, will agree that Locke
>is non-rigorous and vague.
And of course you are sure I haven't read them, aren't you?
It would never enter your mind that perhaps I disagree, would it?
You are convinced the dissenter's arguments are SO powerful that no
one could refute them or disagree with them...correct?
So, "of course", you assume I must not be familiar with them if I
hold my present position. A rather short-sighted assmption, wouldn't
you say?
> It is your opinion that Locke was very vague and non-rigorous, a
> position I assume you are quite able to defend.
>Able? Yes. Willing to do so here? No. Why? Because it has been
>done elsewhere, but more on this later.
So has BBSing, message based discussion and electricity...so why are
you here?
>> I will assume you wish ME to point out these "problems".
>No. I just wanted to know if you knew them. You apparently do not.
Really? "Apparently", huh? Hmmm...Sherlock Holmes would love your
"deductive reasoning".
Tell me why that's "apparent"?
> Personally, I'm of the opinion that others should do so if they
> wish to, support their claim with sound reasoning and thereby
> start a discussion.
>I, on the other hand, am of the opinion that a person should try to
>learn everything that they can about a subject before they think that
>they are ready to talk about it.
Me too. Of course, you still don't know if I have or not do you?
However, even at this point I've noticed it hasn't stopped you from
engaging in unfounded assumption and mordant pedagogary.
Heh...I'm feeling quite satisfied with my intuition concerning you.
A sixth sense, if you will. Experience on the autobahn.
>That is, they should take the time to know what has been and is being
>argued before they think that they have something original or
>interesting to say.
Really?
I certainly don't disagree.
Of course you're SURE that's not applicable in my case, hmmm?
>> That IS why we're all here, no?
>It certainly seems to be why most people are here.
Imagine that...of course you'd change that if you could, no?
>I, however, am not interested in arguing with people in this medium.
Great...why are you doing so then?
>I am interested in understanding why people believe what they
>believe.
Ah...and am I to assume that can only be done through a bibliography
of what they've read?
Would I be bold in predicting that approval of that "understanding"
would only be forthcoming if they've read what you deem necessary
and reached the conclusions you feel they should have reached?
Would they otherwise be "ignorant?"
>I think you hold a Lockean position because you do not know the
>critiques. Am I wrong?
Yes...in fact you are.
>>>If so, who have you read and what is it about them that you reject?
>> Is this a final exam or are we just gathering lecture notes?
>> I'll tell you what, why don't YOU tell ME what you THINK and what
>> it is you've found compelling enough to cause you to beam in here,
>> implying a challenge to the stated concept of property, ok?
>I think what C.B. McPherson, Jeremy Waldron, G. Cohen, Susan Okin,
>Israel Scheffler, to name just a few, think. No, I do not blindly
>follow these people's pronouncements. I think what they think becaue
>I think that they make GOOD arguments.
Which are all basic rehashes of Rousseau's critique of Locke's
principles which were rehashed by the likes of Russell and
Copleston.
Read Rousseau, Scott?
Sorry, but to paraphrase you, it's all been done before.
BTW...have you read Michael Ayers, John Yolton or John Dunn or
Richard Ashcraft?
All do an excellent job of taking on the supposed "refutations" of
Locke...I highly recommend them. See Scott...I can do it too. What
has it proven for either of us?
But to return to my point...what do any of their arguments have to
do with the context of a discussion of ideas between you and I? We
can exchage cites by mail for heaven sake, we certainly don't need
an interactive medium for that, do we? In your quest for "original
thought" how do you propose seeing any if you engage in an endless
cite trading contest?
>If you are interested in knowing what I find compelling, then all you
>have to do is read them.
How will what they write tell me what you find compelling?
BTW, humor me if you will...I think (and I admit this to be an
assumption based on your cited authors) I can sum up your opposition
in one line from Rousseau, "The State, in relation to its members, is
master of all their goods."
Am I correct?
If so, it's old stuff my friend.
>They are readily available. I am not going to try to give a Reader's
>Digest version here for one simple reason. Each of these people
>write and argue better than I.
Wonderful, then why are you here? Simply to drop names?
Getting the idea I don't buy the "I want to understand WHY they
believe WHAT they believe" line?
There's a very simple way of accomplishing that if it is truly your
reason for being here...engage them in conversation concerning the
ideas they put forth.
>They realize that a good argument must be laid out carefully and
>completely. Each paragraph is, if not critical, important to the
>argument. To omit any of it is to destroy its coherence. If you are
>interested in good argument, then read them. You certainly will not
>find any in this medium.
Actually, I've engaged in a good many of them, admittedly mostly in
private through e-mail, but initiated through public conferences. I
must reject your assertion as personal experience has proven you to
be wrong.
>Just to re-emphasize my point here. It does not matter to me who
>makes the argument, but rather what the arguments are.
I believe, if you'll look, that was MY argument.
>I do not cite people because of who they are, but rather what they
>argue.
Why not put it in your own words according to the context of the
discussion in which you're engaged?
>It is really annoying how people on the net derogate citations by
>claiming that they are just "pissing contests," a "battle of cites,"
>some other nonsense.
My experience has found they're usually a shortcut for someone who
won't take the time to think something through and relay their
thoughts in their own words in the context of the discussion at
hand.
>Using citations are a way of arguing without having to reinvent the
>wheel everytime through. I can't speak for others, but I do not use
>them to show how much I have read, but rather as a short hand way of
>pointing to an argument so that I don't have to repeat it.
Obviously you and I have differing ideas on the subject and
different priorities in the use of this medium.
To each his own, Scott.
>> Then we can have a discussion. But involving myself in a rather
>> clumsy attempt at staging an argument from authority (aka a battle
>> of the cites) is not something I'm at all interested in.
>See above. I think you and I have rather different perceptions of
>clumsy.
Heh...whatever you say, Scott. Just consider me unconvinced.
>> The concepts and principles stand on their own. One can either
>> challenge them logically or is unable too.
>Agreed.
Ah...see, I DID say it...imagine.
>> I have very little
>> interest <in this type forum> with what others may have said about
>> this subject in their critiques.
>That's where we diverge.
Such is life.
>> However, I have quite a bit of
>> interest in what you might have to say about it in this forum.
>Once again we diverge.
A pity.
>> Shall we?
>No thanks.
As you wish. Enjoy your cites.
McQ
Billy Beck
>I accused you tax protestor loons of being greedy to the extreme. I
>just proved it through argument, and you just stipulated.
And there is nothing wrong with what I stipulated. It is also the
way you conduct your every day affairs when you're not posing
behind your monitor.
>So don't bitch about my attitude, you greedy money-grubbing anti-American
>bastard.
"Bitch"? You are a thief, Sir, in your heart and practice, and fortunate
to be out of my arm's reach. Otherwise, I should do more than "bitch".
Billy
Mark.O.Wilson
No such evidence exists. If it did, you probably couldn't understand
it anyway.
The only thing you have managed to prove is that you are willing
to say or do anything in defence of the love of your life, government
power.
--
Mark.O...@AtlantaGa.ncr.com
It ain't charity if you ain't using your own money.
Just because your mob calls itself a government, does't mean it's
legitimate.
Gun control means hitting your target.
Raptor
>Racker,
>>The prosecution rests.
> What's yer point?
I accused you tax protestor loons of being greedy to the extreme. I
just proved it through argument, and you just stipulated.
So don't bitch about my attitude, you greedy money-grubbing anti-American
bastard.
Michael J. Edelman
: If 98% of Americans think taxation is moral, Why do so many cheat on their income tax?
Good question. But it's true that the US has one of the highest rtes of volutary
complience with taxation in the world...and it is also true that that rate
goes down as marginal rates go up ;-)
--mike
Scott Mackey
(Billy Beck) wrote:
Pay attention Billy.
My position is not that there are no "well-informed" libertarians. I
argue that everybody finds Locke vague and non-rigorous. Simply by
writing more on the issue, Machan implies that more needs to be said.
Thus, Locke did not say enough. If you would like, I think that I can
even track down specific passages in which Machan directly states that
Locke was unclear on some important issues. That is why Machan continues
to write. Your point, however, is well taken, and in a very real sense
proves me wrong. Machan, like Locke, continues to ignore critical
problems surrounding the acquisition of property, despite the fact that he
should be well aware of them. I would be quite curious to know how he does
this. The possibility that we simply disagree cannot be tested, though,
because Machan continues to ignore them in his writings. That is, he does
not even acknowledge them to say that they are unimportant or irrelevant.
He just keeps harping on the problems of some Marxist/collectivist
doctrine which, is indeed, quite problematic.
Raptor
Really?
Well, I'll tell you what. There's undoubtedly several people within
your easy reach every day who not only pay their taxes willingly, but
also CONSUME TAXPAYER-FUNDED RESOURCES! Don't cry because you can't
find/reach me, go take THEM out!
Or are you just faking? Or maybe you realize the futility of your
position, and therefore the illogic.
Mark Weinstock
law...@xmission.xmission.com (Raptor) was heard to utter:
> bill...@ix.netcom.com (Billy Beck) writes:
>
> >Racker,
>
> >>I willingly pay my taxes, and am willing to pay more under certain
> >>conditions.
>
> >>You want to keep every bit of your money.
>
> >>The prosecution rests.
>
> > Oh...is that what you call "greed"? (That I "want to keep every bit
> >of [my] money"?...Hmm...
>
> > I would stipulate to "dispose of". Yes. I would agree that I mean
> >to dispose of every single penny of my wealth by my own exclusive
> >judgement. I don't know about "keep", Rap. If I "kept" it, I'd probably
> >starve to death soon enough, and I *know* I'd get bored way before
> >that. I will, however, dispose of it, on my own terms.)
>
> > If that's what you mean, then you betcha: I'm a greedy man.
>
> > What's yer point?
>
> I accused you tax protestor loons of being greedy to the extreme. I
> just proved it through argument, and you just stipulated.
>
> So don't bitch about my attitude, you greedy money-grubbing anti-American
> bastard.
'scuse me? greed is Unamerican? Since when? Greed is the basis of our
entire economic system. Captialism is not about doing good, it's about
making money. Now, some people may choose to forgo (sp?) some profit for
the good of the many, but that's usually a personal choice.
Do you truly believe that "greed" is not as American as mom and apple pie?
Wake up and join the real world.
Mark
> --
> Lynn Wallace ||"I've said all along that this is not all written in
> law...@xmission.com|| stone."
> || Newt Gingrich, on the Contract with America, Feb 13, 1995
> "Then there's you, but you need therapy."
--
A skydiving school is one in which you MUST be a dropout to graduate
wo...@ritz.mordor.com
mw...@andrew.cmu.edu
--
-Mark
Billy Beck
In <3kt13o$n...@xmission.xmission.com> law...@xmission.xmission.com (Raptor) writes:
>Well, I'll tell you what. There's undoubtedly several people within
>your easy reach every day who not only pay their taxes willingly, but
>also CONSUME TAXPAYER-FUNDED RESOURCES! Don't cry because you can't
>find/reach me, go take THEM out!
You're right.
>Or are you just faking?
No. I was just being an asshole. I hate it when I do that.
You're still a thief, though. It simply amazes me that anyone could be as
bald about it as you are.
>Or maybe you realize the futility of your position, and therefore the illogic.
The illogic of what?
Billy
Billy Beck
Scott,
In <mackey-2303...@ed-ce-100.stanford.edu> mac...@leland.stanford.edu (Scott Mackey) writes:
>Pay attention Billy.
Uhmm...I did the first time.
>My position is not that there are no "well-informed" libertarians. I
>argue that everybody finds Locke vague and non-rigorous. Simply by
>writing more on the issue, Machan implies that more needs to be said.
>Thus, Locke did not say enough.
Perhaps that's what you argue, but it's not what you said.
(wait a minute, lemme check...)
>> >My point is not that libertarians find him non-rigorous, but that
>> >*everybody* who has seriously studied the subject of property rights finds
>> >his explication to be non-rigorous and vague.
...yeah, that's it.)
It's simply not true. Machan has seriously studied Locke and didn't
find him at all vague. That's why he wrote. He understood it.
>If you would like, I think that I can even track down specific passages
>in which Machan directly states that Locke was unclear on some
>important issues.
Well, "Individuals" is the only Machan I own...and I'm typing this
with one hand, and pagin' with the other...I'm lookin'...
>That is why Machan continues to write.
Are we reading the same guy?
>Your point, however, is well taken, and in a very real sense
>proves me wrong. Machan, like Locke, continues to ignore critical
>problems surrounding the acquisition of property, despite the fact that he
>should be well aware of them. I would be quite curious to know how he does
>this. The possibility that we simply disagree cannot be tested, though,
>because Machan continues to ignore them in his writings. That is, he does
>not even acknowledge them to say that they are unimportant or irrelevant.
>He just keeps harping on the problems of some Marxist/collectivist
>doctrine which, is indeed, quite problematic.
How remarkable.
"Harping", eh? I would be curious...
I saw Bruce take a stab at this...I wonder if you would describe these
"critical problems"?
Billy
Aric TenEyck
>I willingly pay my taxes, and am willing to pay more under certain
>conditions.
Really? When was the last time you said to yourself, "You know? I
don't pay enough taxes. I think I need to pay more." and then sent a
check to the IRS for no specific tax payment, but rather the 'goodness of
your heart?'
>You want to keep every bit of your money.
YES! *MY* money. Not yours. Not the government's. MINE. Greed is
wanting what is not yours. Greed is not wanting to keep what is yours.
Could I have all the money in your checking account, please, or are you
greedy enough to want to keep it?
--
You know whose |"There are few child care | "The meek shall
opinions these | problems that can not be | inherit the Earth.
are and whose | solved with duct tape." | The rest of us are
they aren't. | -Father Duke | going to the stars."
Scott Mackey
(Billy Beck) wrote:
> Scott,
>
> In <mackey-2303...@ed-ce-100.stanford.edu>
mac...@leland.stanford.edu (Scott Mackey) writes:
>
> >> >My point is not that libertarians find him non-rigorous, but that
> >> >*everybody* who has seriously studied the subject of property rights finds
> >> >his explication to be non-rigorous and vague.
>
> ...yeah, that's it.)
>
> It's simply not true. Machan has seriously studied Locke and didn't
> find him at all vague. That's why he wrote. He understood it.
All right all ready. You're right. I'm wrong. I've been wrong before
and I'll be wrong again.
> >Your point, however, is well taken, and in a very real sense
> >proves me wrong. Machan, like Locke, continues to ignore critical
> >problems surrounding the acquisition of property, despite the fact that he
> >should be well aware of them. I would be quite curious to know how he does
> >this. The possibility that we simply disagree cannot be tested, though,
> >because Machan continues to ignore them in his writings. That is, he does
> >not even acknowledge them to say that they are unimportant or irrelevant.
> >He just keeps harping on the problems of some Marxist/collectivist
> >doctrine which, is indeed, quite problematic.
>
> How remarkable.
Why?
> "Harping", eh? I would be curious...
Yep. Knocking out strawmen.
> I saw Bruce take a stab at this...I wonder if you would describe these
> "critical problems"?
>
>
> Billy
Sure. Not a problem. See, for instance, pages 152-153 in Nozick, R.
(1974). _Anarchy, state, and utopia_. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Publishers. He raises some very important questions about historical
oppression and compensation. You should note, though, that Nozick is
defending libertarian theory throughout this book. (Apparently, Machan
wrote one of his books as a response to Nagel's critique of Nozick's
theory.) It is thus interesting to also note how he handles these
problems after raising them. He simply glosses over them. He ignores
them. More specifically, he answers them by arguing, łI do not know of a
thorough or theoretically sophisticated treatment of such issues˛ (p.
153). In other words, "I can't handle them, so we'll just skip them." At
least, however, he recognizes them as a problem. Machan and every other
libertarian writer that I have come across simply ignore them. See also
pages 174-175. Here he attempts to deal with just acquisition and he
fails miserably. He points out many problems with Locke's formulation of
just acquisition but cannot solve them either. Once again he basically
raises them then waves his hand. It reminds me of that single caption
cartoon where two scientist types are looking at a long equation on a
blackboard and somewhere in the middle, one step reads, "A miracle
occurs." The other professor is saying, "I think you need to do some work
on this step." Any honest person must realize that Nozick, and Locke, run
into some serious problems with this whole idea. You, or someone else,
may be able to resolve these problems, but Nozick and Locke sure have
not. (Note: Nozick's shift from from an ethical standpoint to an
empirical standpoint in justifying libertarianism is not acceptable.
Ethics are never a question of efficiency, i.e. if slavery were more
efficient, it would still be unethical.) BTW, Nozick, I hear from good
sources, has since abandoned the libertarian philosophy as unworkable.
Maybe that's what happens when you, at least, recognize the problems and
are committed to philosophical consistency.
After you are convinced that Nozick has clearly demonstrated the problems
with Locke's theory, you can then pick up a book called _Reading Nozick_
to find some of the problems with Nozick's attempt to fill in Locke's
omissions. The chapter by Samuel Scheffler is especially noteworthy. In
addition to that you can check out these two articles:
Cohen, G. A. (1986). Self-ownership, world-ownership, and equality. In
F. S. Lucash (Ed.), Justice and equality here and now, (pp. 108-135).
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Cohen, G. A. (1986). Self-ownership, world ownership, and equality:
Part II. Social Philosophy & Policy, 3(2), 77-96.
They do a great job in dissecting Nozick's "everybody is better off under
libertarianism" argument.
Then you can check out Waldron, J. (1988). The right to private property.
Oxford: Clarendon Press. One quote should give you the flavor of the
critique. łEither the would-be appropriator is entitled to exclude others
from the land for the purpose of cultivating it or he is not. If he is,
then something other than cultivation must give rise to exclusive rights.
If he is not, then his cultivation is based on robbery and can establish
no right˛ (p. 174). Please read the whole argument before you think you
can make an well informed response.
After that, you can take a look at Dahl, R. A. (1989). _Democracy and its
critics_. New Haven: Yale University Press. My all time favorite.
If, after you read these, you remain unpersuaded, I would love to know
why. Like I said, I would also love to know why Machan remains
unpersuaded. He certainly doesn't deal with these problems in the
writings that I read. Has he chosen the "If I just ignore them then they
don't exist method of argument?"
I am curious to know which critiques of libertarianism you have read.