Globalization
Gandalf Grey
Why You Should Worry About Globalization
by Bryan Zepp Jamieson
July 24, 2001 (APJP) -- With the summit meeting in Genoa ending with one
dead and several hundred injured, the image most often seen on American
television was that of anarchists running loose in the streets, trashing
cars and defacing the majestic old buildings of Genoa.
Small wonder, then, that many Americans have the impression that the
protesters consist mostly of communists unwilling to admit their cause is
dead, fighting capitalism. It's easy to dismiss the protesters of you can
dress them as a bunch of out-dated violent Don Quixotes, fighting lost
battles against a concept that Americans are trained from birth to admire:
capitalism.
But in fact, there were over 150,000 protesters in Genoa, and each time the
G8 meet, the protesters get larger crowds, and the amount of international
concern over their activities mounts.
The G8 itself, which is not intrinsically evil, recognizes that there are
legitimate concerns. Thus it included in its deliberations this time an
agreement to funnel one billion dollars into AIDS treatment and research,
and the conference did try to work around the illegitimate neo-fascist
regime of the United States on issues relating to the environment and
worker's rights. That the United States, once the oldest and biggest
democracy in the world, was the biggest roadblock is a shameful reminder of
how far we've fallen in just the few months since the December coup. Even as
Putsch met with delegates in Genoa, the US was quietly abdicating its
obligations in the 26 year old treaty on germ warfare, announcing that it
would no longer accept inspections by the UN. The day after G8, while Putsch
made a fool of himself standing in the Roman coliseum and reminding everyone
that he was no Seneca, 140 nations around the world signed Kyoto, a
rebellion against G8 far more profound than the tens of thousands of
protesters had been.
America, led by forces that its citizens neither understand or even
perceive, is becoming an angry and bitter reactionary. It stands against a
counter revolution that began in American in response to a revolution that
began, also, in America. America originally championed free global trade. It
was in Seattle where the opposition to globalization became evident. And it
is America that is fighting the forces of both sides now -- the
anti-free-traders of Genoa (who Putsch called "dead wrong") and the people
who pressed for Kyoto (which Putsch called "fatally flawed"--being a
corporate puppet does make it easier for him to have opinions).
Small wonder we're confused.
Those who oppose Globalization represent a wide variety of interests, and
they all have different concerns that they want addressed. But it all boils
down to one significant factor. The old world of nation states is dying, and
being replaced with a corporate oligarchy. Whatever the benefits of such an
oligarchy, the drawbacks are manifest. A new order is coming to power, one
that has no laws, no justice, and only a proprietary interest in the welfare
of the people. All the rights and gains fought so hard for over the past 800
years are essentially negated by this new order.
Corporations do not recognize the right of workers to unionize, or the right
of people to elect representatives who will be accountable to the people.
Corporations do not recognize freedom of speech save their own, and they
don't recognize the need to place society ahead of profits.
It isn't because they are evil. It is because they are bureaucracies,
devoted only to the generation of profits and self-preservation. Perfectly
normal and -- by their own criteria -- moral behavior, as any libertarian
will tell you, but when it conflicts with the welfare of the citizenry,
corporations will behave as corporations, and if that means abrogating the
rights and freedoms of the citizenry, then so be it.
Corporations have signed no agreements regarding minimum wage, worker
safety, environmental protection, child labor, redress of grievances, habeas
corpus, elections, search and seizure, or guarantees of privacy, or even
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, except the new boss isn't obligated
to or even interested in that contract you signed.
Forget the noise about how the ethics of the market guarantee that
corporations will bend to the will of the people because no business can
survive without happy customers. That's a load of self-serving, unmitigated,
unjustified codswallop that flies in the face of common sense and
experience. It was the "invisible hand" of the market that persuaded Texas
power generators to deliberately take plants off line, dropping supply, and
causing prices to skyrocket. If you are a corporation, and your prime
directive is to generate profits and make the stockholders happy, and a
situation comes along where you can make a lot more money with a lot less
effort, what are you going to do?
The rest of the world views America as a bad example of corporate rule.
Corporations are seen as having taken down the mightiest nation on earth
without firing a shot, with a propaganda apparatus so effective that many
Americans can't even bring themselves to admit that something fundamental
has changed.
Corporations, without constitutional justification, are accorded the same
rights that the constitution recognizes in human beings living in America.
From that bizarre notion has come the utterly lunatic notion that
corporations have the constitutional right to compete with average citizens
for the ear of elected officials, and may spend whatever it takes, in
virtually any way they chose, to do so.
Here, in the "freest country on earth" (and if you stop and think, it's been
a while since you heard anyone say that about America, isn't it?), eleven
corporations control 95% of our commercial media (and during the G8
conference, a US Court was upholding the "right" of Rupert Murdoch to
control an even greater percentage of NYC media than he already does).
Corporations have the "right" to copyright genes, which gives them
potentially absolute control over all crops and livestock, and could even
pave the way to ownership of human beings. (They wouldn't be called human
beings, of course. They would be called "genetic constructs"). Nearly
everywhere Americans go, they are watched by the unblinking eyes of
corporate cameras, and corporations are clamoring for the "right" to
monitor, through GPS, the movements and activities of all Americans who are
using corporate property--something that more and more means all property.
Period. America has long since changed from a vital culture to a passive
receptor of corporate entertainment. It used to be that Americans all knew
the words to "This land is your land". Now they sing commercial jingles
instead.
Why should multinational corporations want restrictions on greenhouse gases?
By the time the climate has brought devastation, someone else will be on the
board of directors, and it will be their headache. In the meanwhile, those
who perpetrate should decisions get to skate, since corporations have the
power and the legal firepower to hold any efforts national governments might
make at bay. Note now the present administration surrendered to the tobacco
industry.
Corporate propaganda in America has reached the amazing level where an
entertainer making a quarter of a BILLION dollars, one who routinely bashes
the poor, the sick, the weak, the powerless, can present himself, with a
straight face, as the hero of the common man--and the common man buys it!
This creature howls about how tort reform is needed to prevent "abuses by
the trial lawyers" when in fact what he is really talking about is your
redress of grievances! The right of Americans to sue is a major
inconvenience to corporations, but if it is truly the threat Rush says it
is, how come corporate profits are higher than ever? The American right has
been so completely suborned by corporate influence that raving paranoids who
howl incessantly that the UN is plotting to steal our guns shake their heads
in puzzled anger over protesters warning that corporations are out to
eliminate the concept of national sovereignty -- starting with what's left
of America. It's an amazing sight, watching an American "journalist" argue
that foreign entanglements are bad while simultaneously supporting GATT and
the WTO. It's even more amazing watching blue-collar types who can barely
keep up on the truck payments staunchly defend the right of corporations to
compete financially for the attentions of their elected representatives,
mano a whatever.
If you are living in America, you are surrounded by logos, and base much of
your thinking upon the carefully-crafted perceptions they want to portray.
You depend on corporations for nearly all of your entertainment, you base
your self-worth upon their icons being present in your immediate
environment, you wear their names on your clothes. You let them determine
what news you will see, what ideas you will believe. They tolerate your
religion because it provides them with a useful handle. You can't imagine
life without them, and carefully do not consider what "reduced labor costs"
and "reducing the regulatory burden of the EPA" might mean to your quality
of life.
Corporations want to be the managers of global free trade, and access
markets that provide the highest profit margin on the lowest overhead. Good
economics, bad sociology. Low cost items won't do the average citizen much
good.
You see, you're the "overhead".
--
________________
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so
long as I'm the dictator." George W. Bush, Televised Newsconference
December 18, 2000
Scott D. Erb
globalization. It's an eclectic little course, we're reading Thomas Friedman
(pro-globalization), Samuel Huntington's theory on the Clash of Civilization,
and a Michael Parenti radical critique of American policy. Add to that, we're
using a feminist approach to critique these theories and consider alternatives.
Anyway, if you can post a URL where I can link to this story I'd like to use it
as a discussion piece, it'll provoke some interesting discussion.
Gandalf Grey
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20010724G8.html
Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B6092B8...@worldnet.att.net...
Rob Robertson
<drerbble>
> Add to that, we're using a feminist approach to critique
> these theories and consider alternatives.
"Does this theory make my ass look too big? Does it
come in any other color but sea foam? I'm more of an
'autumn' political theorist, so maybe a nice burgundy,
or maybe a nice position paper in dusty rose."
Have fun in class, Scotti!
_
RR
Gandalf Grey
Rob Robertson <rob...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fP187.3400$nS1.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Misogynistic ideation: So much a part of what passes for the right wing
"thought process."
Billy Beck
"Rob Robertson" <rob...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
>
><drerbble>
>
>> Add to that, we're using a feminist approach to critique
>> these theories and consider alternatives.
> "Does this theory make my ass look too big? Does it
>come in any other color but sea foam? I'm more of an
>'autumn' political theorist, so maybe a nice burgundy,
>or maybe a nice position paper in dusty rose."
>
> Have fun in class, Scotti!
That's the funniest thing I've read in weeks, Robertson.
After drying my eyes, though, I went digging through my copy of
Kimball's "Tenured Radicals" in order to find a passage that would be
suitable for quotation in this context. Everything I found is far too
specific to really work, here, so I'm just going to urge that people
go out and find this book in order to understand what we're really
dealing with in Professorboy Scotti Erb, the fraudulent larcenist now
teaching at the University of Maine.
"A feminist approach to critique" theories of globalization, no
less.
This is just perfectly sickening.
Savages at the gates.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
msoja
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> posted:
>> <drerbble>
Why don't you enlighten us then, Dick, on how a feminist approach
might be different from a masculine one?
Mike
Gandalf Grey
msoja <mso...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:49d1mt4dnsr0lhv6j...@4ax.com...
Heavens, why? Robertson has already posted the official right wing position
on that subject.
>
> Mike
>
Scott D. Erb
Gandalf Grey wrote:
> With Pleasure.
>
> http://www.americanpolitics.com/20010724G8.html
Thanks. I notice that some people seem to think feminist theory is something to
be ridiculed and shouldn't be considered in university classes.
Thank God they don't get to make that kind of call for the real world!
Gandalf Grey
No kidding. I got over the misogyny of the right wing long ago. The real
shocker is always that for as many chauvinists as Robertson that form the
bulk of the right wing, there are always Stepford Wives that will take those
kind of comments on the chin and say "thank you sir. May I have another."
>
Wayne Mann
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>American Politics Journal
>
>Why You Should Worry About Globalization
>by Bryan Zepp Jamieson
>
>July 24, 2001 (APJP) --
You spammed this vanity screed once before, and once was more
than enough of this doatribe from the infamous LIAR Zepp.
Wayne Mann
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Thanks for posting this -- I'm teaching a summer session course on
>globalization. It's an eclectic little course, we're reading Thomas Friedman
>(pro-globalization), Samuel Huntington's theory on the Clash of Civilization,
>and a Michael Parenti radical critique of American policy.
Then get off line and go do it, but thanking this scumbag for
his hallucinations is a bit much. But of course he's one of the LYING
WEASELS so that's OK huh LYING WEASEL?
Rob Robertson
>
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
> > With Pleasure.
> >
> > http://www.americanpolitics.com/20010724G8.html
>
> Thanks.
It was a *joke*, Scotti. Besides, you're much more of a 'winter' kind of
ridiculous, pizza stealing, mind fuck jockey (er, I mean, 'political scientist").
> I notice that some people seem to think feminist theory is something to
> be ridiculed and shouldn't be considered in university classes.
>
> Thank God they don't get to make that kind of call for the real world!
Of course I do, Erb. I can choose to send my kids to a decent
university instead of some frost bit Cuckoo's Nest drone factory.
In fact, if I were a parent who'd mistakenly sent my offspring to
the University of Maine at Farmington and discovered that one
of their professors was engaging in the kind of smarmy agitprop
that you're infamous for I'd very likely sue for inflicting mental
and intellectual harm. And with the help of the Google archive,
I'd probably win.
If you don't like being ridiculed, stop being so ridiculous, Erb.
_
Rob Robertson
Mike Schneider
> "Rob Robertson" <rob...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote...
> >
> ><drerbble>
> >
> >> Add to that, we're using a feminist approach to critique
> >> these theories and consider alternatives.
>
> > "Does this theory make my ass look too big? Does it
> >come in any other color but sea foam? I'm more of an
> >'autumn' political theorist, so maybe a nice burgundy,
> >or maybe a nice position paper in dusty rose."
> >
> > Have fun in class, Scotti!
>
> That's the funniest thing I've read in weeks, Robertson.
>
> After drying my eyes, though, I went digging through my copy of
> Kimball's "Tenured Radicals" in order to find a passage that would be
> suitable for quotation in this context. Everything I found is far too
> specific to really work, here, so I'm just going to urge that people
> go out and find this book in order to understand what we're really
> dealing with in Professorboy Scotti Erb, the fraudulent larcenist now
> teaching at the University of Maine.
The perfect thing to read along with it is Paul Johnson's "Intellectuals".
> "A feminist approach to critique" theories of globalization, no
> less.
>
> This is just perfectly sickening.
>
> Savages at the gates.
>
>
> Billy
>
> VRWC Fronteer
> http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/files/al.htm
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
Captain Compassion
wrote:
I see Erb looking out at a sea of flannel shirts, Doc Martin boots and
very scowly faces. "Beauty thy name is woman"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Men married earley-usually by twenty; not through romantic love but
for the sound puropses of having a helpmate, useful children, and a
healthy sexual life. In the words of the Roman wedding ceremony,
marrage was liberum quaerendorum causa-for the sake of getting
children; on the farm, children, like wives, were economic assets, not
biological toys." -- Will Durant "Caesar and Christ"
The liberal is the child. All things are new, all things are
possible. All is kindness and lovable little puppies. The
Conservative is the father who whispers in the childs ear that
most things have been tried, possibilities have problems,
kindness is expensive and lovable little puppies may turn into
mean ugly dogs.--Captain Compassion
Shop Anarchists 'R' Us.
In Chaos there is opportunity.
"You can never really own more than you can carry with two hands while
running at full speed." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@uia.net
Scott D. Erb
understand international relations. For those interested in understanding alternate
perspectives (rather than the willfully ignorant who just attack what is different
than their own view), here is an explanation of what feminism means in international
relations. To be sure, there are a variety of ways feminism gets defined, this is a
common direction for IR:
Feminist theory
Theories can be seen as lenses through which we interpret reality. Any ideology is a
lens that you look at reality through, it is a set of assumptions and beliefs which
you use to organize your perceptions. Religion, political ideology, personal
ethics, all of these include this kind of lens. We do not see reality except
through some sort of lens of belief, that’s impossible to avoid, social scientists
call that the problem of perspective. Naive thinking is for people to adopt a
particular lens so thoroughly that they cannot imagine how reality could be
understood differently (and this leads to demonization of other ideologies,
extremist thinking, etc. - dangerous stuff). Feminist theory represents one lens.
It surprises me sometimes how just talking about these issues arouses an emotional
response, often opposed, from both men and women. People associate feminism and
gender study either with women who consider men the problem, or who want to blame
men or be angry. Rather, gender studies comes from the fact that this is a cleavage
in society and a variable which gets overlooked, even though it has an impact not
only on the result, but also on a large chunk of the population. Simply: gender
matters.
Modern feminist constructivism: There is no one set of clear beliefs of modern
feminist constructivism, but the bottom line is that society is defined in part by
gender, or beliefs that privilege the “masculine.” These are seen by dichotomies.
The masculine is strong, objective, rational, unemotional, goal driven, detached and
even cold. The focus is power – with power defined as “power over” others, the
ability to make someone else do what one otherwise would not do. The feminine is
weak, subjective, emotional, empathetic, sympathetic, and passive. The focus is on
love, cooperation, and caring. Now looking at psychology as a metaphor for this,
it’s easy to see what a person defined too much by one side over the other would
have problems. The overly masculine would be domineering, cold, unable to love, the
overly feminine would be passive, easily manipulated, and unable to assert clear
goals. The best would be a kind of balance. Essentially the argument is that
social theory, particularly international relations theory, privileges the masculine
traits and ignores the feminine, giving a warped view of reality which yields
theories that are self-fulfilling prophecies and rationalizations for domination, a
cold and amoral use of power, and neglect of those on the margins who lack power or
wealth. In the extreme, those on the margins are ridiculed and derided simply
because they are on the margins.
Consider how masculine notions of society (power, strength, etc.) often dominate
foreign policy and international relations discourse, while feminine attributes
(caring, empathy, love) get rejected or even laughed and and ridiculed by both men
and women. Claim: this shows that society is “off center,” so to speak, pushed too
far to the “masculine” side with negative consequences for both biological sexes.
Both men and women suffer from a society that defines things in dichotomies, with
one side (the masculine) privileged over the other (the feminine). Note: you could
buy this argument without buying the masculine/feminine label for the dichotomies:
The idea here is that these dichotomies are not necessary, they aren’t simply a
natural series of oppositions to be “discovered” by social scientists or
psychologists, but rather they are human categorizations of the traditional and the
modern which inform the theory. As such, its interesting how one “side” -- the side
of femininity and “female” traits -- gets defined with the primitive or traditional,
and thus the side to be overcome by modern “man.”
Perhaps the best way to relate feminism to traditional international relations study
is to compare the six rules of political realism as put forth by Hans Morgenthau,
with a feminist reconceptualization offered by Joann Tickner.
Hans Morgenthau: Rules of Political Realism
1. Politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their
roots in human nature, which is unchanging: therefore it is possible to develop a
rational theory that reflects these objective laws.
2. The main signpost of political realism is the concept of interest defined in
terms of power which infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics, and
thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics possible. Political realism
stresses the rational, objective and unemotional.
3. Realism assumes that interest defined as power is an objective category which is
universally valid but not with a meaning that is fixed once and for all. Power is
the control of man over man.
4. Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action. It is
also aware of the tension between the moral command and the requirements of success
political action.
5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular
nation with the moral laws that govern the universe. It is the concept of interest
defined as power that saves us from moral excess and political folly.
6. The political realist maintains the autonomy of the political sphere; he asks
‘How does this policy affect the power of the nation?” Political realism is based o
na pluralistic conception of human nature. A man who was nothing but ‘political
man’ would be a beast, for he would be completely lacking in moral restraints. But,
in order to develop an autonomous theory of political behavior ‘political man’ must
be abstracted from other aspects of human nature.
Joann Tickner: A Feminist Alternative set of rules
1. A feminist perspective believes that objectivity, as it is culturally defined,
is associated with masculinity. Therefore, supposedly ‘objective’ laws of human
nature are based on a partial , masculine view of human nature. Human nature is both
masculine and feminine; it contains elements of social reproduction and development
as well as political domination. Dynamic objectivity offers us a more connected view
of objectivity with less potential for domination.
2. A feminist perspective believes that the national interest is multidimensional
and contextually contingent. Therefore, it cannot be defined solely in terms of
power. In the contemporary world the national interest demands cooperative rather
than zero sum solution to a set of interdependent global problems which include
nuclear war, economic well-being and environmental degradation.
3. Power cannot be infused with meaning that is universally valid. Power as
domination and control privileges masculinity and ignores the possibility of
collective empowerment, another aspect of power often associated with femininity.
4. A feminist perspective rejects the possibility of separating moral command from
political action. All political action has moral significance. The realist agenda
for maximizing order through power and control gives priority to the moral command
of order over those of justice and the satisfaction of basic needs necessary to
ensure social reproduction.
5. While recognizing that the morel aspirations of particular nations cannot be
equated with universal morel principles, a feminist perspective seeks to find common
moral elements in human aspirations which could become the basis for de-escalating
international conflict and building international community.
6. A feminist perspective denies the autonomy of the political. Since autonomy is
associated with masculinity in Western culture, disciplinary efforts to construct a
world view which dies not rest on a pluralistic conception of human nature are
partial and masculine. Building boundaries around a narrowly defined political realm
defines political in a way that excludes the concerns and contributions of women.
Constructivism (and constructivist feminism): one way of thinking of how to use this
approach.
(Social) reality as a social construction: The biggest difference between social
science and natural science (in constructivist thought) is the nature of the subject
matter. In natural science you deal with physical matter and energy in various
forms which you can isolate, run controlled experiments upon, and whose properties
and ways of interaction do not change – they follow physical laws. You may get
different reactions to a chemical if you mix it with different substances, but under
the same conditions it will act the same way.
Social reality is different. Social reality refers to the cultures, modes of
interaction, political systems, social set ups, that define the context of human
life. MEANING is essential to understand, human actions reflect the meanings humans
give to their world, and are not mere response to universal stimuli. Meanings come
from culturally shared norms, understandings and world views, which are human
constructs. The problem with other forms of social theory, according to
constructivists, is that they place too much emphasis on human behavior being guided
by a set human nature. There is a human nature, but constructivists see it as
limited to basic functions like trying to survive, taking care of biological
functions, needing social interaction, and a few others. Beyond that, we build
worlds. We build cultures. Then we get programmed by those cultural worlds to
think certain ways and see the world we built as natural.
How is a world built? Through the development of shared norms and understandings;
cultural beliefs about what society and life is all about. A society is a group
that not only shares these norms and understandings (though not all are shared –
many can be contested – but enough are shared to make for a basic set of stable
social interactions), but also has a common identity they recognize. Identity
involves subjectivity and difference: subjectivity is how the self is defined,
difference is how others are defined as separate from the self. A society is where
people see a fundamental commonality between others and self, a common subjectivity
(we are Americans), difference is how that common identity is differentiated from
those outside that identity (they are foreigners).
Societies tend to reproduce the social reality they are born into, as they learn it
is normal and proper. It is usually reinforced by religion, tradition, philosophy,
cultural, and other systems of thought which developed over time. The point for
constructivists is that even though a set of social norms, or social reality, is
usually reproduced, it can also be transformed. Social reality is not a ‘natural’
result of basic human nature at play, but a contingent result of human choice and
belief.
Transformation: for constructivists, transformation is not easy. It requires not
only a change in thinking on the part of individuals, but it requires that change to
become so prevalent that it changes the norms and understandings of a society. That
usually is a generational matter at best, as people’s ideals tend to be set at a
young age.
Ramifications: 1) theories that treat the world that is as the world that must be,
and are not critical, are actually acting as self-fulfilling prophecies, reinforcing
an existing social reality. 2) this makes theorizing and social science something
that cannot be separated from the subject of study; our theories either reinforce or
aid the transformation of social reality, they are not value neutral. 3) It is
important to investigate cultural and shared norms as well as patterns of behavior.
Behavior results from people acting on the basis of the meaning of acts, and that
meaning is defined by beliefs and understandings about reality. 4) critical theory
reflects on the existing shared norms and understandings and criticizes them or
offers alternatives. 5) constructivism does not DENY other social scientific
endeavors, but says they need to consider the contingent nature of a given social
reality and be critical – using traditional social science as part of the
constructivist program.
Example of early feminism: tradition and belief until not that long ago was that
women were naturally meant to be in the home, not out in the workforce, and that it
was wrong to go against that God given nature. (Another example could be race and
slavery). Even science reinforced this, by arguing among other things that if women
studied at college blood would be diverted from the ovaries to the brain, decreasing
the chances of having babies. Early feminists admitted that possibility gave them
pause, but they wanted knowledge. That social reality rested on beliefs about what
is natural, beliefs so widely held few challenged them. Then in the 19th century
when challenges arouse, they were initially met with ridicule and scorn, as they
were contrary to a widely held consensus. Over time, however, as thinking changed,
so did the view most men have towards the male-female relationship, and the role of
women. A few other notes;
1) class matters; change developed slower in lower classes, for various reasons that
are still being studied; 2) education matters; and 3) the change is generational.
My generation is one of the first to grow up really internalizing the idea of
male-female equality and that men should share housework, and not simply go by
pre-described roles. The current generation of college students tend to see that as
“duh, of course,” and can’t understand where feminists come from (even though there
are real problems that don’t get noticed, but that’s another story). Working to
overcome sexism and racism, as incomplete as those efforts are, is an example of how
beliefs seen as natural were challenged. This led over time to a change in social
reality and the patterns of interaction.
Scott D. Erb
Gandalf Grey wrote:
What's sad is that they don't even try to understand perspectives different than
their own. They attack and even start considering those who have different
views as evil, unfit to teach, etc. It's a kind of reaction to ideas not in
line with their own which is reminiscient of the McCarthy era, or even the worst
of fascist and communist repression. If they spent a tenth of the time trying
to understand other ideas that they spend reacting to posts with insults and
personal smears, they'd learn something. As it is, they represent a fascinating
look at how the extremist mind works.
Scott D. Erb
Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
> Non sequitur alert. Neither of your children are of age,
> and it's doubtful that you'll be sending anyone to college..
>
> --If you don't like being ridiculed, stop being so ridiculous, Fraud
The one thing about when kids go to college, or simply go out in the world is
that they choose their own beliefs, and parents sometimes find out the hard way
that children are not property, but individuals with a mind of their own,
capable of making their own choices. And that's OK -- in college students get
introduced to a variety of ideas and learn that they can't just trust what
their professor, parents, priests or television tells them, but they have to
think for themselves. One of my best students is a very conservative
Republican, and he's good friends with a liberal Democrat. Sophisticated
thinkers are able to deal with those who have very different points of view
without demonization and hate. Good universities do not program, but simply
help students develop the tools to think for themselves.
Martin McPhillips
Do you feel demonized and hated, Scott?
It could be that not knowing your own field, being deceitful, being a
Marxist apologist, a socialist, and persistently anti-American, calling
yourself a "scientist" when you can't understand the simplest concepts
of science, and doing things like complaining about "demonization
and hate" to someone like Kurt Lochner, has given people the wrong
impression about you.
Perhaps you're just misunderstood.
msoja
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> posted:
>msoja <mso...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:43:49 -0700, "Gandalf Grey"
>> <ganda...@infectedmail.com> posted:
>>>> "Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>> > Add to that, we're using a feminist approach to critique
>>>> > these theories and consider alternatives.
>>>> "Does this theory make my ass look too big? Does it
>>>> come in any other color but sea foam? I'm more of an
>>>> 'autumn' political theorist, so maybe a nice burgundy,
>>>> or maybe a nice position paper in dusty rose."
>>>Misogynistic ideation: So much a part of what passes for the right wing
>>>"thought process."
>> Why don't you enlighten us then, Dick, on how a feminist approach
>> might be different from a masculine one?
>Heavens, why? Robertson has already posted the official right wing position
>on that subject.
In other words you realize the utter ridiculousness of Scoti's blather
and refuse to be drawn onto the wrong end of such a laughably
indefensible charade.
Mike
msoja
>Thanks for posting this -- I'm teaching a summer session course on
>globalization. It's an eclectic little course, we're reading Thomas Friedman
>(pro-globalization), Samuel Huntington's theory on the Clash of Civilization,
>and a Michael Parenti radical critique of American policy. Add to that, we're
>using a feminist approach to critique these theories and consider alternatives.
>Anyway, if you can post a URL where I can link to this story I'd like to use it
>as a discussion piece, it'll provoke some interesting discussion.
"Globalization is simply a fact of life, and all the protests in the
world won't alter the trends."
-- Professorboy Erb
Mike
Gandalf Grey
Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3B617932...@nyc.rr.com...
Martin's going off the deep end again. It's amazing how quickly the facade
of serious thought disappears and the naked invective slips out with the
rabid right.
r_c_brown
Lighten up a little. Jokes are jokes, even when made by "right wingers".
Rob Robertson
"Skurt Lerb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B6173DB...@worldnet.att.net...
>
> Kott Lerbner wrote:
>
> > Non sequitur alert. Neither of your children are of age,
> > and it's doubtful that you'll be sending anyone to college..
> >
> > --If you don't like being ridiculed, stop being so ridiculous, Fraud
>
> The one thing about when kids go to college, or simply go out in the world is
> that they choose their own beliefs, and parents sometimes find out the hard way
> that children are not property, but individuals with a mind of their own,
> capable of making their own choices.
I've raised all my children with a strong sense of right and wrong
and instill in them a desire to conduct themselves ethically in all
that they do, which may be why my oldest daughter (in college)
is an anarcho-capitalist, Skurt.
And she's never stolen pizzas from her boss like you have, either.
> And that's OK --
OK!
<drerbbling deleted>
_
Rob Robertson
msoja
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
>The one thing about when kids go to college, or simply go out in the world is
>that they choose their own beliefs, and parents sometimes find out the hard way
>that children are not property, but individuals with a mind of their own,
>capable of making their own choices.
Heeeerrrreeeees Scoti. I like how you pooh pooh the effort parents
put into teaching their kids right from wrong but posted just
yesterday how PROUD you are of the NEA for trying to teach kids the
wonders of homosexuality, and even for trying to get their hooks into
the little tykes straight out of the birth canal. "[P]arents
sometimes find out the hard way" but the NEA WORKS. Let's support the
NEA.
Sorry, Rob, you might be sadly disappointed someday. The NEA will
never be disappointed.
You're in the second tier, Scoti, pushing for statism for all you're
worth. It's despicable.
Mike
Rob Robertson
I've found him quite Useful in warning my oldest about what she
might run into at college; over the years I've pointed out some of
the lowlights of L'erb's Usenet blather and had her imagine what
it must *sound* like in realtime, as opposed to having the luxury
of spotting the written propaganda at leisure. Scotti's definitely of
the 'baffle 'em with bullshit' school of Marxist indoctrination, and
she's even told some of her anarcho-capitalist/libertarian friends
about the fun her dad has with him.
The combination of Scotti and the Google archive really helps
shine a light on the dogmatic leftists who infest academia today.
> Mike
_
Rob
Gandalf Grey
Kurt Lochner <kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3B6215B4...@hotmail.com...
> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> >
> > Kurt Lochner wrote:
> > >
> > > Non sequitur alert. Neither of your children are of age,
> > > and it's doubtful that you'll be sending anyone to college..
> > >
> > > --If you don't like being ridiculed, stop being so ridiculous, Fraud
> >
> > The one thing about when kids go to college, or simply go out in the
world is
> > that they choose their own beliefs, and parents sometimes find out the
hard way
> > that children are not property, but individuals with a mind of their
own,
> > capable of making their own choices. And that's OK --
>
>
> > [...] in college students get introduced to a variety of ideas and
> > learn that they can't just trust what their professor, parents,
> > priests or television tells them, but they have to think for themselves.
>
> These so-called "anarcho-capitalists" haven't a clue in comparison,
> in my not so humble experience..
>
> > One of my best students is a very conservative Republican, and
> > he's good friends with a liberal Democrat. Sophisticated
> > thinkers are able to deal with those who have very different
> > points of view without demonization and hate.
>
> He's the anti-union, registered republican kind. We share
> homework assignments, computer hacking virus's outta the
> lab's and the usual puzzlement regarding the fairer sex..
>
> He's a great kid, his political belief's aside..
>
> > Good universities do not program, but simply help students
> > develop the tools to think for themselves.
Of course you're both referring to that peculiarly adult talent for
objectivity when dealing with opposing viewpoints. The right wingers here
haven't developed it and, what's worse, won't allow it in others either. As
a result no one need worry about stubbing their toes on a polite discussion
between political opponents in the newsgroups. Note how quickly the
Beckians reduce everything to terms of personal invective. There's always
been a minority of people who NEED that kind of thing, one might call it the
perennially ticked minority. Hoffstadter called it "the paranoid style in
American politics." Here on the net, of course, they have the loudest voices
and that sometimes leads one to think that's the way the world works. But
outside of the purely partisan, scorched earth world of the right wing,
that's in fact not how the world works. Thankfully, you don't need to
choose between Limbaughs and Daschles. Even now, there continue to be
republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals working to get things
done, to build a better world based on a consensus.
That's why universities are so important. They're still a melting pot where
divergent views learn together to build a world not based on boil-minded
anarchists camped out in their basements learning how to assemble their guns
in the dark. It's as well to remember that this world, the paranoid world
of the net, and the real world are still thankfully rather far apart.
Gandalf Grey
With the overworked affection shown by Wayne in particular and the rabid
right in general for the D word, it might be as well to offer some sort of
"Despicable" Award in the future for the right winger able to work the D
word into the most posts in a given period of time. We could call it the
Desi, for example and chip in for a ticket to the Limbaugh Circus or perhaps
a year's subscription to the American Expectorator.
Opinions?
Gandalf Grey
>
> "msoja" <mso...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:ku74mtonkcvo2rela...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 13:53:31 GMT, "Scott D. Erb"
> > <scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
> >
> > >The one thing about when kids go to college, or simply go out in the
world is
> > >that they choose their own beliefs, and parents sometimes find out the
hard way
> > >that children are not property, but individuals with a mind of their
own,
> > >capable of making their own choices.
> >
> > Heeeerrrreeeees Scoti. I like how you pooh pooh the effort parents
> > put into teaching their kids right from wrong but posted just
> > yesterday how PROUD you are of the NEA for trying to teach kids the
> > wonders of homosexuality, and even for trying to get their hooks into
> > the little tykes straight out of the birth canal. "[P]arents
> > sometimes find out the hard way" but the NEA WORKS. Let's support the
> > NEA.
> >
> > Sorry, Rob, you might be sadly disappointed someday. The NEA will
> > never be disappointed.
> >
> > You're in the second tier, Scoti, pushing for statism for all you're
> > worth. It's despicable.
>
> I've found him quite Useful in warning my oldest about what she
> might run into at college;
"Darling, listen up. There are people in college that do something called
thinking. They deal in dangerous drugs called ideas, concepts,
notions...there are all sorts of street names for it. If you go along with
that kind of behavior, if you actually try to deal in ideas like these other
people do, you could ruin your life, bring shame upon your dear father's
graying head and lose your right to belong to the GOP!!!
"Whenever one of these dangerous people comes up to you and, and
starts....TALKING to you and asks you to THINK about what they're
saying....just say NO!
"Just say NO! Remember, sweetness. That's what our beloved President Smirk
said when he was in college. He got through the whole thing and never
formed an idea once.
"Well, if President Smirk can do it, YOU can do it.
"Remember, honey. I'm counting on you!"
Wayne Mann
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>What's sad is that they don't even try to understand perspectives different than
>their own.
Poor baby, don't you ever get tired of whining and feeling
sorry for yourself? How in hell do you think we all feel, when we
have to waste our time downloading your BS, Lies, Distortions, etc.
repeated over and over?
Wayne Mann
That brings up something I have wondered about for a long
time. How can he be doing what he is being paid for, when he spends
18 hours a day online posting the BS, Distortions, and Lies? When
does he teach? Council students? Read and grade? In fact, when does
he even eat?
Wayne Mann
Oh, I see, so when are _YOU_ going to repay the Pizza shop
owner for what you BRAGGED about stealing from him? I wonder what the
Dean would suggest you do? What do you think he would suggest Erb?
r_c_brown
> Fraud Robertson <rob...@earthlink.net> whined back at:
> >
> > Dr. Scott Erb wrote
> > >
> > > Kurt Lochner wrote:
> > >
> > > > Non sequitur alert. Neither of your children are of age,
> > > > and it's doubtful that you'll be sending anyone to college..
> > > >
> > > > --If you don't like being ridiculed, stop being so ridiculous, Fraud
> > >
> > > The one thing about when kids go to college, or simply go out in the world is
> > > that they choose their own beliefs, and parents sometimes find out the hard way
> > > that children are not property, but individuals with a mind of their own,
> > > capable of making their own choices. And that's OK -- in college students get
> > > introduced to a variety of ideas and learn that they can't just trust what
> > > their professor, parents, priests or television tells them, but they have to
> > > think for themselves. One of my best students is a very conservative
> > > Republican, and he's good friends with a liberal Democrat. Sophisticated
> > > thinkers are able to deal with those who have very different points of view
> > > without demonization and hate. Good universities do not program, but simply
> > > help students develop the tools to think for themselves.
> >
> >I've raised all my children with a strong sense of right and wrong[..]
>
> <LOL!> Yeah, your "sense" of "right and wrong"..
Well, what would you expect? Do you have kids? Would you raise 'em to be right wing
bigots, or would you instill in them your own sense of right and wrong?
>
>
> >and instill in them a desire to conduct themselves ethically[..]
>
> According to your warped views of the world surrounding you..
>
> >[..]my oldest daughter (in college) is an anarcho-capitalist, [..]
>
> She may yet outgrow your narrow-minded indoctrinations, Fraud..
>
> I bet that scares the bloody hell out of you, doesn't it?
>
> --But, that's why you're known as a disengenuous fraud, Robertson..
r_c_brown
To be fair, there's a lot of that scorched earth invective here from both wings.
r_c_brown
> r_c_brown <info...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > Kurt Lochner wrote:
> > >
> > >Fraud Robertson <rob...@earthlink.net> whined back at:
> > > >
> > > > Dr. Scott Erb wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > Kurt Lochner wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Non sequitur alert. Neither of your children are of age,
> > > > > > and it's doubtful that you'll be sending anyone to college..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --If you don't like being ridiculed, stop being so ridiculous, Fraud
> > > > >
> > > > > The one thing about when kids go to college, or simply go out in the world is
> > > > > that they choose their own beliefs, and parents sometimes find out the hard way
> > > > > that children are not property, but individuals with a mind of their own,
> > > > > capable of making their own choices. And that's OK -- in college students get
> > > > > introduced to a variety of ideas and learn that they can't just trust what
> > > > > their professor, parents, priests or television tells them, but they have to
> > > > > think for themselves. One of my best students is a very conservative
> > > > > Republican, and he's good friends with a liberal Democrat. Sophisticated
> > > > > thinkers are able to deal with those who have very different points of view
> > > > > without demonization and hate. Good universities do not program, but simply
> > > > > help students develop the tools to think for themselves.
> > > >
> > > >I've raised all my children with a strong sense of right and wrong[..]
> > >
> > > <LOL!> Yeah, your "sense" of "right and wrong"..
> >
> >Well, what would you expect?
>
> Better..
Like your sense of right and wrong, perhaps?
>
>
> >Do you have kids?
>
> Yup..
>
> >Would you raise 'em to be right wing bigots,
>
> Nope..
Good. The world doesn't need more bigots of any flavor.
>
>
> >or would you instill in them your own sense of right and wrong?
>
> I have tried to install more than just my own values, rc..
But not, I would assume, values that you disagree with, such as those held by those nutty
libertarians?
>
>
> --That way they don't "outgrow", they exceed and succeed..
Excellent.
Gandalf Grey
Wayne Mann <tp...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:hl06mtc7tq00m38ad...@4ax.com...
Then in your own words, "just Killfile him," Mann. That way you won't see
any disturbing things like concepts to bother you and the rest of the world
will be spared your daily whining.
Scott D. Erb
Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
> Of course you're both referring to that peculiarly adult talent for
> objectivity when dealing with opposing viewpoints. The right wingers here
> haven't developed it and, what's worse, won't allow it in others either. As
> a result no one need worry about stubbing their toes on a polite discussion
> between political opponents in the newsgroups. Note how quickly the
> Beckians reduce everything to terms of personal invective. There's always
> been a minority of people who NEED that kind of thing, one might call it the
> perennially ticked minority. Hoffstadter called it "the paranoid style in
> American politics." Here on the net, of course, they have the loudest voices
> and that sometimes leads one to think that's the way the world works. But
> outside of the purely partisan, scorched earth world of the right wing,
> that's in fact not how the world works. Thankfully, you don't need to
> choose between Limbaughs and Daschles. Even now, there continue to be
> republicans and democrats, conservatives and liberals working to get things
> done, to build a better world based on a consensus.
>
> That's why universities are so important. They're still a melting pot where
> divergent views learn together to build a world not based on boil-minded
> anarchists camped out in their basements learning how to assemble their guns
> in the dark. It's as well to remember that this world, the paranoid world
> of the net, and the real world are still thankfully rather far apart.
That's why its important to understand how ideologues and conspiracy theorists
think. Educators have to use knowledge to help students not fall for their
arguments or into the trap of losing themselves in a kind of ideological cage.
The best way is through facts about reality. If you watch how Beck and others
argue, "reality" to them is an abstract -- it is 'human nature' or 'philosphical
truths.' Capitalism is defended with economic theory, arguments about how the
world should work according to this theory. The real world splatters these
fanciful ideologies. Anyone who looks at what happens when rule of law breaks
down or state governments are too weak to enforce law, they won't think anarchy
will bring about anything better than mafia gangs competing and a very difficult
existence with it being hard to create economic efficiency. Indeed, if you
analyze WHY capitalism and markets work, one sees that they rely on collective
efforts and are enhanced by governmental involvement, especially rule of law,
but also in promoting education and social stability. The more one looks at the
real world -- what goes on in states, what actually happens -- the less one is
likely to be misled by appeals to philosophical dogma and abstract ideological
statements of faith.
Scott D. Erb
Kurt Lochner wrote:
> My first years in college were during the Nixon administration.
> These so-called "anarcho-capitalists" haven't a clue in comparison,
> in my not so humble experience..
They are a fascinating subsection of American political ideology. I don't blame
them, really, for their personal smears and attacks. I mean, put yourself in their
place (if you can stand it): they hold an ideology that is extreme and on the fringes
of the margins, an ideology which gets no respect and not much more than ridicule if
it is even mentioned, and yet they believe very fervently that it is the only true
ethical proper way to look at the world and political life. It is predictable that
they will categorize those who attack their views as evil, dishonest, lacking honor,
etc. I don't think they realize just how shrill and ridiculous they sound. I mean,
attacking me over and over because at 18 I didn't charge employees the normal half
price for pizza (though as a damn good supervisor I kept both labor and food costs
under goal) is bizarre. How many people can look at their teen years and really ANY
year (or day!) and not find things they did wrong. But that's part of the deal --
they build themselves up as worthy, honorable folk without sin or blame, standing
lonely in a world that is a cesspool of deceit, fraud, and abuse. It's a very
romantic self-image they have. Fascinating.
> > One of my best students is a very conservative Republican, and
> > he's good friends with a liberal Democrat. Sophisticated
> > thinkers are able to deal with those who have very different
> > points of view without demonization and hate.
>
> I have a fellow student much like that, though much younger.
> He's the anti-union, registered republican kind. We share
> homework assignments, computer hacking virus's outta the
> lab's and the usual puzzlement regarding the fairer sex..
>
> He's a great kid, his political belief's aside..
Back when I was 20 I briefly joined the Libertarian party, holding much of the same
beliefs that people in this newsgroup posit. My professors treated those beliefs
with respect, but also showed me other perspectives. Obviously, I grew out of that
world view, though I understand WHY I thought that way, and have an understanding of
the ideology behind these posters. That is probably one reason I tried so long to
debate them (and it's much more fun now to either post on issues of interest or to
respond to posters who are more rational than to engage them in what always became a
flamewar), I know where they are coming from, and I wanted to get them to question
their beliefs a bit. But they are locked in an ideology as strong as a deep
religious belief.
> > Good universities do not program, but simply help students
> > develop the tools to think for themselves.
>
> Well, that's why they say "Knowledge is power", Doctor..
>
> --From that, we can infer who the powerless are here.. /&^)
They have some knowledge, but they haven't learned that our understandings are
shapped by our perspectives, our beliefs and assumptions about the world. They shape
how we interpret what we perceive, and that is why people can be honest and
intelligent but yet have vastly different views. They seem to think that if people
don't come to the conclusions they have reached even when given the same arguments
and facts, then the people are either dishonest or willfully ignorant. That leads to
a closed kind of belief system, where everything is interpreted through their very
specific ideological perspective in a way which always supports that perspective.
Fascinating, if a bit sad.
Scott D. Erb
r_c_brown wrote:
>
> To be fair, there's a lot of that scorched earth invective here from both wings.
Quite true. But I'm convinced that unless I said, "gee, you guys are right,
libertarianism (or anarcho-capitalism) is the proper way, I have seen the light and
been converted," there are some people that simply won't ever engage in a real
discussion absent personal attacks. I'm sure there are some on the "left" who
respond that way to conservatives and libertarians too. But I make a distinction
between those zealots and people like you, Bill Bonde or Steve L. who are
provacative, sometimes rather nasty, but also show an ability not to take things too
personally and make good arguments. Heated, provocative and sometimes angry debate
is normal and can be fun. Some people just personalize it to an unbelievable
extent.
r_c_brown
> r_c_brown wrote:
>
> >
> > To be fair, there's a lot of that scorched earth invective here from both wings.
>
> Quite true. But I'm convinced that unless I said, "gee, you guys are right,
> libertarianism (or anarcho-capitalism) is the proper way, I have seen the light and
> been converted," there are some people that simply won't ever engage in a real
> discussion absent personal attacks.
Substitute "liberal" or "conservative" or "Republican" or "Democrat", and you can dig up
people who will react in the same manner.
> I'm sure there are some on the "left" who
> respond that way to conservatives and libertarians too. But I make a distinction
> between those zealots and people like you, Bill Bonde or Steve L. who are
> provacative, sometimes rather nasty,
Hmm, well, I try not to be nasty. And yes, one definitely has to make distinctions
between zealots of any flavor and those who will engage in meaningful discussion.
johnz~
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
(snip)
Some people just personalize it to an unbelievable
> extent.
>
Like your alter ego, "MH", Professor?
JS
--
A Short History Of The United States of America:
"Laugh all you want...I'm the one goin' down in history
as the Thomas Jefferson of squirrels."
Roger R, formerly known as Whoever
co-opted all the white segregationists in the south previously mobilized by
Wallace to vote Republican, and set up the modern solid south.
Then I saw the tapes of the White-shirt-and-tie storm troopers out of Tom
delay's office going through the government building in Florida to
intimidate the vote counters. And succeeding. The net may just be a place
where the Right wingers can be honest about their anger, paranoia, racism
and desire to control all Americans and mold them into their own image.
Roger R, formerly known as Whoever
Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B633E80...@worldnet.att.net...
of it fails to understand the function of government and of capitalistic
organizations. To a large extent, government sets up and enforces the rules
the economy will follow. Then capitalistic organizations, following those
rules, attempt to determine and fulfill the needs of various groups of
consumers. So what are those rules?
A few of them are:
1. Licensing and supervising corporations and other business
organizations and prohibiting others (such as business cartels and drug
organizations).
2. Establishing and enforcing accounting rules to ensure proper
visibility of those organizations.
3. Setting up rules to be followed by the financial markets so that what
is sold really exists and the methods used are fair to the purchasers.
4. Establishing and enforcing commercial and contract law. Otherwise,
businesses couldn't trust contracts and could not operate,
5. Creating and controlling the money supply.
6. Controlling banking operations, since they have a great deal to do
with the size and efficiency of the money supply.
7. Building infrastructure items such as highways, ports and waterways,
airports and the system to control the airways, etc.
8. Ensuring an educated and healthy workforce.
9. Ensuring social stability through crime control.
10. Recording ownership of property, transfers of the ownership and
enforcing property rights. The real estate industry simply would not exist
without this function. Nor would the automobile industry.
11. Establishing and enforcing copyrights, patents and trademarks.
In short, there are certain functions in the overall economy and society in
which the rules need to be rigid so that everyone knows what will result
from a given action or promise. This is the function of government. Then
there are functions which must be highly responsive to changing conditions.
These are the functions where private businesses need to be left alone to
operate within.
Any attempt to eliminate all government "interference" in the economy will
leave it with no structure at all except that provided by inflexible
monopolies. It will collapse like a person with no skeleton. Equally, any
attempt to regulate every aspect of the economy (as in the Soviet Union)
will leave the economy so rigid that it cannot adapt quickly to anything,
which was the ultimate cause of the collapse of the USSR.
Scott D. Erb
Well put! This post is a keeper.
Roger R, formerly known as Whoever
Frightened.
That is why you can never address the issue, just attack the person who
disagreed with you and label his views "BS, Lies, Distortions, etc."
Rob Robertson
"Scott D. Erb" <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B63415F...@worldnet.att.net...
>
> r_c_brown wrote:
>
> >
> > To be fair, there's a lot of that scorched earth invective here from both wings.
>
Gee, I'd asked a simple question of another poster when your buddy
Kurt Lochner jumped in with this piece of information;
Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
> Rob Robertson wrote:
> >
> > "marc" <spam...@eatthis.com> wrote in message
> > news:gzs37.988$OY6.5...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > How come conspiracy theorists always portray the world as peopled by
> > > mindless drones, incapable of thinking for themselves, and easily led about
> > > by the insidious powers-that-be?
> >
> >
> >How come you think Vince Foster committed suicide?
Besides being a gullible fraud, Robertson, why do you think it
more "likely" that hundreds of medical authorities, in juried
reviews of the hard physical evidence, could keep perpetuating
a deliberate lie?
[...]
<end>
...and, just in case you missed it, he eventually admitted that
he simply made that up. He can't come up with any review
or names of medical authorities. Who can have a discussion
with someone like that, Scotti? Just what "hard physical
evidence" is he talking about?
_
Rob Robertson
Rob Robertson
>
> Gandalf Grey wrote:
>
> > Of course you're both referring to that peculiarly adult talent for
> > objectivity when dealing with opposing viewpoints.
<snip>
> That's why its important to understand how ideologues and conspiracy theorists
> think.
You're in luck, Scotti! If you're looking for conspiracy theorists to study (maybe
assign your students to also study?) there are some who think that I might fit that
category! You and I can work *together*, in a sharing, cooperative environment,
as we explore the mind of the modern American 'conspiracy theorist'. Let's begin.
So, as always, I'm thinkin' to myself, "How did Vince Foster's glasses end up
*19 feet* away from his head if he was supposedly wearing them when the
fatal shot was fired?" and the only answer I can come up with is "they fell away
from the body as it was being dumped in the park." Then I remember the time
when your buddy Kurt suggested that the escaping gases from the cylinder gap
blew them there (perhaps aided by the motion of Foster's head backward
from the force of the shot).
Well, that just doesn't make any sense at all, does it? Pace off 19 feet from
some point and take a look back. That's a long way for those glasses to
travel, especially since those escaping gases would mostly be pushing the
glasses onto his face instead of getting behind the glasses to push them
*up* range, in the direction opposite the bullet path.
This website does a great job of clarifying this issue;
http://www.swlink.com/~hoboh/foster/pages/glasses/glasses.htm
...and there's much more on this and other problems with the case at these sites;
http://members.aol.com/orwell1950/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/foster.html
http://www.daveschultz.com/scum/clinton/vincefoster.html;
Part of what fuels these 'conspiracy theorists' is not just websites, but also
books, such as Chris Ruddy's _The Strange Death of Vincent Foster_, a
review of which you can find at the New York Times;
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/09/28/reviews/970928.28brookhi.html
But it's not all just one-sided, Scotti. Oh, no! I'm curious about what
evidence convinces others that, in the face of every indication of foul
play in this case, Vince Foster commited suicide. I don't recall what
website you may have referenced in your previous discussions on the
topic, so I'll offer up this one for you as a place-holder;
Vince Foster:
The Case for Suicide
by Zack Nguyen
http://www.coffeeshoptimes.com/foster.html
One *big* problem I have with this case is that people like Kurt
simply fabricate things as he did in the following exchange;
<cite>
> How come you think Vince Foster committed suicide?
Besides being a gullible fraud, Robertson, why do you think it
more "likely" that hundreds of medical authorities, in juried
reviews of the hard physical evidence, could keep perpetuating
a deliberate lie?
<end>
Lochner can't cite these "hundreds of medical authorities" and
just blustered and lied his way through a recent thread with a
poster 'Bill Ding'. Did you follow that thread, Erb? That wasn't
something from the dim, distant history of 1997, or anything.
That's pretty much going on right now. So, on one hand I have
a bunch of evidence that points to foul play, but on the suicide
believer side I have,... well, a lot of people who demonstrably
lie, Scotti. Maybe it's just me, but when I see some subject
being continually ignored or else derailed by fabrications, lies,
and agitprop tactics I start to wonder why. I also wonder why
you did such a poor job of covering the fact that you were
posting as "MH" trae...@netzero.net last year even as you
engaged in similar behavior as Kurt on the same subject.
These are your posts, aren't they, Dr. Erb?;
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Atra...@netzero.net
> Educators have to use knowledge to help students not fall for their
> arguments or into the trap of losing themselves in a kind of ideological cage.
> The best way is through facts about reality.
I agree completely.
<snip>
_
Rob Robertson
Gandalf Grey
No kidding! Thanks Roger!!!
>
Gandalf Grey
> Fraud Robertson <rob...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > "Dr. Scott D. Erb" replied to:
> > >
> > > r_c_brown wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > To be fair, there's a lot of that scorched earth invective here from
both wings.
> > >
right,
> > > libertarianism (or anarcho-capitalism) is the proper way, I have seen
the light and
> > > been converted," there are some people that simply won't ever engage
in a real
> > > discussion absent personal attacks. I'm sure there are some on the
"left" who
> > > respond that way to conservatives and libertarians too. But I make a
distinction
> > > between those zealots and people like you, Bill Bonde or Steve L. who
are
> > > provacative, sometimes rather nasty, but also show an ability not to
take things too
> > > personally and make good arguments. Heated, provocative and sometimes
angry debate
> > > is normal and can be fun. Some people just personalize it to an
unbelievable
> > > extent.
> >
> >Kurt Lochner jumped in with this piece of information;
>
Why do they lie about killfiling? Wayne Mann hauls out his list at least
once a month when we all KNOW that he follows all of the listees with the
fevered attention of an old maid watching The Dating Game.
>
> > Kurt Lochner wrote:
> > >
> > >Disengenuous Fraud Robertson <rob...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "marc" <spam...@eatthis.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:gzs37.988$OY6.5...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > > How come conspiracy theorists always portray the world as
peopled by
> > > > > mindless drones, incapable of thinking for themselves, and
easily led about
> > > > > by the insidious powers-that-be?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >How come you think Vince Foster committed suicide?
> > >
> > > Besides being a gullible fraud, Robertson, why do you think it
> > > more "likely" that hundreds of medical authorities, in juried
> > > reviews of the hard physical evidence, could keep perpetuating
> > > a deliberate lie?
> > >
> > > You, on the other hand, have seen but inconsistencies and
low-resolution
> > > facsimiles of photographs, and purported to observe what dozens of
much
> > > higher qualified medical & forensics experts have not..
> > >
> > > --But, that's why you're known as a disengenuous fraud, Robertson..
>
> /../
> >
> >...and, just in case you missed it, he eventually admitted
> >that he simply made that up.
>
> <LOL!> Or so you'd have anyone believe, Fraud..
>
> I told you just what I did Bull Dung, go look up any of the
> medical journals regarding 'suicide' forensics in the year
> of the Foster suicide. Di you? No......
>
> Funny how you avoided testing your 'conspiracy' hypothesis
> like anyone else has to in the professional sciences..
>
> >He can't come up with any review or names of medical authorities.
>
> And my liability for disclosing their names and CV's to
> such demonstrably malicious feebs like yourself would be?
>
> >Who can have a discussion with someone like that, [Dr. Erb]?
>
> Like you? Maybe yourself and a few fellow-fringers..
>
> That's about all there can be accounted for now..
>
> >Just what "hard physical evidence" is he talking about?
>
> Published, peer-reviewed forensics, Disengenous Fraud..
>
> You've been informed of such, but then denied it's existence..
msoja
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
>Well put! This post is a keeper.
The post is drivel and any student of government would not call it
otherwise.
Mike
msoja
Whoever" <spamfr...@nospam.com> posted:
>The idea that the economy would work better if the government simply got out
>of it fails to understand the function of government and of capitalistic
>organizations.
>To a large extent, government sets up and enforces the rules
>the economy will follow.
That's the socialist view, anyway. Government is not necessary or
particularly desireable for an efficient economy.
>Then capitalistic organizations, following those
>rules, attempt to determine and fulfill the needs of various groups of
>consumers. So what are those rules?
>A few of them are:
>1. Licensing and supervising corporations and other business
>organizations and prohibiting others (such as business cartels and drug
>organizations).
Why on earth should government be supervising anyone, much less
business? Licensing in and of itself is an establishment of a cartel,
usually undertaken at the behest of "old" business finding itself with
new competition. The old boys wine and dine their buddies at the
state house and bang, all of a sudden there's a new barrier to entry
into the field.
>2. Establishing and enforcing accounting rules to ensure proper
>visibility of those organizations.
Businesses have their own incentives for accurate accounting. Of
course, the government demands it, so that it can also demand its cut
of the loot.
>3. Setting up rules to be followed by the financial markets so that what
>is sold really exists and the methods used are fair to the purchasers.
How does government do that? I think people know if they bought
something that doesn't exist. What "fair methods"?
>4. Establishing and enforcing commercial and contract law. Otherwise,
>businesses couldn't trust contracts and could not operate,
A man is as good as his word. Government is not necessary again. In
fact, there is no indication that the government employees running our
courts are any more or less corrupt than anyone else in our society.
>5. Creating and controlling the money supply.
There are hundreds of non-government currencies in use in the US right
now.
>6. Controlling banking operations, since they have a great deal to do
>with the size and efficiency of the money supply.
It's not necessary that goverment do so. Some would say it creates
problems.
>7. Building infrastructure items such as highways, ports and waterways,
>airports and the system to control the airways, etc.
What a waste. Boondoggles every single one. Private companies could
have done it all cheaper, better, faster.
>8. Ensuring an educated and healthy workforce.
Why can't Tommy think, add, or write?
>9. Ensuring social stability through crime control.
Ah, organized crime. With the April 15th shakedown.
>10. Recording ownership of property, transfers of the ownership and
>enforcing property rights. The real estate industry simply would not exist
>without this function. Nor would the automobile industry.
No reason not to privatize any and all of it. It's likely that with
private incentives much, much more of it would have been digitized by
now.
>11. Establishing and enforcing copyrights, patents and trademarks.
Anyone could do that, too.
>In short, there are certain functions in the overall economy and society in
>which the rules need to be rigid so that everyone knows what will result
>from a given action or promise. This is the function of government.
No, it's an aspect of being a civilized human.
>Then
>there are functions which must be highly responsive to changing conditions.
>These are the functions where private businesses need to be left alone to
>operate within. Any attempt to eliminate all government "interference" in the economy will
>leave it with no structure at all except that provided by inflexible
>monopolies.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're scaring the old ladies in the back row.
Without government we'd be selling hanging baskets off a big tower
speaking gibberish gesticulating like giddys, er, monkeys.
It's bullshit.
>It will collapse like a person with no skeleton. Equally, any
>attempt to regulate every aspect of the economy (as in the Soviet Union)
>will leave the economy so rigid that it cannot adapt quickly to anything,
>which was the ultimate cause of the collapse of the USSR.
From my perspective it looks like that's what's happening here and
now. I got a toilet with a small tank and I had to drill out my
government restricted shower nozzle to get decent flow. I can't buy
soft cheese from France. Two fruit juice companies aren't allowed to
merge. The fed is trying to regulate a fucking Browser. The fed is
playing both sides of the tobacco world against the middle, reaping
money all the way through the process. They're putting thousands of
farmers out of business on the west coast to save a two inch fish.
And now Dick Gandalf wants to deport people who don't pay taxes and
giddy wants to break up every corporation that earns a dollar and Erb
wants to sign onto every Socialist plan with a yellow smiley face
stuck in the upper corner, and don't tell me these people are just
inconsequential morons, because, even though it's true, they got their
whacko ideas from somewhere.
Every day more liberties are being curtailed and bigger government is
being shoved down our throats.
Every time someone says, "Oh, but government has legitimate functions
in a modern society" it means someone is about to raise taxes and
stick their nose into another previously unspoilt corner. It's all
crap, pure and simple.
Mike
Scott D. Erb
msoja wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2001 21:35:19 -0500, "Roger R, formerly known as
> Whoever" <spamfr...@nospam.com> posted:
>
> >The idea that the economy would work better if the government simply got out
> >of it fails to understand the function of government and of capitalistic
> >organizations.
>
> >To a large extent, government sets up and enforces the rules
> >the economy will follow.
>
> That's the socialist view, anyway. Government is not necessary or
> particularly desireable for an efficient economy.
Actually it's not the socialist view, it's the prevailing view in current market economic
systems, and I daresay you won't find much opposing it at any business school or other purveyor
of the standard version of market capitalism American-style.
> >Then capitalistic organizations, following those
> >rules, attempt to determine and fulfill the needs of various groups of
> >consumers. So what are those rules?
>
> >A few of them are:
> >1. Licensing and supervising corporations and other business
> >organizations and prohibiting others (such as business cartels and drug
> >organizations).
>
> Why on earth should government be supervising anyone, much less
> business?
Because if they don't, it is very easy for organizations and individuals to commit fraud and
hurt a lot of people. The existence of such fraud and harm is why demand arose for licensing,
which government was in the best position to fulfill (as it is accountable to the people through
elections, and has the power of rule of law on its side).
> Licensing in and of itself is an establishment of a cartel,
> usually undertaken at the behest of "old" business finding itself with
> new competition. The old boys wine and dine their buddies at the
> state house and bang, all of a sudden there's a new barrier to entry
> into the field.
Sometimes, but other times it is necessary to protect citizens.
> >2. Establishing and enforcing accounting rules to ensure proper
> >visibility of those organizations.
>
> Businesses have their own incentives for accurate accounting. Of
> course, the government demands it, so that it can also demand its cut
> of the loot.
Your assertion is weak. Businesses often try to avoid accurate accounting, especially if they
are in trouble. That's created some scandals on Wall Street the past few years. Countries
without accurate accounting principles run into severe trouble. In Thailand one of the causes
of the Thai crisis a few years ago was that business accounting principles were not yet up to
international snuff, thanks to links between accounting firms and big business. A lot of people
assert that according to theory businesses "SHOULD" want to do things that regulations force
them to do, but if you look at the cold nitty gritty world of what REALLY happens, they DON'T.
Reality bites, and in this case it bites the idealized anti-government theorists right in the
butt.
> >3. Setting up rules to be followed by the financial markets so that what
> >is sold really exists and the methods used are fair to the purchasers.
>
> How does government do that? I think people know if they bought
> something that doesn't exist. What "fair methods"?
Rule of law, oversight of business practices, everything from the SEC to FTC, etc. You can sue
or call your attorney General if businesses violate these rules. And, believe it or not, quite
often charlatans fool people, especially in financial markets. Go to countries without rule of
law or weak regulation, and this happens alot. That is what threw Albania into the abyss of
anarchy a few years ago (which helped set up the Kosovo war).
> >4. Establishing and enforcing commercial and contract law. Otherwise,
> >businesses couldn't trust contracts and could not operate,
>
> A man is as good as his word. Government is not necessary again.
How utterly and hopelessly naive! In this complex world you don't know other businesses, you
deal with people across the continent, even across the globe. A charlatan can easily play a
number of people for suckers and by the time word is spread, have done a lot of damage. Again,
you rely on vague theory -- here just a rather naive assertion -- but REALITY -- what actually
happens in the world -- makes it absolutely clear government is necessary. There is no doubt.
> In
> fact, there is no indication that the government employees running our
> courts are any more or less corrupt than anyone else in our society.
Which means what? The thing about courts is there is rule of law which is to be applied, and if
a lower court is corrupt, you can appeal, and the press and society sees what happens and there
are legislative bodies which can investigate. You make a vague "the individuals may be as
corrupt as others" claim, but actually the existence of effective rule of law is precisely to
limit the impact of any such corruption. Without these institutions, such corruption would be
far more harmful.
> >5. Creating and controlling the money supply.
>
> There are hundreds of non-government currencies in use in the US right
> now.
Where? Disney Dollars? You gotta buy them with legitimate currencies. In any event, those
"hundreds" of currencies are practically invisible and won't be accepted at your local Walmart.
In the complexities of modern economies, a stable monetary system is necessary. Even Europe
realizes that one currency for a number of states is more rational than a difficult mix of many
different currencies. You need to explain yourself on this one if you want to be persuasive.
> >6. Controlling banking operations, since they have a great deal to do
> >with the size and efficiency of the money supply.
>
> It's not necessary that goverment do so. Some would say it creates
> problems.
Some would say the moon landing was fake. But again, from your "capitalist" business school to
an analyst of government, his point is pretty much undisputed. Experience with corrupt and
unregulated banking has caused such regulation to be seen as a necessity for a modern economy to
function. If you think somehow it would work other wise you have to make a case, taking into
account real world evidence and not some vague assertion, 'oh, government isn't necessary, the
magic market can take care of everything.'
> >7. Building infrastructure items such as highways, ports and waterways,
> >airports and the system to control the airways, etc.
>
> What a waste. Boondoggles every single one. Private companies could
> have done it all cheaper, better, faster.
Your assertion is not supported, and it defies reality. The interstate system, which has been
extremely important to our economy, was NOT being created before the government got involved.
Indeed, infrastructure construction by government has spurred growth. I can't see any way to
argue that all of this would have been privately created anyway. You don't make a case that it
could, you just assert it. It is more like you are making assertions based on faith rather than
evidence.
> >8. Ensuring an educated and healthy workforce.
>
> Why can't Tommy think, add, or write?
Guess what -- literacy rates world wide have soared since UNESCO and other international
agencies have worked with GOVERNMENTS to make public education for available world wide. There
is a direct link between government spending on education and literacy rates and the
education/skill level of the mass public. Not only that, but the countries that do better than
the US on education -- Japan, Europe, etc. -- have governments MORE involved with their
education system than we do. Again, you respond with a glib aside, but reality -- what
actually happens in this complex world -- makes the "government isn't necessary" theory look
positively looney.
> >9. Ensuring social stability through crime control.
>
> Ah, organized crime. With the April 15th shakedown.
Again, you do not reply to his point except with a glib rejoinder. Perhaps you were tired by
this point. Anyway, look at where there is no rule of law, and organized crime in places like
Russia and Eastern Europe led to investors staying away, Mafia controls, and economic malaise.
In Eastern Europe governments have finally started to get the upper hand against Mafias, and now
you see them showing signs of economic improvement. Rule of law is necessary, as well as
protection of citizens. Go to a country without effective rule of law, and see what it's like.
Again: REALITY. What happens in the world. That trumps vague theory every time.
> >10. Recording ownership of property, transfers of the ownership and
> >enforcing property rights. The real estate industry simply would not exist
> >without this function. Nor would the automobile industry.
>
> No reason not to privatize any and all of it. It's likely that with
> private incentives much, much more of it would have been digitized by
> now.
So you assert. Reality suggests otherwise, and you don't make a case for your rather strange
assertion.
> >11. Establishing and enforcing copyrights, patents and trademarks.
>
> Anyone could do that, too.
Not effectively and with the protection of rule of law. Where governments and rule of law are
weak, you find piracy and other violations of copyright/trademark, etc., much more often.
Reality again trumps vague unsubstantiated assertions.
> >In short, there are certain functions in the overall economy and society in
> >which the rules need to be rigid so that everyone knows what will result
> >from a given action or promise. This is the function of government.
>
> No, it's an aspect of being a civilized human.
>
> >Then
> >there are functions which must be highly responsive to changing conditions.
> >These are the functions where private businesses need to be left alone to
> >operate within. Any attempt to eliminate all government "interference" in the economy will
> >leave it with no structure at all except that provided by inflexible
> >monopolies.
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're scaring the old ladies in the back row.
> Without government we'd be selling hanging baskets off a big tower
> speaking gibberish gesticulating like giddys, er, monkeys.
>
> It's bullshit.
You've not countered him, you just assert things that on their face are bizarre. If you want to
convince anyone, you have to gather real evidence, and not just rely on a theory of what should
be. Any student of social theory knows that theories are simplifications and the mistake of
turning theory into a kind of ideology that if followed would yield predictable results is
extremely dangerous and misleading. Reality is why there is no way that governments will be
ditched. It won't happen because Roger was right, everyone from business to common citizens
recognize a need for some kind of social order and rule of law. As I noted earlier this weak,
democratic republics seem the best way to provide this while trying to check government abuses.
A nice rant, but it doesn't deal with the fact: things are best in places with stable
governments, rule of law, and democratic institutions. There is no reason to ditch that, even
if you disagree with some of the decisions governments make. Look at the world, and you'll see
that the alternatives are worse. And there is no reason whatsoever to believe that somehow
markets alone will magically take care of all these problems and make things better. Indeed,
governments arose because of a need, demand for stability and protection from fraud and harm by
powerful unregulated actors. That would happen again -- ditch government and soon Mafias would
form defacto governments, but ones you can't vote on, can't exercise oversight over, and can't
hold to legal standards. All you could do is use force, and try to create another Mafia. A
wonderful world that would be!
Chris
Has anyone denoted the BARTER SYSTEM was used by Cavemen? Goverment now wants a
part of every transaction.....
"Roger R, formerly known as Whoever" wrote:
>
> The idea that the economy would work better if the government simply got out
> of it fails to understand the function of government and of capitalistic
> organizations. To a large extent, government sets up and enforces the rules
> the economy will follow. Then capitalistic organizations, following those
> rules, attempt to determine and fulfill the needs of various groups of
> consumers. So what are those rules?
>
> A few of them are:
> 1. Licensing and supervising corporations and other business
> organizations and prohibiting others (such as business cartels and drug
> organizations).
Such as AOL / TimeWarner And the refuse collectors against Microsoft? That's
business practice.
Who pays the most get to do the most. Money controls licenses and supervision
by unqualified federal collectors.
Money controls this process - Not Government.
> 2. Establishing and enforcing accounting rules to ensure proper
> visibility of those organizations.
Taxation at 43%? I do not concur. Money again controls this process.
> 3. Setting up rules to be followed by the financial markets so that what
> is sold really exists and the methods used are fair to the purchasers.
Money again controls this with common sense as a balance. Albeit the justice
system is not influenced by political affiliation as well as money. <Snicker>
> 4. Establishing and enforcing commercial and contract law. Otherwise,
> businesses couldn't trust contracts and could not operate,
Establishing? The Government does not write contracts..... Again the Justice
system does have a controlling
factor... What good that is...
Contract law is controlled at the local level. Not Federal
> 5. Creating and controlling the money supply.
Creating yes... Controlling purely depends on Greenspan... One man ---- Oh how
funny.... Taxation increases do not imply a controlling factor because it is
the Federal income again......
> 6. Controlling banking operations, since they have a great deal to do
> with the size and efficiency of the money supply.
You have never understood the phrase "Know you customer" The Federal
governmentr micromanages who should have and who should have not based on upper
level transactions.. Again a controlling process connected to- Federal Income.
> 7. Building infrastructure items such as highways, ports and waterways,
And have you seen what a billion dollars did for most states after the
tobbacco settlement?
Not much... The Federal Government acquired the money.. Distributed it and....
Poof! It dissappeared!
> airports and the system to control the airways, etc.
>
Oh that's a great note.... Have you seen the airway control at work?
PRIVATE! The Feds state they control it... But truthfully 'Not.... !' Rocket
science.... Federal checks never caught infractions.... Only the internal
company departments have privy to that information
> 8. Ensuring an educated and healthy workforce.
Please.... (ROFL) The system crashed back in the late 70's and cannot recover
based on mandates. Teachers have enough mandates... and children...
> 9. Ensuring social stability through crime control.
Or the creation of legal crime.. Need I say more. Panama, NAFTA, and military
excusions to the Balkans to recover the cocaine highway? And do we need the
Federal Government to help criminals? We even gave 7 billion dollars of
taxpayer money to the Columbain Cartels to help them get drugs on better
boats.... To get thru Panama as Florida got tired of all the shipments going
there....
> 10. Recording ownership of property, transfers of the ownership and
> enforcing property rights. The real estate industry simply would not exist
> without this function. Nor would the automobile industry.
Taxation? Money controlls this process also as Federal income....
> 11. Establishing and enforcing copyrights, patents and trademarks.
Establishing? Again you serve a process to the Federal Government. I could
give you the history of the Patent orfice but you need to research it for your
self....
> In short, there are certain functions in the overall economy and society in
> which the rules need to be rigid so that everyone knows what will result
> from a given action or promise.
Correct! Common sense provides control
> This is the function of government. Then
> there are functions which must be highly responsive to changing conditions.
> These are the functions where private businesses need to be left alone to
> operate within.
Ha! Micro-management at the private level is the problem.
I watch more small businesses get IRS and EDD crippled everyday.. Most do not
recover. But again income is income... Big businesses have lawyers that the
government does not want to face... They prefer easy pickins....
> Any attempt to eliminate all government "interference" in the economy will
> leave it with no structure at all except that provided by inflexible
> monopolies. It will collapse like a person with no skeleton. Equally, any
> attempt to regulate every aspect of the economy (as in the Soviet Union)
> will leave the economy so rigid that it cannot adapt quickly to anything,
> which was the ultimate cause of the collapse of the USSR.
Wrong!... The USSR has few resources and the eastern nations are quite
populated,,, You think America has people... Go there sometime.... Mucho
people.... Lots.... Now review the histo-taxation process. America is getting
very close. We look at socialism and refuse to acknowledge the reason for
that. A completely different task required
liberal
liberal
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2001 21:35:19 -0500, "Roger R, formerly known as
> Whoever" <spamfr...@nospam.com> posted:
>
> >The idea that the economy would work better if the government simply got
out
> >of it fails to understand the function of government and of capitalistic
> >organizations.
>
> >To a large extent, government sets up and enforces the rules
> >the economy will follow.
>
> That's the socialist view, anyway. Government is not necessary or
> particularly desireable for an efficient economy.
>
> >Then capitalistic organizations, following those
> >rules, attempt to determine and fulfill the needs of various groups of
> >consumers. So what are those rules?
>
> >A few of them are:
> >1. Licensing and supervising corporations and other business
> >organizations and prohibiting others (such as business cartels and drug
> >organizations).
>
> Why on earth should government be supervising anyone, much less
> business? Licensing in and of itself is an establishment of a cartel,
> usually undertaken at the behest of "old" business finding itself with
> new competition. The old boys wine and dine their buddies at the
> state house and bang, all of a sudden there's a new barrier to entry
> into the field.
Don't know much about incorporating a business do you, if you lack the
knowledge about a subject, ferret out at least a few facts before posting,
you do your cause immeasurable harm with this type of response to an
intelligent and well crafted post
>
> >2. Establishing and enforcing accounting rules to ensure proper
> >visibility of those organizations.
>
> Businesses have their own incentives for accurate accounting. Of
> course, the government demands it, so that it can also demand its cut
> of the loot.
Yes they certainly do! Keep up profits, do what ever is needed to do so,
which is why our land is poisoned in so many areas around the counrty.
>
> >3. Setting up rules to be followed by the financial markets so that
what
> >is sold really exists and the methods used are fair to the purchasers.
>
> How does government do that? I think people know if they bought
> something that doesn't exist. What "fair methods"?
Read up on economics, will you?
>
> >4. Establishing and enforcing commercial and contract law. Otherwise,
> >businesses couldn't trust contracts and could not operate,
>
> A man is as good as his word. Government is not necessary again. In
> fact, there is no indication that the government employees running our
> courts are any more or less corrupt than anyone else in our society.
Now we get to see why you've posted as you have, too trusting in the word of
ultra-conservatives like Rush, the propaganda machine.
>
> >5. Creating and controlling the money supply.
>
> There are hundreds of non-government currencies in use in the US right
> now.
Cite your sources here, and give a few examples of what you're saying. Which
would help repudiate your claim, right now it is without fact and as such
nothing to the group.
>
> >6. Controlling banking operations, since they have a great deal to do
> >with the size and efficiency of the money supply.
>
> It's not necessary that goverment do so. Some would say it creates
> problems.
If you believe that the government should not control its own monetary
supply, explain why on every piece of currency it will say something about
the note being back by the USA's Treasury Department?
>
> >7. Building infrastructure items such as highways, ports and
waterways,
> >airports and the system to control the airways, etc.
>
> What a waste. Boondoggles every single one. Private companies could
> have done it all cheaper, better, faster.
But would it all work together if the systems were privately controlled?
After all, just as we have different opinions here, different private
companies have different priorities on the revenue they create and the
amount of profit they want to keep.
Shear ignorance is not at work here, a total disregard of the American way
of life is though. I wouldn't even classify you as a libertarian, but I
would say you love anarchy, because if we followed your suggestions here,
there would be no USA, only fragment of society scattered around the country
Roger R, formerly known as Whoever
I will respond to this second-hand version. It is *exactly* his view I was
attempting to address.
Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B6405BA...@worldnet.att.net...
>
>
> msoja wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 28 Jul 2001 21:35:19 -0500, "Roger R, formerly known as
> > Whoever" <spamfr...@nospam.com> posted:
> >
> > >The idea that the economy would work better if the government simply
got out
> > >of it fails to understand the function of government and of
capitalistic
> > >organizations.
> >
> > >To a large extent, government sets up and enforces the rules
> > >the economy will follow.
> >
> > That's the socialist view, anyway. Government is not necessary or
> > particularly desireable for an efficient economy.
>
> Actually it's not the socialist view, it's the prevailing view in current
market economic
> systems, and I daresay you won't find much opposing it at any business
school or other purveyor
> of the standard version of market capitalism American-style.
Much of the problem in the current Russian economy is attributed by
economists to the lack of effective business law. This has been the standard
problem with every nation converting from Communism to a market economy.
In my own opinion, it is more than just a lack of law and courts to enforce
it. It is also the culture. Communism in Russia has stated for most of the
twentieth century that *any* business not owned and run by the government
is a criminal activity. In market economies such as ours, we distinguish
between legitimate business such as auto repair and illegal business such as
chop shops. The one we encourage and the other we work to shut down because
it functions against the right to private property. In the USSR *both* were
considered criminal activity.
Now there is a new situation in Russia in which people have the right to set
up their own businesses and try to get rich. Very few people go beyond that
idea to recognize that auto repair shops should be both legal and moral,
while chop shops should be neither. Since few people make that distinction,
the only measure of success is wealth. The result is a great deal of
criminal activity.
>
> > >Then capitalistic organizations, following those
> > >rules, attempt to determine and fulfill the needs of various groups of
> > >consumers. So what are those rules?
> >
> > >A few of them are:
> > >1. Licensing and supervising corporations and other business
> > >organizations and prohibiting others (such as business cartels and drug
> > >organizations).
> >
> > Why on earth should government be supervising anyone, much less
> > business?
>
> Because if they don't, it is very easy for organizations and individuals
to commit fraud and
> hurt a lot of people. The existence of such fraud and harm is why demand
arose for licensing,
> which government was in the best position to fulfill (as it is accountable
to the people through
> elections, and has the power of rule of law on its side).
Take insurance. The easiest way to get wealthy selling insurance is to set
up your own company (preferably unfunded), write up some policies and start
selling them at prices lower than the older and more legitimate competitors.
There are some illegal trick sales people can use to increase short term
sales, such as getting people to cash in older life policies to buy a new
one (twisting) or selling multiple coverages for the same event, knowing
that they will work together and not repay more than 100% of the loss even
if you have six or seven policies for the same coverage. (A lot of Medi-Gap
sales people used to do this with elderly Medicare recipients.) Revenue
begins coming in immediately, but claims are slower. You can easily skim the
revenue, then deny the claims when they come in.
A simpler example that you might appreciate - how do you know that when you
buy a gallon of gas the pump gives you a full gallon? If I owned a gas
station and reset the pumps to pump 97% of a gallon and charge for a full
gallon, I would make a mint. You as the customer *would never notice the
difference.* In Texas the Department of Agriculture has the Bureau of
Weights and Measures that inspects pumps and prevents that. Every State has
such an agency.
A similar scam is to sell fuel and charge the sales tax, but then tell the
State it was sold for agriculture use which is tax free. Keeping the tax
money for yourself is a great scam - but does not explain why government is
required to regulate business.
So as to not seem anti-business - which I am not - there is also the problem
of the customer. Suppose I contract with you to install a fence around my
house. You are from outside my neighborhood, so we don't know each other,
but you offer the lowest bid. So I accept. But I won't accept unless you
install the fence first, then I will pay. I want to make sure you do quality
work. Then you install the fence. I like it. But I don't pay. What are you
going to do? Hey, I live here, and using my Second Amendment Right, I own a
significant arsenal. So do my neighbors. If I stiff you, how will you
collect?
If you want to bring in a gang larger than me and my neighbors, then you
will have to work full time organizing that raid. That is time you lose from
installing fences, which is productive. The raid is not. Besides, you will
have to share with the rest of your gang, and you will never cover your
expenses, let alone have a profit. The only cost-effective solution is to
turn the problem over to the government.
In short, the market economy works because there is a movement of goods and
services in one direction and a movement of money in proportion to the value
and quality of those goods and services in the other. If you sell goods
and/or services, you will need the government to ensure the reimbursement
for them in money for the entire process to be cost-effective.
>
> > Licensing in and of itself is an establishment of a cartel,
> > usually undertaken at the behest of "old" business finding itself with
> > new competition. The old boys wine and dine their buddies at the
> > state house and bang, all of a sudden there's a new barrier to entry
> > into the field.
>
> Sometimes, but other times it is necessary to protect citizens.
Licensing real estate agents, stock brokers, insurance sales people and
insurance brokers are all efforts to ensure the quality of the agents you
deal with. None of us has the time or resources to adequately check the
reputation of everyone we deal with. Such licensing provides the kind of
information consumers of their services need. The same is true of licensing
local businesses. Do you buy magazines from door-to-door salespeople? Most
are crooks. After a storm, do you get your roof repaired by a local (and
licensed) guy or by the guy who shows up at your door and offers a good
deal - but will be gone tomorrow when it leaks?
Note - none of these licenses establish a cartel. They simply ensure that a
minimum of qualifications exists, that they have been investigated to ensure
they have not previously acted criminally, and that you know what address to
send any legal papers to in the event of a dispute. Is the process perfect?
Not by a long shot, but it is certainly cost effective for the economy.
>
> > >2. Establishing and enforcing accounting rules to ensure proper
> > >visibility of those organizations.
> >
> > Businesses have their own incentives for accurate accounting. Of
> > course, the government demands it, so that it can also demand its cut
> > of the loot.
>
> Your assertion is weak. Businesses often try to avoid accurate
accounting, especially if they
> are in trouble. That's created some scandals on Wall Street the past few
years. Countries
> without accurate accounting principles run into severe trouble. In
Thailand one of the causes
> of the Thai crisis a few years ago was that business accounting principles
were not yet up to
> international snuff, thanks to links between accounting firms and big
business. A lot of people
> assert that according to theory businesses "SHOULD" want to do things that
regulations force
> them to do, but if you look at the cold nitty gritty world of what REALLY
happens, they DON'T.
> Reality bites, and in this case it bites the idealized anti-government
theorists right in the
> butt.
Businesses have internal incentives for accurate accounting, but to ensure
they get it they need internal auditors. Externally, they have every
incentive to lie.
An example of effective regulation is the SEC requirement for disclosure of
anticipated revenue. Until recently, public businesses were required to NOT
provide any inside information prior to the reporting date. The result was
sharp changes in stock price, both up and down, on the reporting date.
Recently businesses began to be required to provide information that would
predict changes in the anticipated revenue as they occurred. The result has
been that the stock prices react more to changes from what analysts
predicted than from unanticipated changes on the report date. Businesses
fought this regulation because it meant that it became a great deal more
difficult to manipulate reported net profits and the resulting stock prices.
Investors now have a much better idea what the business is doing, something
they could not have had without government 'interference'.
>
> > >3. Setting up rules to be followed by the financial markets so that
what
> > >is sold really exists and the methods used are fair to the purchasers.
> >
> > How does government do that? I think people know if they bought
> > something that doesn't exist. What "fair methods"?
>
> Rule of law, oversight of business practices, everything from the SEC to
FTC, etc. You can sue
> or call your attorney General if businesses violate these rules. And,
believe it or not, quite
> often charlatans fool people, especially in financial markets. Go to
countries without rule of
> law or weak regulation, and this happens a lot. That is what threw
Albania into the abyss of
> anarchy a few years ago (which helped set up the Kosovo war).
I like insurance examples, because insurance could not exist without
government rules and enforcement, yet businesses often would not attempt
potentially profitable activities if they could not predict and control the
level of risk involved.
An example of a product that doesn't exist is an insurance policy that will
collect your premiums but not pay off when the event you are insuring
against occurs. Say I sell you a health insurance policy, and collect your
premiums. I even pay small claims. But then you get heart trouble which will
be expensive, so I refuse to pay. Or I simply split for Acapulco or Rio in
Brazil.
Or suppose I die? I *personally* guaranteed the policy. It died with me.
This is a case for a licensed corporation. It lives on after me, and
continues to meet the obligations in our contract. Why? Because the
government will enforce that contract for you against that corporation.
As for products that don't exist, go review the stories of Billy Sol Estes
in the 1960's. He borrowed money from banks using fertilizer tanks he owned
as collateral. Unfortunately, he borrowed money on ten or twenty times the
number of tanks he owned. A lot of oil drilling rigs in the 1920's and 30's
were financed that way. Sell a 33.3% share of the rig to 15 different
people, and you are only in trouble if you actually strike oil. The Mel
Brooks comedy "The Producers" is also based on that concept.
What will you do? >
> > >4. Establishing and enforcing commercial and contract law.
Otherwise,
> > >businesses couldn't trust contracts and could not operate,
> >
> > A man is as good as his word. Government is not necessary again.
>
> How utterly and hopelessly naive! In this complex world you don't know
other businesses, you
> deal with people across the continent, even across the globe. A charlatan
can easily play a
> number of people for suckers and by the time word is spread, have done a
lot of damage. Again,
> you rely on vague theory -- here just a rather naive assertion -- but
REALITY -- what actually
> happens in the world -- makes it absolutely clear government is necessary.
There is no doubt.
By working only with people you know and trust, you have eliminated to
possibility of saving money through competitive bidding. A new, low bidder
cannot get established by competing with those you already trust because you
don't trust him.
>
> > In
> > fact, there is no indication that the government employees running our
> > courts are any more or less corrupt than anyone else in our society.
>
> Which means what? The thing about courts is there is rule of law which is
to be applied, and if
> a lower court is corrupt, you can appeal, and the press and society sees
what happens and there
> are legislative bodies which can investigate. You make a vague "the
individuals may be as
> corrupt as others" claim, but actually the existence of effective rule of
law is precisely to
> limit the impact of any such corruption. Without these institutions, such
corruption would be
> far more harmful.
I couldn't say it better.
>
>
> > >5. Creating and controlling the money supply.
> >
> > There are hundreds of non-government currencies in use in the US right
> > now.
>
> Where? Disney Dollars? You gotta buy them with legitimate currencies.
In any event, those
> "hundreds" of currencies are practically invisible and won't be accepted
at your local Wal-Mart.
> In the complexities of modern economies, a stable monetary system is
necessary. Even Europe
> realizes that one currency for a number of states is more rational than a
difficult mix of many
> different currencies. You need to explain yourself on this one if you
want to be persuasive.
There is a single overall money *supply*. Very little of it is in currency.
Manipulation of that money supply is the method used by the Federal Reserve
to control the interest rate and inflation. That, and the reduction of the
federal deficit from the 1993 tax increase (together with the apparent fact
that the computer revolution may have finally begun to effect productivity)
were the major causes of the unprecedented eight year period of economic
growth the US recently experienced. NO rational business person is going to
object to manipulation of inflation and the interest rates by the feds as
long as they seem to be doing better than was historically the case without
such manipulation.
>
> > >6. Controlling banking operations, since they have a great deal to
do
> > >with the size and efficiency of the money supply.
> >
> > It's not necessary that goverment do so. Some would say it creates
> > problems.
>
> Some would say the moon landing was fake. But again, from your
"capitalist" business school to
> an analyst of government, his point is pretty much undisputed. Experience
with corrupt and
> unregulated banking has caused such regulation to be seen as a necessity
for a modern economy to
> function. If you think somehow it would work other wise you have to make
a case, taking into
> account real world evidence and not some vague assertion, 'oh, government
isn't necessary, the
> magic market can take care of everything.'
Any reputable economic historian will tell you that the collapse of a large
number of banks and the resulting sharp reduction in the money supply was a
major cause of the Depression. Anyone in Texas during the 1980's will tell
you that the collapse of the economy here was caused in large part by bank
collapses. These bank collapses were a result of too much lending in oil
production and real estate.
A bank that lends more than its total capital into a single industry sharply
increases the risk that it will collapse. Collapse of a bank puts economic
pressure on its borrowers, even though they may be in good shape financially
otherwise. Ask any large farmers what happens if the bank he trades with
disappears and can't provide new loans for seed, etc. when ONLY those
farmers large enough to make a reasonable profit from economy of scale
survive.
Organized crime is only a small part of the problem. Violent crime such as
robberies prevents many small businesses from being started, or forces them
to close down. Areas in any large town where crime is poorly controlled tend
to have few businesses, higher prices and shoddier goods.
>
> > >10. Recording ownership of property, transfers of the ownership and
> > >enforcing property rights. The real estate industry simply would not
exist
> > >without this function. Nor would the automobile industry.
> >
> > No reason not to privatize any and all of it. It's likely that with
> > private incentives much, much more of it would have been digitized by
> > now.
>
> So you assert. Reality suggests otherwise, and you don't make a case for
your rather strange
> assertion.
>
Then you get situation like the travel computer system, Saber. The company
that sets it up builds in preferences for their own suppliers. Do you use
search engines? How many of the top results of any search are there because
they paid to be and how many are a rational response to your request?
Ok, so you go by reputation. Who owns each search engine? Will that change
tomorrow? The ones that don't charge for placement are at a competitive
disadvantage and either will be bought up by someone who will charge for
placement, or will have to defend themselves by charging for placement
themselves.
In the case of automobiles, if you are buying a used car right now within
300 to 500 miles from Houston, how do you know the car was not totaled
during the floods there? The State of Texas requires that information to be
on the Title. Any private organization could increase revenue by simply
dropping that note when paid to. There is no benefit to the State to drop
that information. Who will you trust more?
> > >11. Establishing and enforcing copyrights, patents and trademarks.
> >
> > Anyone could do that, too.
>
> Not effectively and with the protection of rule of law. Where governments
and rule of law are
> weak, you find piracy and other violations of copyright/trademark, etc.,
much more often.
> Reality again trumps vague unsubstantiated assertions.
Several years ago, no software company would sell their product in Brazil
because there was no protection from piracy. Brazil was unable to build any
computer industry as a result.
>
> > >In short, there are certain functions in the overall economy and
society in
> > >which the rules need to be rigid so that everyone knows what will
result
> > >from a given action or promise. This is the function of government.
> >
> > No, it's an aspect of being a civilized human.
Whatever that means. In any case, when the supposedly civilized human being
does not know the rules or does not follow them, a tax supported agency is
often the most cost effective way of recognizing and correcting that
problem.
My favorite example is still Somalia. In the late 1980's there were private
militias set up by Warlords that effectively shut down government. People
had the choice of joining a Warlord and his gang or starving. The Warlords
then kept their people from starving by stealing food from the farmers, who
quit farming. The result was that the economy collapsed, Mogadishu ceased to
function as a civilized place and famine took over the nation.
The TV pictures of the famine caused Bush 41 to send in the Marines and Army
Rangers for a famine-relief operation. The commander on the ground quickly
recognized that there would be no solution without stopping the Warlords.
That effort resulted in the fiasco in Mogadishu and the US pullout. Somalia
was left with the ideal business climate that you espouse. Only businesses
didn't operate and farmers didn't grow crops. There were no schools, no
hospitals, no medications, nothing.
There you have it. That is your Anarcho-Libertarian or Libertarian paradise!
Somalia through the 1990's!
There is a post-script. Had any single warlord been able to take over and
suppress the others, he could have brought in stability and the economy and
the society could have begun to function again. Anytime one started to be
successful, the others would get together and cut him down to size, however,
so the anarchy rocked on all decade. (If you have ever played the game
'Risk' with three independent players, you will recognize the mechanics. No
one can win.) Finally, last Fall, the warlords themselves decided to
recreate the central government and the Army. What they had without
government simply wasn't worth the alternative.
msoja
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
>msoja wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2001 21:35:19 -0500, "Roger R, formerly known as
>> Whoever" <spamfr...@nospam.com> posted:
>> >The idea that the economy would work better if the government simply got out
>> >of it fails to understand the function of government and of capitalistic
>> >organizations.
>> >To a large extent, government sets up and enforces the rules
>> >the economy will follow.
>> That's the socialist view, anyway. Government is not necessary or
>> particularly desireable for an efficient economy.
>Actually it's not the socialist view, it's the prevailing view in current market economic
Well, Scoti, perhaps the prevailing view *is* the socialist view,
unless there's some new economic theory that I haven't heard about
called the Prevailing Theory, constantly updated with live feeds from
the Oceanic Institute of Two Faced Demogogues.
>systems, and I daresay you won't find much opposing it at any business school or other purveyor
>of the standard version of market capitalism American-style.
I daresay you're right, Scoti, and so much for the diversity of views
that you consistently spout off about (except when you don't want to
express a diversity of views.) That's why you argue against people
who express "other" than the "prevailing" view espoused by People Just
Like You working in Universities Just Like You.
But thanks for putting your two cents in in Support of every item of
Big Government the previous poster enumerated.
It's so refreshing to know that you won't waver one iota in your
ceaseless push for Big Brother and Control of Life and Liberty while
pretending to march under a banner of trust and tolerance.
Mike
msoja
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
>> >7. Building infrastructure items such as highways, ports and waterways,
>> >airports and the system to control the airways, etc.
>> What a waste. Boondoggles every single one. Private companies could
>> have done it all cheaper, better, faster.
>Your assertion is not supported, and it defies reality. The interstate system, which has been
>extremely important to our economy, was NOT being created before the government got involved.
>Indeed, infrastructure construction by government has spurred growth. I can't see any way to
>argue that all of this would have been privately created anyway. You don't make a case that it
>could, you just assert it. It is more like you are making assertions based on faith rather than
>evidence.
The Interstate System. And you call yourself an environmentalist ...
Millions of acres of woods and water blown up and paved over, for
ever.
An endless stream of polluting trucks and cars from coast to coast to
coast, Mexico to Canada.
Huge mega-industries grown up and belching their effluents into air,
ground and water, granted the efficiency of easy transportation and
providing the vehicles and the fuel to utilize it.
Making possible huge expansions in human population and the animal
population needed for slaughter to feed 'em.
Coupled with enormous unanticipated social costs, white flight,
deteriortation of cities, communities, and familes.
All brought to you by the eternally wise Federal Government.
The same Federal Government that you now beg to control and reign in
the entities that it facilitated, promoted and expanded.
Aside from the discussion of whether or not private industry could
have built a similar system, the question remains, with your other
avowed personal world views, how on earth can you reconcile the
massive, almost unfathomable, destruction undertaken at the behest and
insistence of your government? With money that it took at the point
of a gun from you and yours?
And now you're worried about a few square miles of Alaskan Tundra???
LOL.
Mike
msoja
posted:
>"msoja" <mso...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Did you want to speak to something specific I said?
>> >2. Establishing and enforcing accounting rules to ensure proper
>> >visibility of those organizations.
>> Businesses have their own incentives for accurate accounting. Of
>> course, the government demands it, so that it can also demand its cut
>> of the loot.
>Yes they certainly do! Keep up profits, do what ever is needed to do so,
>which is why our land is poisoned in so many areas around the counrty.
Have you ever purchased any products that contributed to the poisoning
you complain about? Ever drive a car, fly in an airplane, store food
in a refrigerator?
>> >3. Setting up rules to be followed by the financial markets so that
>what
>> >is sold really exists and the methods used are fair to the purchasers.
>> How does government do that? I think people know if they bought
>> something that doesn't exist. What "fair methods"?
>Read up on economics, will you?
Two people trade, barter, buy, sell, whatever. Why must the
government be lurking over their shoulders at every step (mostly with
its hand out)?
>> >4. Establishing and enforcing commercial and contract law. Otherwise,
>> >businesses couldn't trust contracts and could not operate,
>> A man is as good as his word. Government is not necessary again. In
>> fact, there is no indication that the government employees running our
>> courts are any more or less corrupt than anyone else in our society.
>Now we get to see why you've posted as you have, too trusting in the word of
>ultra-conservatives like Rush, the propaganda machine.
Have I inadvertantly said something Rush has said at one time or
another? Are all such transgressions punishable with ridicule? I
wonder how many idiot critics of talk radio have made the same
statement you just made? I sometimes wonder if Rush's critics aren't
more sheep-like than even those often alleged but seldom seen Rush
faithful.
>> >5. Creating and controlling the money supply.
>> There are hundreds of non-government currencies in use in the US right
>> now.
>Cite your sources here, and give a few examples of what you're saying. Which
>would help repudiate your claim, right now it is without fact and as such
>nothing to the group.
Anyone in the country can hand out their own currency, and many do.
Search on "local currencies" or "scrip" or "barter." (or all three at
once.)
>> >6. Controlling banking operations, since they have a great deal to do
>> >with the size and efficiency of the money supply.
>> It's not necessary that goverment do so. Some would say it creates
>> problems.
>If you believe that the government should not control its own monetary
>supply, explain why on every piece of currency it will say something about
>the note being back by the USA's Treasury Department?
Because people who gravitate to government like to control others?
>> >7. Building infrastructure items such as highways, ports and
>waterways,
>> >airports and the system to control the airways, etc.
>> What a waste. Boondoggles every single one. Private companies could
>> have done it all cheaper, better, faster.
>But would it all work together if the systems were privately controlled?
>After all, just as we have different opinions here, different private
>companies have different priorities on the revenue they create and the
>amount of profit they want to keep.
So what?
<snip>
>Shear ignorance is not at work here,
It looks like shear [sic] ignorance to me!! Or as giddy says,
igorance. Shear igorance duzzn't work here no more.
>a total disregard of the American way
>of life is though. I wouldn't even classify you as a libertarian, but I
>would say you love anarchy, because if we followed your suggestions here,
>there would be no USA, only fragment of society scattered around the country
So, what it comes down to is: you're afraid.
Mike
Scott D. Erb
msoja wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 12:40:23 GMT, "Scott D. Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
> >Your assertion is not supported, and it defies reality. The interstate system, which has been
> >extremely important to our economy, was NOT being created before the government got involved.
> >Indeed, infrastructure construction by government has spurred growth. I can't see any way to
> >argue that all of this would have been privately created anyway. You don't make a case that it
> >could, you just assert it. It is more like you are making assertions based on faith rather than
> >evidence.
>
> The Interstate System. And you call yourself an environmentalist ...
No, I don't call myself that actually.
> Millions of acres of woods and water blown up and paved over, for
> ever.
> An endless stream of polluting trucks and cars from coast to coast to
> coast, Mexico to Canada.
> Huge mega-industries grown up and belching their effluents into air,
> ground and water, granted the efficiency of easy transportation and
> providing the vehicles and the fuel to utilize it.
> Making possible huge expansions in human population and the animal
> population needed for slaughter to feed 'em.
There are negative unintended consequences, but the interstate system has dramatically increased
economic output, and it took government initiative to build it.
> Coupled with enormous unanticipated social costs, white flight,
> deteriortation of cities, communities, and familes.
>
> All brought to you by the eternally wise Federal Government.
>
> The same Federal Government that you now beg to control and reign in
> the entities that it facilitated, promoted and expanded.
>
> Aside from the discussion of whether or not private industry could
> have built a similar system, the question remains, with your other
> avowed personal world views, how on earth can you reconcile the
> massive, almost unfathomable, destruction undertaken at the behest and
> insistence of your government? With money that it took at the point
> of a gun from you and yours?
>
> And now you're worried about a few square miles of Alaskan Tundra???
You're not making any sense. I've never mentioned the Alaskan tundra, nor have I looked into that
issue enough to take a public stance (which is why I haven't mentioned it). Well, you snipped most
of my post, and Roger R. has given an excellent and lengthly refutation to your counter arguments, so
I'll not quibble over this. You say that the interstate system is bad because it hurts the
environment, but private industry wouldn't have undertaken such a thing that was environmentally
destructive. I disagree. I think the interstate system helped catapult our society into a much
higher level of economic well being, and I think the environmental problems can be overcome through
sound policy and better automotive technology. I respect your opposition to the growth of
automobile traffic, but that's modernity. We move forward and sometimes only learn the negative
consequences down the line. That's true for both public and private sector activity, each of which
has done things that have both benefited the economy and harmed the environment.
Scott D. Erb
msoja wrote:
>
> It's so refreshing to know that you won't waver one iota in your
> ceaseless push for Big Brother and Control of Life and Liberty while
> pretending to march under a banner of trust and tolerance.
It's cute how you take belief that government is needed, and that a Democratic Republic is the best
way to keep it accountable into saying it is support for big brother and control of life, etc.
It's also telling how you don't respond to the real world examples which show WHY it is needed, and
instead rely on vague slogans and personal attacks.
Oh well, your opinion is noted. It's wrong, but it's noted.
Chris
But to serve life as a econut engaged into prosperity FROM government disposal of funds assuridly will
not even come close to fixing the true problem. The regulators have personnal alternative reasons or
easily bribed.
Technology far surpasses the common knowlege given to the public. Too bad you cannot see the picture of
global warming.... WE CANNOT STOP IT!!!!! not to mention the resilience of earth far surpasses the minor
ecological problem we face now....
What will turn your head I wonder... A biological war. Or, for that matter just an accident in the
splice of a DNA/RNA strand? The problems we face are multidimensional... The moffat Satellite has proven
the econuts wrong.... Austrailia and Africa lead the world in toxic waist.....HIV has gone rampant in
Austrailia and you should allready know about Africa.... So should America take the whole world in it's
hand and make the taxpayers foot the problem on their backs... I think not. Casualties are part of
life.... Unfortunate but true.
Taxation at 43% of income and a additional sales tax at 7.75 does nobody any good when spent on
Columbia
Bosnia and other third world nations that EARNED their demise.....
Wayne Mann
Absolute drivel. I was going to go down through it item by
item and list just a few of the many fallacies and ignorant claims,
but by the time I got to the bottom, I realized this person has NO
idea what he is try to talk about and it's just ignorant spewings, and
would just waste far too much time going through it item by item, when
the same effect can be had by just pointing out one thing. It's all
BS ignorant drivel. We know all the Left Wing Liberal LYING WEASELS
will jump all over it, exclaiming on the brilliance of the author, but
when you know that is what they always do with all the ignorant
diatribes posted by one of them, it is self evident. Despicable
ignorance is only exceeded by their stupidity!
Roger R, formerly known as Whoever
Chris <cye...@telocity.com> wrote in message
news:3B64199E...@telocity.com...
> Oh what a pile of garbage..... Lets review.
>
> Has anyone denoted the BARTER SYSTEM was used by Cavemen? Goverment now
wants a
> part of every transaction.....
I suggest a basic Economics text to you. Barter is simply too inefficient to
power a complex economy.
>
> "Roger R, formerly known as Whoever" wrote:
>
> >
> > The idea that the economy would work better if the government simply got
out
> > of it fails to understand the function of government and of capitalistic
> > organizations. To a large extent, government sets up and enforces the
rules
> > the economy will follow. Then capitalistic organizations, following
those
> > rules, attempt to determine and fulfill the needs of various groups of
> > consumers. So what are those rules?
> >
> > A few of them are:
> > 1. Licensing and supervising corporations and other business
> > organizations and prohibiting others (such as business cartels and drug
> > organizations).
>
> Such as AOL / TimeWarner And the refuse collectors against Microsoft?
That's
> business practice.
> Who pays the most get to do the most. Money controls licenses and
supervision
> by unqualified federal collectors.
> Money controls this process - Not Government.
Corporations exist because they allow organizations to collect funds from
many places and organize those funds to create productive enterprises. Those
enterprises can take on projects larger than can small groups of individuals
and live on after the death of the original owners/managers. The government
will enforce a contract for you against that corporation. Corporations are
only established for legal purposes, however. Organized crime functions
outside the rule of law, and cannot use courts to enforce agreements, so
such organizations depend on violence to enforce their contracts. That is
frankly inefficient. Laws and courts are much cheaper, but of course, we are
trying to drive up the cost of committing crime until people don't find it
attractive.
Most federal, state, county or municipal government employees are both
honest and qualified, and where they aren't, the system generally takes care
that they are replaced with those who are. For places where that is not
true, try Mexico, Indonesia or much of Southeast Asia. Under Vicente Fox,
Mexico is trying to clean up its act. I might add that the government
operations in Mexico are no more corrupt than many in South Texas. Where you
have high levels of corruption you also tend to have low economic
productivity.
>
> > 2. Establishing and enforcing accounting rules to ensure proper
> > visibility of those organizations.
>
> Taxation at 43%? I do not concur.
This is a non sequitar. Try again and make sense.
>Money again controls this process.
Money is only productive where the process is honest. Government is the only
possible honest referee. Anywhere the government is NOT an honest referee,
there is little money to go around. The state of Louisiana is an excellent
example.
>
> > 3. Setting up rules to be followed by the financial markets so that
what
> > is sold really exists and the methods used are fair to the purchasers.
>
> Money again controls this with common sense as a balance. Albeit the
justice
> system is not influenced by political affiliation as well as money.
<Snicker>
I guess you buy penny stocks from unregistered brokers, right?
>
> > 4. Establishing and enforcing commercial and contract law. Otherwise,
> > businesses couldn't trust contracts and could not operate,
>
> Establishing?
>The Government does not write contracts.....
Both untrue and irrelevant. Do you try to think before writing?
>Again the Justice
> system does have a controlling
> factor... What good that is...
> Contract law is controlled at the local level. Not Federal
It is controlled at both levels. Again, irrelevant to my point.
The point is that contracts executed by individuals and organizations are
enforceable under the Uniform Commercial Code. A great deal of business
activity simply would not occur without that assurance.
>
> > 5. Creating and controlling the money supply.
>
> Creating yes... Controlling purely depends on Greenspan... One man ---- Oh
how
> funny.... Taxation increases do not imply a controlling factor because it
is
> the Federal income again......
>
a. Greenspan can be outvoted by a majority fo the Board of governors at
any time.
b. Since governments use both tax revenues and borrowed money, fiscal
policy can have a major effect on the money supply. Again, I suggest that
you try to learn a little economics 101. The name 'Keynes' might come up in
your studies, but I suggest that you consider Paul Samuelson's much clearer
explanations of what he wrote.
>
> > 6. Controlling banking operations, since they have a great deal to do
> > with the size and efficiency of the money supply.
>
> You have never understood the phrase "Know you customer" The Federal
> government micromanages who should have and who should have not based on
upper
> level transactions.. Again a controlling process connected to- Federal
Income.
>
> > 7. Building infrastructure items such as highways, ports and
waterways,
>
> And have you seen what a billion dollars did for most states after the
> tobbacco settlement?
> Not much... The Federal Government acquired the money.. Distributed it
and....
> Poof! It dissappeared!
>
> > airports and the system to control the airways, etc.
> >
>
> Oh that's a great note.... Have you seen the airway control at work?
> PRIVATE! The Feds state they control it... But truthfully 'Not.... !'
Rocket
> science.... Federal checks never caught infractions.... Only the internal
> company departments have privy to that information
>
I think you are talking about *Airline* control, not airways. Air traffic
control is a federal function and must be because it spreads across states.
You also overlook the testing and licensing of pilots and mechanics,
licensing of commercial aircraft, as well as the functions of accident
investigations. Even if you were right that federal checks never caught
infractions (you are not - you are simply blowing smoke based on your own
prejudice and ignorance) they certainly prevent infractions by setting up
and enforcing inspection procedures.
>
> > 8. Ensuring an educated and healthy workforce.
>
> Please.... (ROFL) The system crashed back in the late 70's and cannot
recover
> based on mandates. Teachers have enough mandates... and children...
If you ever collect a fact or two to support this allegation, then perhaps
there would be something to discuss.
>
> > 9. Ensuring social stability through crime control.
>
> Or the creation of legal crime.. Need I say more.
I love your oxymoron. "Legal crime." By definition, crime means to violate
established law.
I gather you were educated in public schools since the late 70's and haven't
bothered to improve yourself.
Panama, NAFTA, and military
> excusions to the Balkans to recover the cocaine highway? And do we need
the
> Federal Government to help criminals? We even gave 7 billion dollars of
> taxpayer money to the Columbain Cartels to help them get drugs on better
> boats.... To get thru Panama as Florida got tired of all the shipments
going
> there....
All quite irrelevant to the issue of maintaining social stability here in
the US. I begin to understand your problem with the school system. No one
ever taught you to address a specific point using relevant information. If
you went to an inner city school, a religious academy, or any school in
Mississippi your failure here would be understandable. Otherwise, you simply
didn't bother to learn what you were given to learn.
>
> > 10. Recording ownership of property, transfers of the ownership and
> > enforcing property rights. The real estate industry simply would not
exist
> > without this function. Nor would the automobile industry.
>
> Taxation? Money controlls this process also as Federal income....
Taxation? Where did that come from? Again, you hare off onto some
irrelevancy.
It is simpler than that. You do not own property unless it is recorded in
your name by the appropriate government agency. Normally this is the County
or Parish government. If you don't own it, you can't sell it or lease it to
someone else. If you can't sell it or lease it, any effort or money you put
into improvements is lost. You therefore cannot invest in the property. If
someone else gets it registered in HIS name, you can't even stop him from
having you kicked out.
>
>
> > 11. Establishing and enforcing copyrights, patents and trademarks.
>
> Establishing? Again you serve a process to the Federal Government. I
could
> give you the history of the Patent orfice but you need to research it for
your
> self....
A simple "no comment" would have done just as good a job of demonstrating
that you have no clue what I am talking about - or what you are talking
about, for that matter.
>
> > In short, there are certain functions in the overall economy and society
in
> > which the rules need to be rigid so that everyone knows what will result
> > from a given action or promise.
>
> Correct! Common sense provides control
Whose common sense? You haven't demonstrated any, so I certainly wouldn't
want to have to trust you to behave as I would expect someone who is normal.
However, if we had a written agreement specifying what you would do by what
dates and to what quality, and there were an outside umpire I could trust
(no one you might know, for example) it is possible that we could undertake
a project and depend on each other. The cost of hiring someone just to
supervise your activity would probably be prohibitive, and if you knew what
I expected before you got paid, we probably wouldn't need such an umpire. We
could just have one on retainer and only call if we have a problem. Sounds
like a tax supported Court, to me. That is the lowest cost efficient system
of providing control.
Any alternative you would suggest would have to be something I would trust
and would have to cost less than tax supported Courts.
>
>
> > This is the function of government. Then
> > there are functions which must be highly responsive to changing
conditions.
> > These are the functions where private businesses need to be left alone
to
> > operate within.
>
> Ha! Micro-management at the private level is the problem.
> I watch more small businesses get IRS and EDD crippled everyday.. Most do
not
> recover.
Those small businesses failed because they were poorly managed, not because
of government micromanagement.
>But again income is income... Big businesses have lawyers that the
> government does not want to face... They prefer easy pickins....
>
> > Any attempt to eliminate all government "interference" in the economy
will
> > leave it with no structure at all except that provided by inflexible
> > monopolies. It will collapse like a person with no skeleton. Equally,
any
> > attempt to regulate every aspect of the economy (as in the Soviet Union)
> > will leave the economy so rigid that it cannot adapt quickly to
anything,
> > which was the ultimate cause of the collapse of the USSR.
>
> Wrong!... The USSR has few resources
The USSR *had* vast resources. Russia still does. It is the only economy in
history in which the output of all production had lower value than the value
of the raw materials that the production system required. This was true for
most of the 90's. There is simply no possible way that can be a result of
inadequate resources. Try some other reason. It has to explain why the
production process is so inefficient.
and the eastern nations are quite
> populated,,, You think America has people... Go there sometime.... Mucho
> people.... Lots....
Bangkok is a beautiful city, but I prefer Chaing Mai and Northern Thailand.
The population is not the problem with the economy. The problem is what has
been called "Crony Capitalism" and is an excellent example of what I have
been saying. Bankers lend to people they know because they trust them. They
have such great trust that they don't bother to run the numbers on the
proposed project. Why should they? The accountants prepare the statements to
show what management wants shown, not what is really there. Trust is better
than bad numbers.
Why do the accountants not do a more objective job? Lack of government
enforcement of accounting standards. The government officials are crony's of
the bankers and the business men, and they operate on trust, too. In that
situation, any accountant who tried to publish honest numbers would be fired
and blackballed.
Unfortunately, the borrowers have no better numbers, so they can't manage as
efficiently as they should. But why should they? If the project gets into
trouble, they will go back to the bankers and get a new loan. International
banks were funding this because they were getting an excellent return
This worked quite well through most of the 90's, until in 1997 the economy
started slowing down. One or two defaults occurred and the Russian economy
melted down, so international banks stopped loaning money to local Thai
banks and businessmen. The economic miracle was exposed as a ponzi scheme
and the economy collapsed. It took Indonesia and South Korea with it,
because they also were operating on Crony Capitalism. South Korea is the
only one which has recovered yet, and that is because of strong government
action to make the banks more transparent, the accounting systems more
reliable and pushing exports.
Lest you think I am blaming the Asians for this, Texas had the same
experience in 1985. The high price of oil made oil production worldwide very
profitable, and Texas was the center. A great deal of real estate was built,
and some of the real estate fortunes went to buy Savings and Loans so that
the developers would have a captive source of loans for projects that might
not pass all the numbers-tests. The S&L's were happy to get the business
because Congress had deregulated their lending, but left the cap on the
interest they could pay for savings accounts. They had been lending money at
les than they paid to get it since the late 1970's.
The developers were building faster than the economy could absorb the
developments, so when the developments were finished, often they didn't
sell. No problem. Go back to the S&L (captive, remember) and get a new loan
for a new project, and pay the interest on the old loan from the new one
until they could sell it. Had the problem been short time, it might have
worked. Had there been tighter controls on S&L's and banks, it might not
have started. As it was, the price of oil fell, and threw the Mexican
economy into a tailspin. That put a double whammy on Texas. Not only did oil
production dry up, so did Mexican spending in Texas. This triggered the
collapse of the S&Ls, also. No oil production money, no Mexican spending,
and the S&Ls were too broke to lend to even good customers.
In short, no economy works well for long without strong regulation of banks,
a well-regulated accounting system, and a reliable money supply not
susceptible to inflation or deflation.
Chris
Sorry for the snip..... But in essense you provided the terms of a barter
system with the provision of government requirements. You fail to recognize the
regulatory system invoked into government has been unleashed. Government has
become a producer .... In a sense...
Consumer = Producer (correct)
Government, Consumer <=> Government producer....
If you do not believe me look at California and expect the same facsist process
to encompass the Federal Government.... They already have...
Wayne Mann
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> That's the socialist view, anyway. Government is not necessary or
>> particularly desireable for an efficient economy.
>
>Actually it's not the socialist view, it's the prevailing view in current market economic
>systems, and I daresay you won't find much opposing it at any business school or other purveyor
>of the standard version of market capitalism American-style.
That's the problem, you Socialists have brainwashed the
students so long, it does not surprise me you always agree with
Socialism.
Billy Beck
(to pick a single barf-ball amid the bullshit)
"Roger R, formerly known as Whoever" <spamfr...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Money is only productive where the process is honest. Government is the only
>possible honest referee.
That is not true. It's an assertion on which is piled
generations of outright nonsense on stilts, but it's not true.
This...
>Anywhere the government is NOT an honest referee,
>there is little money to go around.
...is also not true. In fact, quite the opposite: anywhere the
government is not an honest referee (which is the case throughout
history), there is sooner or later far too *much* money to go around.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
liberal
Corporations need watched over, they have proven time and time again just
how willing they are ( most anyway) to break the publics trust and laws of
the land in order to make higher profits, that's what we're talking about.
The large multi-national corporations have a history of destroying the
environment where ever they are and moving on to repeat the process.
>
> >> >2. Establishing and enforcing accounting rules to ensure proper
> >> >visibility of those organizations.
>
> >> Businesses have their own incentives for accurate accounting. Of
> >> course, the government demands it, so that it can also demand its cut
> >> of the loot.
>
> >Yes they certainly do! Keep up profits, do what ever is needed to do so,
> >which is why our land is poisoned in so many areas around the counrty.
>
> Have you ever purchased any products that contributed to the poisoning
> you complain about? Ever drive a car, fly in an airplane, store food
> in a refrigerator?
I think you know the answer to that question, so why bait me into an answer
in the first place? I can say that I and my family have been environmentally
friendly for a very long time. I can not say the same for many corporations.
>
> >> >3. Setting up rules to be followed by the financial markets so that
> >what
> >> >is sold really exists and the methods used are fair to the purchasers.
>
> >> How does government do that? I think people know if they bought
> >> something that doesn't exist. What "fair methods"?
>
> >Read up on economics, will you?
>
> Two people trade, barter, buy, sell, whatever. Why must the
> government be lurking over their shoulders at every step (mostly with
> its hand out)?
>
To protect each of us from ourselves and from each other.
> >> >4. Establishing and enforcing commercial and contract law.
Otherwise,
> >> >businesses couldn't trust contracts and could not operate,
>
> >> A man is as good as his word. Government is not necessary again. In
> >> fact, there is no indication that the government employees running our
> >> courts are any more or less corrupt than anyone else in our society.
>
> >Now we get to see why you've posted as you have, too trusting in the word
of
> >ultra-conservatives like Rush, the propaganda machine.
>
> Have I inadvertantly said something Rush has said at one time or
> another? Are all such transgressions punishable with ridicule? I
> wonder how many idiot critics of talk radio have made the same
> statement you just made? I sometimes wonder if Rush's critics aren't
> more sheep-like than even those often alleged but seldom seen Rush
> faithful.
No, but someone is feeding you the type of malarkey that is relevant in the
ultra-right-wing establishment.
>
> >> >5. Creating and controlling the money supply.
>
> >> There are hundreds of non-government currencies in use in the US right
> >> now.
>
> >Cite your sources here, and give a few examples of what you're saying.
Which
> >would help repudiate your claim, right now it is without fact and as such
> >nothing to the group.
>
> Anyone in the country can hand out their own currency, and many do.
> Search on "local currencies" or "scrip" or "barter." (or all three at
> once.)
>
> >> >6. Controlling banking operations, since they have a great deal to
do
> >> >with the size and efficiency of the money supply.
>
> >> It's not necessary that goverment do so. Some would say it creates
> >> problems.
>
> >If you believe that the government should not control its own monetary
> >supply, explain why on every piece of currency it will say something
about
> >the note being back by the USA's Treasury Department?
>
> Because people who gravitate to government like to control others?
No, because the money supply belongs to the government. Our gold reserves in
Ft. Knox garanteethat the paper or coins you have in your possesion are a
fair value of the amoount of gold the US Treasury Dept. would have to give
someone to cover the goods yoou have bought. That is the stabilizing effect
of a central monetary supply for all countries. Otherwise, there would be
nothing but anarchy and isolation in each county or municipality brave
enough to have thier own coinage and gold on hand to pay for goods and
services.
>
> >> >7. Building infrastructure items such as highways, ports and
> >waterways,
> >> >airports and the system to control the airways, etc.
>
> >> What a waste. Boondoggles every single one. Private companies could
> >> have done it all cheaper, better, faster.
>
> >But would it all work together if the systems were privately controlled?
> >After all, just as we have different opinions here, different private
> >companies have different priorities on the revenue they create and the
> >amount of profit they want to keep.
>
> So what?
>
>
You do not seem to mind anarchy and isolationism at all, you are a danger to
yourself and others
should you have your way. If your views were prelavent, we could not
accomplish anything other than to forage for roots and berries and make our
own clothes from whatever scraps of cloth we could find or steal. We moved
from the hunter/gatherer stage of developement about two or three hundred
years ago when the industrial revolution began, would you like to live in
the time before then?
<snip>
>
> >Shear ignorance is not at work here,
>
> It looks like shear [sic] ignorance to me!! Or as giddy says,
> igorance. Shear igorance duzzn't work here no more.
>
> >a total disregard of the American way
> >of life is though. I wouldn't even classify you as a libertarian, but I
> >would say you love anarchy, because if we followed your suggestions here,
> >there would be no USA, only fragment of society scattered around the
country
>
> So, what it comes down to is: you're afraid.
>
> Mike
>
No, I fought for this country, and what you would want means the sacrifices
of thousands of men and women who've died in the service of this country
have died for nothing. Afraid, no. Angry about your arrogance, yes. I think
you should get out into the real world for a while, live, work and learn
some of life's lessons before you continue to discuss your viewpoint
further.
NO further discussion is possible until such a time when you appreciate the
sacrifices that were made just so you could speak in such a way as you have
here.
liberal two for wienie mann
Coming from weinerman I would say that he hit it right on the money, if it
gets ya wiener, it's gotta be right!
Roger R, formerly known as Whoever
you attack the author. Without any facts, I might add.
Wayne Mann <tp...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:9789mtgvjdhlu97ft...@4ax.com...
Gandalf Grey
Wayne Mann <tp...@charter.net> wrote in message
A Request for a repost.
The idea that the economy would work better if the government simply got out
of it fails to understand the function of government and of capitalistic
organizations. To a large extent, government sets up and enforces the rules
the economy will follow. Then capitalistic organizations, following those
rules, attempt to determine and fulfill the needs of various groups of
consumers. So what are those rules?
A few of them are:
1. Licensing and supervising corporations and other business
organizations and prohibiting others (such as business cartels and drug
organizations).
2. Establishing and enforcing accounting rules to ensure proper
visibility of those organizations.
3. Setting up rules to be followed by the financial markets so that what
is sold really exists and the methods used are fair to the purchasers.
4. Establishing and enforcing commercial and contract law. Otherwise,
businesses couldn't trust contracts and could not operate,
5. Creating and controlling the money supply.
6. Controlling banking operations, since they have a great deal to do
with the size and efficiency of the money supply.
7. Building infrastructure items such as highways, ports and waterways,
airports and the system to control the airways, etc.
8. Ensuring an educated and healthy workforce.
9. Ensuring social stability through crime control.
10. Recording ownership of property, transfers of the ownership and
enforcing property rights. The real estate industry simply would not exist
without this function. Nor would the automobile industry.
11. Establishing and enforcing copyrights, patents and trademarks.
In short, there are certain functions in the overall economy and society in
which the rules need to be rigid so that everyone knows what will result
from a given action or promise. This is the function of government. Then
there are functions which must be highly responsive to changing conditions.
These are the functions where private businesses need to be left alone to
operate within.
Any attempt to eliminate all government "interference" in the economy will
Roger R, formerly known as Whoever
> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
>
> > msoja wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 12:40:23 GMT, "Scott D. Erb"
> > > <scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
> >
> > > >Your assertion is not supported, and it defies reality. The
interstate system, which has been
> > > >extremely important to our economy, was NOT being created before the
government got involved.
> > > >Indeed, infrastructure construction by government has spurred growth.
I can't see any way to
> > > >argue that all of this would have been privately created anyway. You
don't make a case that it
> > > >could, you just assert it. It is more like you are making assertions
based on faith rather than
> > > >evidence.
> > >
> > > The Interstate System. And you call yourself an environmentalist ...
> >
> > No, I don't call myself that actually.
> >
> > > Millions of acres of woods and water blown up and paved over, for
> > > ever.
> >
system has been *reduction* in the populations of many West Texas and
Western US counties which were previously rather low population anyway. The
net environmental effect hasn't been too bad.
Gandalf Grey
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3b64a704...@news.mindspring.com...
>
> (to pick a single barf-ball amid the bullshit)
>
> "Roger R, formerly known as Whoever" <spamfr...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >Money is only productive where the process is honest. Government is the
only
> >possible honest referee.
>
> That is not true. It's an assertion on which is piled
> generations of outright nonsense on stilts, but it's not true.
Says Bill while he walks away with other people's money.
Roger R, formerly known as Whoever
too busy trying to understand the flaws in Marx to try to understand
Capitalism.
Gandalf Grey
> Absolute drivel. I was going to go down through it item by
> item and list just a few of the many fallacies and ignorant claims,
> but by the time I got to the bottom, I realized this person has NO
> idea what he is try to talk about and it's just ignorant spewings, and
> would just waste far too much time going through it item by item, when
> the same effect can be had by just pointing out one thing. It's all
> BS ignorant drivel. We know all the Left Wing Liberal LYING WEASELS
> will jump all over it, exclaiming on the brilliance of the author, but
> when you know that is what they always do with all the ignorant
> diatribes posted by one of them, it is self evident. Despicable
> ignorance is only exceeded by their stupidity!
And the Desi AGAIN goes to Wayne Mann for a complete inability to list one
fact he could take exception to. The result: a patented Wayne Mann screed
absent a scintilla of logic or fact.
That's our Wayne.
msoja
Whoever" <spamfr...@nospam.com> posted:
>msoja's original post has not appeared on my news server, unfortunately, so
>I will respond to this second-hand version. It is *exactly* his view I was
>attempting to address.
Woo and Hoo.
>Scott D. Erb <scot...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:3B6405BA...@worldnet.att.net...
>> msoja wrote:
>> > On Sat, 28 Jul 2001 21:35:19 -0500, "Roger R, formerly known as
>> > Whoever" <spamfr...@nospam.com> posted:
>> > >To a large extent, government sets up and enforces the rules
>> > >the economy will follow.
>> > That's the socialist view, anyway. Government is not necessary or
>> > particularly desireable for an efficient economy.
>> Actually it's not the socialist view, it's the prevailing view in current
>market economic
>> systems, and I daresay you won't find much opposing it at any business
>school or other purveyor
>> of the standard version of market capitalism American-style.
>Much of the problem in the current Russian economy is attributed by
>economists to the lack of effective business law. This has been the standard
>problem with every nation converting from Communism to a market economy.
>In my own opinion, it is more than just a lack of law and courts to enforce
>it. It is also the culture. Communism in Russia has stated for most of the
>twentieth century that *any* business not owned and run by the government
>is a criminal activity.
>In market economies such as ours, we distinguish
>between legitimate business such as auto repair and illegal business such as
>chop shops. The one we encourage and the other we work to shut down because
>it functions against the right to private property. In the USSR *both* were
>considered criminal activity.
Communism fostered a criminal culture. Socialism does the same.
People here think they're entitled to free prescription meds, for
instance. Not only is that in and of itself criminal, but in the long
run will lead to the (further) development of black markets for those
with the proper connections to use when everyone else is facing
shortages.
>Now there is a new situation in Russia in which people have the right to set
>up their own businesses and try to get rich. Very few people go beyond that
>idea to recognize that auto repair shops should be both legal and moral,
>while chop shops should be neither. Since few people make that distinction,
>the only measure of success is wealth. The result is a great deal of
>criminal activity.
The less the Russian government keeps it's nose out of things the
faster people will realize that their best course of action is free
participation in honest endeavors. The complement of the old saw is
true, Non-crime pays better than crime.
None of which has anything to do with the state of government.
>A simpler example that you might appreciate - how do you know that when you
>buy a gallon of gas the pump gives you a full gallon? If I owned a gas
>station and reset the pumps to pump 97% of a gallon and charge for a full
>gallon, I would make a mint. You as the customer *would never notice the
>difference.*
I guarantee you would be found out rather quickly and have to move on.
Do you think people in business are honest because they're afraid of
going to jail, or because they like being established and respected
and as comfortable as they are?
>In Texas the Department of Agriculture has the Bureau of
>Weights and Measures that inspects pumps and prevents that. Every State has
>such an agency.
And every state has members of its inspection agencies who are on the
take, who are bribed and who cut favors for their friends. There is
nothing sacred about a *state* agency that couldn't be duplicated in
the private sector.
>A similar scam is to sell fuel and charge the sales tax, but then tell the
>State it was sold for agriculture use which is tax free. Keeping the tax
>money for yourself is a great scam - but does not explain why government is
>required to regulate business.
No, it doesn't.
>So as to not seem anti-business - which I am not - there is also the problem
>of the customer. Suppose I contract with you to install a fence around my
>house. You are from outside my neighborhood, so we don't know each other,
>but you offer the lowest bid. So I accept. But I won't accept unless you
>install the fence first, then I will pay. I want to make sure you do quality
>work. Then you install the fence. I like it. But I don't pay. What are you
>going to do? Hey, I live here, and using my Second Amendment Right, I own a
>significant arsenal. So do my neighbors. If I stiff you, how will you
>collect?
Even if I can't collect, others will know about it. It won't take
long before you're either not getting other work done or people are
demanding to be paid in full beforehand.
Also, while I don't believe it is necessary for a federal government
of two million employees to enforce contract law, that does not mean
that I believe all law is to be dispensed with. We do have our
inalienable rights, of which is our right to our own property
including the fruits of our labor. Most of the anecdotes you've
floated here come down to a very basic, "somebody ripped somebody else
off." Do we really need a thousand federal agencies and a two
trillion dollar budget to deal with that?
>If you want to bring in a gang larger than me and my neighbors, then you
>will have to work full time organizing that raid. That is time you lose from
>installing fences, which is productive. The raid is not. Besides, you will
>have to share with the rest of your gang, and you will never cover your
>expenses, let alone have a profit. The only cost-effective solution is to
>turn the problem over to the government.
I believe the government is only useful in providing a framework
within which grievances can be resolved.
I note that there is a trend toward privatization of many workings of
the court system. There are professional judges now, private jails,
etc. In fact, there is no reason that private justice couldn't
compete (and to my way of thinking, win) against so-called
government-run justice with its huge backlogs and interminable delays.
>In short, the market economy works because there is a movement of goods and
>services in one direction and a movement of money in proportion to the value
>and quality of those goods and services in the other. If you sell goods
>and/or services, you will need the government to ensure the reimbursement
>for them in money for the entire process to be cost-effective.
How's that again? I will be reimbursed because it is in the interests
of the person on the other end of the bargain to reimburse me. And
not because of any government presence.
>> > Licensing in and of itself is an establishment of a cartel,
>> > usually undertaken at the behest of "old" business finding itself with
>> > new competition. The old boys wine and dine their buddies at the
>> > state house and bang, all of a sudden there's a new barrier to entry
>> > into the field.
>> Sometimes, but other times it is necessary to protect citizens.
>Licensing real estate agents, stock brokers, insurance sales people and
>insurance brokers are all efforts to ensure the quality of the agents you
>deal with. None of us has the time or resources to adequately check the
>reputation of everyone we deal with.
Even if many of us do not have the "time or resources" to check every
business we deal with, why must licensing be mandatory? I don't see
anything wrong with voluntary organizations and can imagine quite
large ones actively policing their members and touting their integrity
with TV and radio ads. In fact, many such exist. Suppose I choose to
deal with licensed professionals for the most part, but don't really
think I need a licensed pro to trim my curly locks and give my noble
chin a shave? There's always the "black market" I suppose.
>Such licensing provides the kind of
>information consumers of their services need. The same is true of licensing
>local businesses. Do you buy magazines from door-to-door salespeople? Most
>are crooks. After a storm, do you get your roof repaired by a local (and
>licensed) guy or by the guy who shows up at your door and offers a good
>deal - but will be gone tomorrow when it leaks?
Why is it government's business who I contract with?
>Note - none of these licenses establish a cartel.
I disagree, wholeheartedly.
>They simply ensure that a
>minimum of qualifications exists, that they have been investigated to ensure
>they have not previously acted criminally, and that you know what address to
>send any legal papers to in the event of a dispute. Is the process perfect?
>Not by a long shot, but it is certainly cost effective for the economy.
All are barriers to extra-licensed competition. The AMA wants to keep
Doctor's salaries up. The ABA can't tolerate amateurs making inroads
without paying dues and joining the club. And on and on. Licensing
is *all* about creating legal cartels.
Lying is detrimental in the long run. Businesses, like people, are
better served by being honest (a fact that has yet to dawn on the
Lying Socialist Weasels.) People and businesses can only lie for so
long before the jig is up, and then they're kaput.
>An example of effective regulation is the SEC requirement for disclosure of
>anticipated revenue. Until recently, public businesses were required to NOT
>provide any inside information prior to the reporting date. The result was
>sharp changes in stock price, both up and down, on the reporting date.
>Recently businesses began to be required to provide information that would
>predict changes in the anticipated revenue as they occurred. The result has
>been that the stock prices react more to changes from what analysts
>predicted than from unanticipated changes on the report date. Businesses
>fought this regulation because it meant that it became a great deal more
>difficult to manipulate reported net profits and the resulting stock prices.
>Investors now have a much better idea what the business is doing, something
>they could not have had without government 'interference'.
Well ... doesn't it strike you as funny the "public businesses were
required to NOT provide"??? Your quote. Your emphasis. You're
arguing that government is necessary to correct the evils of
government.
And why not privatize the SEC? While we're at it.
>> > >3. Setting up rules to be followed by the financial markets so that
>what
>> > >is sold really exists and the methods used are fair to the purchasers.
>> > How does government do that? I think people know if they bought
>> > something that doesn't exist. What "fair methods"?
>> Rule of law, oversight of business practices, everything from the SEC to
>FTC, etc. You can sue
>> or call your attorney General if businesses violate these rules. And,
>believe it or not, quite
>> often charlatans fool people, especially in financial markets. Go to
>countries without rule of
>> law or weak regulation, and this happens a lot. That is what threw
>Albania into the abyss of
>> anarchy a few years ago (which helped set up the Kosovo war).
>I like insurance examples, because insurance could not exist without
>government rules and enforcement, yet businesses often would not attempt
>potentially profitable activities if they could not predict and control the
>level of risk involved.
I don't know why Insurance couldn't exist under the same basic
contract laws that any other business adheres to.
In none of this do I see an overriding need for "government" as it has
come to be promoted by the "prevailing" wizards of academia and the
bureaucracy.
<snip to end>
Mike
msoja
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
>It's cute how you
It's just as cute how you snip the beef out and focus up on the
parting shots.
It's something for which you're fairly well known.
Mike
msoja
<scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
>msoja wrote:
>> Millions of acres of woods and water blown up and paved over, for
>> ever.
>> An endless stream of polluting trucks and cars from coast to coast to
>> coast, Mexico to Canada.
>> Huge mega-industries grown up and belching their effluents into air,
>> ground and water, granted the efficiency of easy transportation and
>> providing the vehicles and the fuel to utilize it.
>> Making possible huge expansions in human population and the animal
>> population needed for slaughter to feed 'em.
>There are negative unintended consequences, but the interstate system has dramatically increased
>economic output, and it took government initiative to build it.
So, massive unintended causes are okay as long as government lends its
impetus to the effort?
What if General Motors had undertaken all that on it's own?
In any event, I think ignoring the teapot tempest over Kyoto will
leave us free to further "dramatically increased economic output" with
perhaps just a few "negative unintended consequences" that can be
shrugged off long term. Just like the Interstate Highway System.
Mike
Roger R, formerly known as Whoever
be highly corrupt and has been for a long time.
Show me a highly corrupt nation that has a highly productive economy.
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are iffy at the moment. They are not especially
productive since they are selling a raw material. Both are somewhat corrupt
and rather centrally controlled.
Corruption in government and dictatorship are the two strongest factors
associated with unproductive economies.
Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3b64a704...@news.mindspring.com...
>
I am talking about money in real terms. Inflation is unproductive.
>
>
> Billy
>
> VRWC Fronteer
> http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/
>
Your unsupported assertions do not disprove anything, and I doubt that you
can dig up any facts to support them.
Chris
You keep re-pasteing this mess without realizeing the Government has a interest
in production.
Governing and produceing products is a conflict of interest. And you wonder
what the technology production
restrictions have offered Americans? Try limited mileage for cars..... Next
will be electricity,,, then water,,,
And even beyond that try taxation over 43%
Grey ... You really DO understand the concept of perfect capitolism... too bad
it's not working
Billy Beck
"Roger R, formerly known as Whoever" <spamfr...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Show me a major industrial nation in which the government is well known to
>be highly corrupt and has been for a long time.
The United States, for at least half of the 20th century.
>Show me a highly corrupt nation that has a highly productive economy.
The United States, which is an example of the power of inertia.
>Corruption in government and dictatorship are the two strongest factors
>associated with unproductive economies.
That's quite true, but not exhaustive or exclusive. In this one,
you have the example of a nation with deep traditions of reason,
courage, and independence, just lately approaching the breadths of
corruption necessary to the effects that you're talking about. The
process is roughly but fairly comparable to the history of Wiemar, but
with a much greater impetus of conflicting traditions to overwhelm.
Here's a rule of thumb on which you can count should you take it
mind to look around and start sorting this out: when people accept
futility and the absurd as normal daily routine, the culture is
decadent.
We are just about completely there.
And it mystifies me how you got to your opening blurt from the
post of mine to which you replied:
>Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>>
>> (to pick a single barf-ball amid the bullshit)
>>
>> "Roger R, formerly known as Whoever" <spamfr...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Money is only productive where the process is honest. Government is the
>> >only possible honest referee.
>>
>> That is not true. It's an assertion on which is piled
>> generations of outright nonsense on stilts, but it's not true.
>>
>> This...
>>
>> >Anywhere the government is NOT an honest referee,
>> >there is little money to go around.
>>
>> ...is also not true. In fact, quite the opposite: anywhere the
>> government is not an honest referee (which is the case throughout
>> history), there is sooner or later far too *much* money to go around.
>
>I am talking about money in real terms. Inflation is unproductive.
Gee, ya think?
>Your unsupported assertions do not disprove anything, and I doubt that you
>can dig up any facts to support them.
Did you know that there was once a time in the industrial history
of this country when banks issued their own currencies without
government authority? You assserted that "government is the only
honest referee", and that is completely absurd. It's not true.
Billy Beck
Richard "Flackson" Hanson <ganda...@infectedmail.com> lied his ass
off:
>Billy Beck <wj...@mindspring.com> wrote...
>>
>> (to pick a single barf-ball amid the bullshit)
>>
>> "Roger R, formerly known as Whoever" <spamfr...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Money is only productive where the process is honest. Government is the
>> >only possible honest referee.
>>
>> That is not true. It's an assertion on which is piled
>> generations of outright nonsense on stilts, but it's not true.
>
>Says Bill while he walks away with other people's money.
Sez you, !Dick. Prove it.
Thom
<ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote:
>American Politics Journal
>
>Why You Should Worry About Globalization
>by Bryan Zepp Jamieson
>
>July 24, 2001 (APJP) -- With the summit meeting in Genoa ending with one
>dead and several hundred injured, the image most often seen on American
>television was that of anarchists running loose in the streets, trashing
>cars and defacing the majestic old buildings of Genoa.
>
>Small wonder, then, that many Americans have the impression that the
>protesters consist mostly of communists unwilling to admit their cause is
>dead, fighting capitalism. It's easy to dismiss the protesters of you can
>dress them as a bunch of out-dated violent Don Quixotes, fighting lost
>battles against a concept that Americans are trained from birth to admire:
>capitalism.
>
>But in fact, there were over 150,000 protesters in Genoa, and each time the
>G8 meet, the protesters get larger crowds, and the amount of international
>concern over their activities mounts.
>
>The G8 itself, which is not intrinsically evil, recognizes that there are
>legitimate concerns. Thus it included in its deliberations this time an
>agreement to funnel one billion dollars into AIDS treatment and research,
>and the conference did try to work around the illegitimate neo-fascist
>regime of the United States on issues relating to the environment and
>worker's rights. That the United States, once the oldest and biggest
>democracy in the world, was the biggest roadblock is a shameful reminder of
>how far we've fallen in just the few months since the December coup. Even as
>Putsch met with delegates in Genoa, the US was quietly abdicating its
>obligations in the 26 year old treaty on germ warfare, announcing that it
>would no longer accept inspections by the UN. The day after G8, while Putsch
>made a fool of himself standing in the Roman coliseum and reminding everyone
>that he was no Seneca, 140 nations around the world signed Kyoto, a
>rebellion against G8 far more profound than the tens of thousands of
>protesters had been.
>
>America, led by forces that its citizens neither understand or even
>perceive, is becoming an angry and bitter reactionary. It stands against a
>counter revolution that began in American in response to a revolution that
>began, also, in America. America originally championed free global trade. It
>was in Seattle where the opposition to globalization became evident. And it
>is America that is fighting the forces of both sides now -- the
>anti-free-traders of Genoa (who Putsch called "dead wrong") and the people
>who pressed for Kyoto (which Putsch called "fatally flawed"--being a
>corporate puppet does make it easier for him to have opinions).
>
>Small wonder we're confused.
>
>Those who oppose Globalization represent a wide variety of interests, and
>they all have different concerns that they want addressed. But it all boils
>down to one significant factor. The old world of nation states is dying, and
>being replaced with a corporate oligarchy. Whatever the benefits of such an
>oligarchy, the drawbacks are manifest. A new order is coming to power, one
>that has no laws, no justice, and only a proprietary interest in the welfare
>of the people. All the rights and gains fought so hard for over the past 800
>years are essentially negated by this new order.
>
>Corporations do not recognize the right of workers to unionize, or the right
>of people to elect representatives who will be accountable to the people.
>Corporations do not recognize freedom of speech save their own, and they
>don't recognize the need to place society ahead of profits.
>
>It isn't because they are evil. It is because they are bureaucracies,
>devoted only to the generation of profits and self-preservation. Perfectly
>normal and -- by their own criteria -- moral behavior, as any libertarian
>will tell you, but when it conflicts with the welfare of the citizenry,
>corporations will behave as corporations, and if that means abrogating the
>rights and freedoms of the citizenry, then so be it.
>
>Corporations have signed no agreements regarding minimum wage, worker
>safety, environmental protection, child labor, redress of grievances, habeas
>corpus, elections, search and seizure, or guarantees of privacy, or even
>life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
>
>Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, except the new boss isn't obligated
>to or even interested in that contract you signed.
>
>Forget the noise about how the ethics of the market guarantee that
>corporations will bend to the will of the people because no business can
>survive without happy customers. That's a load of self-serving, unmitigated,
>unjustified codswallop that flies in the face of common sense and
>experience. It was the "invisible hand" of the market that persuaded Texas
>power generators to deliberately take plants off line, dropping supply, and
>causing prices to skyrocket. If you are a corporation, and your prime
>directive is to generate profits and make the stockholders happy, and a
>situation comes along where you can make a lot more money with a lot less
>effort, what are you going to do?
>
>The rest of the world views America as a bad example of corporate rule.
>Corporations are seen as having taken down the mightiest nation on earth
>without firing a shot, with a propaganda apparatus so effective that many
>Americans can't even bring themselves to admit that something fundamental
>has changed.
>
>Corporations, without constitutional justification, are accorded the same
>rights that the constitution recognizes in human beings living in America.
>From that bizarre notion has come the utterly lunatic notion that
>corporations have the constitutional right to compete with average citizens
>for the ear of elected officials, and may spend whatever it takes, in
>virtually any way they chose, to do so.
>
>Here, in the "freest country on earth" (and if you stop and think, it's been
>a while since you heard anyone say that about America, isn't it?), eleven
>corporations control 95% of our commercial media (and during the G8
>conference, a US Court was upholding the "right" of Rupert Murdoch to
>control an even greater percentage of NYC media than he already does).
>Corporations have the "right" to copyright genes, which gives them
>potentially absolute control over all crops and livestock, and could even
>pave the way to ownership of human beings. (They wouldn't be called human
>beings, of course. They would be called "genetic constructs"). Nearly
>everywhere Americans go, they are watched by the unblinking eyes of
>corporate cameras, and corporations are clamoring for the "right" to
>monitor, through GPS, the movements and activities of all Americans who are
>using corporate property--something that more and more means all property.
>Period. America has long since changed from a vital culture to a passive
>receptor of corporate entertainment. It used to be that Americans all knew
>the words to "This land is your land". Now they sing commercial jingles
>instead.
>
>Why should multinational corporations want restrictions on greenhouse gases?
>By the time the climate has brought devastation, someone else will be on the
>board of directors, and it will be their headache. In the meanwhile, those
>who perpetrate should decisions get to skate, since corporations have the
>power and the legal firepower to hold any efforts national governments might
>make at bay. Note now the present administration surrendered to the tobacco
>industry.
>
>Corporate propaganda in America has reached the amazing level where an
>entertainer making a quarter of a BILLION dollars, one who routinely bashes
>the poor, the sick, the weak, the powerless, can present himself, with a
>straight face, as the hero of the common man--and the common man buys it!
>This creature howls about how tort reform is needed to prevent "abuses by
>the trial lawyers" when in fact what he is really talking about is your
>redress of grievances! The right of Americans to sue is a major
>inconvenience to corporations, but if it is truly the threat Rush says it
>is, how come corporate profits are higher than ever? The American right has
>been so completely suborned by corporate influence that raving paranoids who
>howl incessantly that the UN is plotting to steal our guns shake their heads
>in puzzled anger over protesters warning that corporations are out to
>eliminate the concept of national sovereignty -- starting with what's left
>of America. It's an amazing sight, watching an American "journalist" argue
>that foreign entanglements are bad while simultaneously supporting GATT and
>the WTO. It's even more amazing watching blue-collar types who can barely
>keep up on the truck payments staunchly defend the right of corporations to
>compete financially for the attentions of their elected representatives,
>mano a whatever.
>
>If you are living in America, you are surrounded by logos, and base much of
>your thinking upon the carefully-crafted perceptions they want to portray.
>You depend on corporations for nearly all of your entertainment, you base
>your self-worth upon their icons being present in your immediate
>environment, you wear their names on your clothes. You let them determine
>what news you will see, what ideas you will believe. They tolerate your
>religion because it provides them with a useful handle. You can't imagine
>life without them, and carefully do not consider what "reduced labor costs"
>and "reducing the regulatory burden of the EPA" might mean to your quality
>of life.
>
>Corporations want to be the managers of global free trade, and access
>markets that provide the highest profit margin on the lowest overhead. Good
>economics, bad sociology. Low cost items won't do the average citizen much
>good.
>
>You see, you're the "overhead".
I was present at the Melbourne S11 protests last year as well as the
protests this past May. I was a combat cameraman in Viet Nam and
couldn't stay away! :-)
What I saw there (S-11) was a very mixed bag or people that rode the
backs of a radical core. Greens, Anti-globalization nationalists,
anti-age descrimination protesters, unionists, religious groups, AIDs
groups etc and I also saw the police committing more illegal acts than
the protesters. The S-11 types pulled something that the police
really freaked out about...lawyers! There were about 30 of them
there, some in suits and all wearing pull overs marked "Lawyer" or
"Legal" (some where only law syudents) When ever the police did
something wrong they had lawyers on them threating legal action
against them personally if they did desist and then asking them for
their identifications (most had illegally hidden their badges so the
numbers couldn't be taken) It usually worked and none of the legal
types were assaulted or threatened. Currently the government here is
now trying to outlaw protests as part of the new world order policy of
not having any resistance. The law if past will allow an officer to
tell a protest to go home if they don't like what they are hearing on
the excuse that you could get violent.
Very scary stuff
THOM
Scott D. Erb
msoja wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:49:15 GMT, "Scott D. Erb"
> <scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
>
> >There are negative unintended consequences, but the interstate system has dramatically increased
> >economic output, and it took government initiative to build it.
>
> So, massive unintended causes are okay as long as government lends its
> impetus to the effort?
Government or private, improvements in technology and the economy have unintended consequences. The
gas that caused the hole in the ozone was developed privately, and at the time was thought to be
completely harmless (the scientist who developed it breathed it in directly to show how safe it
was). That's a fact of modern life. The key is that when you find out about the consequences, you
figure out a way to deal with them
> What if General Motors had undertaken all that on it's own?
If it could have, fine. I don't think GM had the capital or the desire to build an interstate
system.
> In any event, I think ignoring the teapot tempest over Kyoto will
> leave us free to further "dramatically increased economic output" with
> perhaps just a few "negative unintended consequences" that can be
> shrugged off long term. Just like the Interstate Highway System.
Trouble is, no one can ever point to any real evidence that Kyoto will have a negative effect on the
economy, even though its been pointed out over and over that the treaty was negotiated precisely to
give time for new high tech solutions to be in place and to perhaps even create jobs. The scare
tactics you use are gloom and doom attempts to frighten, but are not grounded in evidence or logic.
Roger R, formerly known as Whoever
Martin McPhillips <jour...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3B617932...@nyc.rr.com...
> "Scott D. Erb" wrote:
> >
> > Kurt Lochner wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Non sequitur alert. Neither of your children are of age,
> > > and it's doubtful that you'll be sending anyone to college..
> > >
> > > --If you don't like being ridiculed, stop being so ridiculous, Fraud
> >
> > The one thing about when kids go to college, or simply go out in the
world is
> > that they choose their own beliefs, and parents sometimes find out the
hard way
> > that children are not property, but individuals with a mind of their
own,
> > capable of making their own choices. And that's OK -- in college
students get
> > introduced to a variety of ideas and learn that they can't just trust
what
> > their professor, parents, priests or television tells them, but they
have to
> > think for themselves. One of my best students is a very conservative
> > Republican, and he's good friends with a liberal Democrat.
Sophisticated
> > thinkers are able to deal with those who have very different points of
view
> > without demonization and hate. Good universities do not program, but
simply
> > help students develop the tools to think for themselves.
>
> Do you feel demonized and hated, Scott?
>
> It could be that not knowing your own field, being deceitful, being a
> Marxist apologist, a socialist, and persistently anti-American, calling
> yourself a "scientist" when you can't understand the simplest concepts
> of science, and doing things like complaining about "demonization
> and hate" to someone like Kurt Lochner, has given people the wrong
> impression about you.
>
> Perhaps you're just misunderstood.
>
And once again we are treated to an outstanding example of Republican
empathy and thoughtfulness for those who do not slavishly quote the current
Republican spin.
Martin McPhillips
Well, Scott Erb is a Marxist apologist, there's ample proof of that.
He is a socialist, and calls his own utopian fantasy "anti-statist
socialism." He does pose himself as a "scientist," but can't
seem to grasp basic concepts of science. He does *always* take
an anti-American position, and he does run for support to
demented individuals like Kurt Lochner.
But perhaps he is just misunderstood. Maybe all of those things,
from Marxist apologetics to persistent anti-Americanism, do
just add up to "not slavishly quoting the current
Republican spin." Do you really think that could be the
case?
move fiftyfour
> > > these theories and consider alternatives.
> > "Does this theory make my ass look too big? Does it
> > come in any other color but sea foam? I'm more of an
> > 'autumn' political theorist, so maybe a nice burgundy,
> > or maybe a nice position paper in dusty rose."
> Misogynistic ideation: So much a part of what passes for the right wing
> "thought process."
What the left calls thinking is actually rearranging obsessions. The
humorless left is even more braindead.
More detailed hypothesis for mental processes behind what
is called leftist 'thinking': maniacal-depressive syndrom
combined with serious limitations when it comes to recognizing
facts of life makes them 'think' they are thinking. From a POV of
person who blabbers ad-hoc sentiments as Ultimate Truth,
calm-minded people who know you have to keep mind semi-relaxed
in order to have any chance for getting insight into things do look
unthinking.
A maniac in sanitarium screams 'I'm Abe Lincoln'. The normal
guy says 'you're not'. A maniac starts to blabber thousands of
irrelevant, over-stretched analogies. Then he asks, "well, didn't I
demonstrate I'm Abe?". The normal guy is still doubting that. This
maniac then concludes "well, that's typical unthinking".
move fiftyfour
> msoja wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:49:15 GMT, "Scott D. Erb"
> > <scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
> >
> > >There are negative unintended consequences, but the interstate system has dramatically increased
> > >economic output, and it took government initiative to build it.
> >
> > So, massive unintended causes are okay as long as government lends its
> > impetus to the effort?
>
> Government or private, improvements in technology and the economy have unintended consequences. The
> gas that caused the hole in the ozone was developed privately, and at the time was thought to be
> completely harmless (the scientist who developed it breathed it in directly to show how safe it
> was). That's a fact of modern life. The key is that when you find out about the consequences, you
> figure out a way to deal with them
>
> > What if General Motors had undertaken all that on it's own?
>
> If it could have, fine. I don't think GM had the capital or the desire to build an interstate
> system.
Why not, since the private business in the past has built both the
railroad system and the channels between rivers? The problem is, govt
got into this, taxed the people to do this thing, so no business can
possibly compete with zero price offer (but huge cost, just the burden
is put on taxpayer) and even bad quality of this thing is not enough
to justify the mass expenses that would be necessary in this kind of
investment.
> > In any event, I think ignoring the teapot tempest over Kyoto will
> > leave us free to further "dramatically increased economic output" with
> > perhaps just a few "negative unintended consequences" that can be
> > shrugged off long term. Just like the Interstate Highway System.
>
> Trouble is, no one can ever point to any real evidence that Kyoto will have a negative effect on the
> economy, even though its been pointed out over and over that the treaty was negotiated precisely to
> give time for new high tech solutions to be in place and to perhaps even create jobs.
Trouble is, lefties always point to the scenarios that are all at the
same time:
1. compatible with their obsession
2. the most improbable you can find
If the high tech solutions you mention as magical solution had any
merit, they'd be in place already. And in fact, there are such
solutions being implemented without Kyoto or anything like that, The
Economist has published an article on new solutions for energy like
microturbines (very high RPMs, very high efficiency) and fuel cells.
For now they're not used very widely for a variety of reasons -- many
of them being related to policies that were supposed to help energy
users but in reality have just created legal and normative entry
barriers.
Sidenote: funny thing about those leftists, they always cry liberte
egalite fraternite and the policies 'inspired' by them invariably end
up in more entrenched aristocracy and more plebs desiring panem et
circenes funded by taxpayer. Dostoyevsky once visited France and has
noted that few countries are more distant from what they sermonize
about than the France. It has not changed till today -- bulk of wealth
is inherited, that's nearly only chance to become rich there.
It's pretty sure Kyoto would have very bad influence on the
economy -- since people choose solutions that are the most
cost-effective from their respective POVs available already, any
intrusion in that would cause problems. Unlike intellectualoids
creating impressions of eeevil polluters who do it just for love of
harming the environment, people don't like paying for fuels. All the
renewables/alternatives that are not chosen by people without
subsidizing by govt in this form or another simply cause too big costs
to be realistic solution.
You just don't like this realistic but bleak conclusion since you
substitute obsessions for thinking so you downplay (on top of that,
you probably think of yourself as intellectual, while in reality you
are sentimentalist simpleton full of self-righteousness).
>The scare
> tactics you use are gloom and doom attempts to frighten, but are not grounded in evidence or logic.
So much for rational argument from the left.
move fiftyfour
>
> > On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 21:49:15 GMT, "Scott D. Erb"
> > <scot...@worldnet.att.net> posted:
> >
> > >There are negative unintended consequences, but the interstate system has dramatically increased
> > >economic output, and it took government initiative to build it.
> >
> > So, massive unintended causes are okay as long as government lends its
> > impetus to the effort?
>
> Government or private, improvements in technology and the economy have unintended consequences.
Oh gee, intellectualoid has rediscovered negative externalities!
There's just one problem, an example that he gives:
The
> gas that caused the hole in the ozone was developed privately,
...is inadequate. There's no ozone hole, simply because ozone gets
'produced' by ultraviolet that is high energy radiation and the bigger
distance from the equator, the lower the angle between light and the
line "touching" the curve of atmosphere in one point is (sorry for
putting it this way, my English is not strong in mathematics
department). Physicists call it 'stream'.
So in the polar regions less ozone gets produced. That's it. The whole
affair with ozone 'hole' at the time happened because at the time
there was no data from longer periods of the time and no viable
explanation.
> completely harmless (the scientist who developed it breathed it in directly to show how safe it
> was).
>That's a fact of modern life.
More like you patting yourself on the back.