Killing the American Dream

1 view
Skip to first unread message

SewHard

unread,
Feb 23, 1995, 8:13:53 PM2/23/95
to
don't say anything... this is what Americans voted for .. they are tired
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

unread,
Feb 24, 1995, 12:39:39 AM2/24/95
to
cam...@gauss.eecs.berkeley.edu (Mike Williamson) writes:
>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

unread,
Feb 24, 1995, 4:30:56 AM2/24/95
to

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

unread,
Feb 24, 1995, 2:12:16 PM2/24/95
to
In article <3ik90g$a...@news.csus.edu>, davi...@mercury.sfsu.edu (Daniel Davidson)
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

unread,
Feb 25, 1995, 1:49:58 PM2/25/95
to

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

unread,
Feb 26, 1995, 8:50:17 AM2/26/95
to
In article <3inu4m$h...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
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

unread,
Feb 26, 1995, 3:57:59 PM2/26/95
to

>>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

unread,
Feb 27, 1995, 2:00:38 PM2/27/95
to

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

unread,
Feb 27, 1995, 11:49:57 PM2/27/95
to
al...@oes.amdahl.com (Alan Bomberger) writes:
>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

unread,
Feb 28, 1995, 1:01:46 AM2/28/95
to
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
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

unread,
Mar 1, 1995, 9:36:45 AM3/1/95
to
In <3iua1l$i...@xmission.xmission.com> law...@xmission.xmission.com
(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

unread,
Mar 2, 1995, 5:07:11 PM3/2/95
to
In article <3iua1l$i...@xmission.xmission.com>,

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.
>
>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.

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

unread,
Mar 2, 1995, 10:30:30 PM3/2/95
to
Lizard (liz...@mercury.interpath.net) wrote:
: 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

unread,
Mar 3, 1995, 12:30:30 AM3/3/95
to
In article <3inu4m$h...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, bill...@ix.netcom.com
(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

unread,
Mar 3, 1995, 2:15:41 PM3/3/95
to

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

unread,
Mar 6, 1995, 2:56:16 PM3/6/95
to
In article <3j5fif$b...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,

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

unread,
Mar 6, 1995, 6:08:37 PM3/6/95
to

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

unread,
Mar 7, 1995, 12:37:57 AM3/7/95
to
In article <3j5fif$b...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>,
Dave Mandelin <mand...@yar.cs.wisc.edu> wrote:

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

unread,
Mar 7, 1995, 4:23:22 AM3/7/95
to
In article <3j7pst$7...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, bill...@ix.netcom.com
(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

unread,
Mar 7, 1995, 5:05:16 AM3/7/95
to

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

unread,
Mar 7, 1995, 6:19:56 AM3/7/95
to
Mark Kauderer (kaud...@oak.liii.com) wrote:

: 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

unread,
Mar 7, 1995, 8:17:40 AM3/7/95
to
Fred L. Yaffe (cf...@ux1.eiu.edu) wrote:
: In article <3j7pst$7...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>, bill...@ix.netcom.com
: (Billy Beck) wrote:

Hmm. English major, Sociology or EdD candidate?

--m

Caliban

unread,
Mar 7, 1995, 3:02:15 PM3/7/95
to
Fred L. Yaffe (cf...@ux1.eiu.edu) 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

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

unread,
Mar 8, 1995, 10:44:06 AM3/8/95
to
Raptor (law...@xmission.xmission.com) wrote:

> 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

unread,
Mar 8, 1995, 6:44:13 PM3/8/95
to
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.

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

unread,
Mar 9, 1995, 1:58:39 PM3/9/95
to
with regard to tearing hearts out with vice grips:

>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

unread,
Mar 9, 1995, 3:24:17 PM3/9/95
to
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.

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

unread,
Mar 9, 1995, 3:35:55 PM3/9/95
to
bill...@ix.netcom.com (Billy Beck) writes:

>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

unread,
Mar 9, 1995, 7:34:42 PM3/9/95
to
In article <3jjmu3$c...@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, bill...@ix.netcom.com
(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

unread,
Mar 9, 1995, 7:49:58 PM3/9/95
to

> 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

unread,
Mar 9, 1995, 7:59:44 PM3/9/95
to
In article <3jno5h$7...@xmission.xmission.com>,
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

unread,
Mar 10, 1995, 1:11:03 AM3/10/95
to
In <3jncf7$8...@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> mcq...@ix.netcom.com (Bruce McQuain) writes:

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

unread,
Mar 10, 1995, 1:20:28 AM3/10/95
to

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

unread,
Mar 10, 1995, 1:30:56 AM3/10/95
to

>> 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

unread,
Mar 10, 1995, 1:36:39 AM3/10/95
to

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

unread,
Mar 10, 1995, 1:39:27 AM3/10/95
to

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

unread,
Mar 10, 1995, 1:56:38 AM3/10/95
to

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

unread,
Mar 10, 1995, 1:56:57 AM3/10/95
to
Billy and Raptor should be ignored form now on. They speak nonsense
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

unread,
Mar 10, 1995, 3:03:51 AM3/10/95
to
In article <3jp4vc$n...@desiree.teleport.com>, bru...@teleport.com (Bruce
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

unread,
Mar 10, 1995, 4:03:57 AM3/10/95
to
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?

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

unread,
Mar 10, 1995, 8:18:57 PM3/10/95
to
>> mcq...@ix.netcom.com (Bruce McQuain) writes: > bill...@ix.netcom.com (Billy Beck) replied: >> 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. 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'. 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. >> 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. 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. 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? McQ

Bruce McQuain

unread,
Mar 10, 1995, 8:30:47 PM3/10/95
to
> bill...@ix.netcom.com (Billy Beck) writes:

>>> 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

unread,
Mar 11, 1995, 12:22:25 AM3/11/95
to

>>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

unread,
Mar 11, 1995, 1:21:09 AM3/11/95