About Mitterand
Magnus Kempe
Mitterandian monuments is: the cost. May I remind you that there
is still a lot of unemployment in France..? that, further, every
single penny -- or 'centime' -- that the government spends, is
taken from someone's pocket?
The celebration of the French revolution has cost approx. $1.5 billion,
i.e. as much as the celebration of the American revolution, a few
years ago. The difference is, in the USA it was all private-funds,
but not in France (only $0.1 billion were privately funded)..
Building monuments is fine, as long as you pay by yourself. But
Mitterand is using slaves. It appears that some people object to being
treated as sacrificial animals.
Bruno Poterie
[...]
years ago. The difference is, in the USA it was all private-funds,
but not in France (only $0.1 billion were privately funded)..
[...]
Hey! Look out there, you all! A _swedish_ tatcherist! Believe me,
a lot of water will flow under Riksbron until you may see another ;-) ;-)
Sorry, i could not resist the joke. What Magnus says is quite right,
but hell, it comes only every 100 years, and the monuments will stay
at least until the next one. Besides, the extra touristic and trade
generated by the Bicentenaire has largely payed back the costs.
As this same argument has been repeatedly used since at least 250 years
(Trianon comes to my mind, but there are certainly even older examples),
i will not get worried so much. Time, time, time, is on my side, yes it is-s-s
(the Rolling Stones).
Bruno Poterie, Martian.
Vive l'Europe!
Louis Kossen
>to take the product of somebody's work *by force* [remember: the government
>has a monopole on the legal use of force] and to arbitrarily give it
>away to someone else?
We are sharing all sorts of things which have to be paid.
-arbitrary - i think you are living in a democracy so you
can vote for a party which comes closest to your idea of
spending the taxes.
louis kossen
Philip Peake
> The reason why some French people are unhappy with those
> Mitterandian monuments is: the cost. May I remind you that there
> is still a lot of unemployment in France..? that, further, every
> single penny -- or 'centime' -- that the government spends, is
> taken from someone's pocket?
I often read/hear people complaining about governments spending money
on various projects - like building 'monuments'.
The argument seems to be based on the idea that once spent, the money just
dissapears. This is not true at all - it just goes back into circulation
or if you like, back into the pockets of the companies wo do the work,
and hence to the pockets of the workers who built it, and the shareholders
of the company - would you prefer that the money just rest in a vault
somewhere ?
You can always argue that there might be more deserving causes on which to
spend it - such as buying a new nuclear submarine or the like.
> Building monuments is fine, as long as you pay by yourself. But
> Mitterand is using slaves. It appears that some people object to being
> treated as sacrificial animals.
Silly and misguided. Are you implying that the workers who build these
things are not paid ?
And I really don't seem where the reference to sacrificial animals
comes from.
Extending the sort of arguments used in this article, everything should
be as cheap and nasty as possible (to save money), why surface roads
when you can just flatten the dirt - why bother to clean the streets ?
just spray them with disinfectant to keep disease at bay.
The world would be a sad and dreary place to live in if countries with
the money to spare can't build the occasional 'monument'.
If you want to see the sort of world we are talking about, go and look
at the centre of London as an example of utilitarian vandalism,
and Telford (also in England) as an example of the sort of cultural
desert people would be forced to live in.
Philip
Morna J. Findlay
>: Governments have always got a lot of money to spend.
>
>Where does that money come from? How do you explain that many
>countries have foreign debts, amounting in billion $?
I am reminded of an old gent I once met who stunned the assembled company
by demanding to know how British Steel could possibly lose 1 million pounds
a week!
"I pick up my pension from the post office every week" he said" and never
once have I lost it on the way home!"
Morna
Morna J. Findlay JANET: mo...@lfcs.ed.ac.uk
LFCS, Dept. of Computer Science UUCP: ..!mcvax!ukc!lfcs!morna
University of Edinburgh ARPA: morna%lfcs.e...@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK. Tel: 031-667-1081 Ext 2807
Morna J. Findlay
Using slaves? Oh come off it!
Governments have always got a lot of money to spend. Because something
costs a lot is NO reason to assume it is not worth the money. If France
is short of cash, it could spend less money on Nuclear weapons, disband
the foreign legion etc etc. Certainly uneployment in France can't be blamed
on the celebrations - what a ridiculous idea. Hundreds of Thousands of
tourists flocked there this month ( including me ) many of whom happily
queued and paid to go up that very expensive monument to the centennial,
the Eiffel Tower!
And what is included in your figure of 1.5 billion to celebrate the revolution?
If that is what a few parades, fireworks and extra police cost, then plainly
someone is overspending by an amazing degree! If this figure includes things
like the Arche de la Defense, then it is you who are cooking the figures, as
it will plainly serve a useful purpose after 1989, as well as being a fine
building for us to admire.
Magnus Kempe
: The argument seems to be based on the idea that once spent, the money just
: dissapears. This is not true at all - it just goes back into circulation
: or if you like, back into the pockets of the companies wo do the work,
: and hence to the pockets of the workers who built it, and the shareholders
Where did the money come from in the first place? What *is* money?
Money is the product of some individual's work, under a form more
suitable to carry than, for example, pairs of shoes.
Now the question becomes: what moral right does any government have
to take the product of somebody's work *by force* [remember: the government
has a monopole on the legal use of force] and to arbitrarily give it
away to someone else?
: > Building monuments is fine, as long as you pay by yourself. But
: > Mitterand is using slaves. It appears that some people object to being
: > treated as sacrificial animals.
:
: Silly and misguided. Are you implying that the workers who build these
: things are not paid ?
: And I really don't seem where the reference to sacrificial animals
: comes from.
Of course, these workers are paid, but with *whose* money?
The individuals who pay, are forced into paying. Being forced into
paying is equivalent to being forced to work, with someone taking
care of the product of *your* work. That is as close to a definition
of slavery as one can get.
Slaves are sacrificial animals.
: Extending the sort of arguments used in this article, everything should
: be as cheap and nasty as possible [...]
I do not oppose private spending and construction, in fact I very
much value these. I oppose dictatorial government spending.
Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
(please use the above address, don't trust your mailer's <reply> function)
Bruno Poterie
> In article <BRUNO.89J...@ha7.inmic.se> br...@inmic.se (Bruno Poterie) writes:
> : Hey! Look out there, you all! A _swedish_ tatcherist! [sic] [...]
>
> I don't think ethnic characterization is relevant. You confess that
> you think each individual *belongs* to a country. That is an old tribal
> belief.
[...]
Sigh. Obviously you saw what you wanted to see, and nothing else.
There was a SMILEY in my original, and an explicit mention that this
was a joke. And i added that i agreed on most of your FACTS. Really
this posting of yours, with the constant references to sacrificial
altars, is not going to convince me, except that you lack humour sence.
Now if your point is "No State - No Tax", i am afraid that we don't stay
on the same side of the politics. I like Europe for being able to maintain
a balance between the community and the individual, the money and the
mind, the reality and the utopy, the force and the ideal. I do not want
that Europe becomes a market-only oriented society. And i am not the only
one in this fight.
> Payed back *to whom*? Costs are supported by individuals. Forcing
> an individual to give away the product of his work is totally immoral.
Amen. How can you handle staying in Sweden then, with this totally immoral
tax system, and this immoral egalitarian society? Do not answer this, it
is a rethoric question.
> : Vive l'Europe!
>
> Every time I hear -- or read -- this, I can see sacrificial altars
> are lying in wait, to take care of individual rights [to "build
> a social Europe, not just a free market" as they say...]
I still maintain: Vive l'Europe! And will never switch to: Vive le Capital!
Bruno Poterie, Martian.
Toby Kelsey
>Where did the money come from in the first place? What *is* money?
>Money is the product of some individual's work, under a form more
>suitable to carry than, for example, pairs of shoes.
Money can represent work, credit, anything that people value, and has no
fixed relationship to the effort required to earn, steal, forge or inherit it.
(In that order of effort, and therefore legitimacy?)
>Now the question becomes: what moral right does any government have
>to take the product of somebody's work *by force* [remember: the government
>has a monopole on the legal use of force] and to arbitrarily give it
>away to someone else?
The government has no monopoly on this, every employer takes the produce of
the employees, this is not a trade - the employees do not have the option
of keeping what they have produced. You can say people could always change
jobs, or become self-employed, but in conditions of poverty and high
unemployment (strangely enough, conditions laissez-faire capitalism seems
to like and promote) these are not options for most people.
The laws on taxation are agreed to as freely as a contract of employment if
you are as free to emigrate as to change your job.
Furthermore, apart from workers' cooperatives, the employees do not even
democratically control how this produce is used.
In my experience, 'Liassez-Faire Capitalists' dislike government's and
democracies' power because they infringe on the real power of big business,
it is not freedom from government oppression, but freedom _for_ business'
power that is wanted.
Despite the rhetoric, capitalism critically depends on the infrastructure
(wrongfully?) provided by governments for the community.
In Britain, although the government often uses the rhetoric of freedom,
they have
a)reduced local democracy, and so the power of local people
b) massively increased poverty (poverty removes a great deal of freedom of
action, or don't you think this counts?) and
c) put many legal restrictions on Trades Unions, which are, of course, a
product of the free market - or are only some parts of the free market good?
d) Centralised political power and reduced the role of parliament in government.
Tell me which of those should a laissez-faire capitalist approve of, and why.
Democracies are essentially reactive, i.e. they only do things in response
to something that has occurred. Many of our laws were made to restrict
employers' power, e.g. child labour laws, health and safety are obvious ones.
There is obvious friction between capitalism and democracy, capitalism itself
naturally tends towards oligarcy ( the 'free market' is a temporary condition
which requires active state intervention to maintain, and in fact doesn't
exist in most countries, outside economists' textbooks).
Your 'individualism' allows those with political or financial power to control
others, and there are many things which cannot be done without state coercion
or control (e.g. preventing pollution, maintaining the water supply and
other infrastructure), which people feel are necessary.
Most people approve of most laws, so I think you will stay in the minority.
I would much rather suffer the rule of the majority than the rule of the rich.
Being forced into
>paying is equivalent to being forced to work, with someone taking
>care of the product of *your* work. That is as close to a definition
>of slavery as one can get.
That seems closer to a definition of laissez-faire capitalism to me, (if you
can tell the difference anyway :-).
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
>(please use the above address, don't trust your mailer's <reply> function)
Toby.
--
Toby Kelsey UUCP : ...!ukc!gdr!chpetk
School of Chemistry, DARPA: chpetk%gdr.bat...@nsf-relay.ac.uk
University of Bath. JANET: chp...@uk.ac.bath.gdr
Magnus Kempe
: Governments have always got a lot of money to spend.
Where does that money come from? How do you explain that many
countries have foreign debts, amounting in billion $?
Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
Magnus Kempe
: Hey! Look out there, you all! A _swedish_ tatcherist! [sic] [...]
I don't think ethnic characterization is relevant. You confess that
you think each individual *belongs* to a country. That is an old tribal
belief.
As for being branded a Thatcherist, this is a rationalization. I am
a radical for Capitalism, therefore I approve of many of the things
Thatcher does, on moral grounds. On the same moral grounds, I totally
disapprove of a few other things she says, and does.
: [...] Besides, the extra touristic and trade
: generated by the Bicentenaire has largely payed back the costs.
Payed back *to whom*? Costs are supported by individuals. Forcing
an individual to give away the product of his work is totally immoral.
: Vive l'Europe!
Every time I hear -- or read -- this, I can see sacrificial altars
are lying in wait, to take care of individual rights [to "build
a social Europe, not just a free market" as they say...]
Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
(please use the above address, don't trust the mailer 'reply' function)
Magnus Kempe
chp...@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
: eua...@euas10.ericsson.se (Magnus Kempe) writes:
:
: >Where did the money come from in the first place? What *is* money?
: >Money is the product of some individual's work, under a form more
: >suitable to carry than, for example, pairs of shoes.
:
: Money can represent work, credit, anything that people value, and has no
: fixed relationship to the effort required to earn, steal, forge or inherit it.
: (In that order of effort, and therefore legitimacy?)
There was a time when money was backed with gold. That was the
meaning of money. Why? Because traders need a reference of value,
and an easier means of trading 10'000 pairs of shoes against 40 cars
than actually performing the act of exchanging these. Money represents
products that have not yet been consumed. It is easier to put gold
aside than to put thousands of shoes aside.
Your very socialist view of effort is immoral. Working has nothing to
do with stealing or forging. Please keep these separated. And inheriting
money is not bad: it is a consequence of the right to dispose of one's
property, the right that I have to decide what should happen to *my*
property today, tomorrow, and the day I die.
: >Now the question becomes: what moral right does any government have
: >to take the product of somebody's work *by force* [remember: the government
: >has a monopoly on the legal use of force] and to arbitrarily give it
: >away to someone else?
:
: The government has no monopoly on this, every employer takes the produce of
: the employees, this is not a trade - the employees do not have the option
: of keeping what they have produced. You can say people could always change
: jobs, or become self-employed, but in conditions of poverty and high
: unemployment (strangely enough, conditions laissez-faire capitalism seems
: to like and promote) these are not options for most people.
You consistently equate economic power with political power. Please
consider that there is a difference between a bureaucrat pointing a
gun at your head and ordering you to do what he wants, and the
businessman who offers you money in exchange for your willingly
working for him for some amount of time. There is the difference
between a gun and $1.
Your claim that Laissez-Faire Capitalism "likes and promotes poverty
and high unemployment" is unsubstantiated. Historically, the closest
we ever came to such a system was in the 19th century. That is were
we got our richness from. Unemployment was *caused* by government
interference with the economy, specifically, by imposed minimum-
wages (check your history books). Poverty is a caracteristic of
socialist countries, like Soviet Russia, Poland, China, not of
semi-capitalist countries.
: In my experience, 'Liassez-Faire Capitalists' dislike government's and
: democracies' power because they infringe on the real power of big business,
: it is not freedom from government oppression, but freedom _for_ business'
: power that is wanted.
No. It is the abolition of the initiation of force in human
relationships that is wanted, in recognition of man's nature.
Business power is the freedom to produce. Is productive work evil?
You are right in opposing democracy to capitalism. Democracy is
unlimited majority rule (check your history books, see Athens in
the antiquity). However, capitalism is compatible with democratic
votes to elect government officials. But those officials' power
is restricted to the justice, the police, and the army.
: Despite the rhetoric, capitalism critically depends on the infrastructure
: (wrongfully?) provided by governments for the community.
: In Britain, although the government often uses the rhetoric of freedom,
: they have
: a)reduced local democracy, and so the power of local people
: b) massively increased poverty (poverty removes a great deal of freedom of
: action, or don't you think this counts?) and
: c) put many legal restrictions on Trades Unions, which are, of course, a
: product of the free market - or are only some parts of the free market good?
: d) Centralised political power and reduced the role of parliament in
: government.
:
: Tell me which of those should a laissez-faire capitalist approve of, and why.
a) has actually been a reduction of local power to use taxes in order
to implement a mixed economy. That is consistent with a reduction
of political involvment in the economy.
b) please prove your assertion
c) the "restrictions" have been: to introduce a democratical process in
the election of trade union leaders, to protect workers who want to
work -- even when other workers think they should be forcefully
prevented from that -- and to suppress the control that trade unions
had over who a company was allowed to hire -- specifically, someone
who wasn't part of the union was not "approved". Again, check your
history books.
d) I don't have the context, but if the intent was to disallow unlimited
majority rule, YES it is consistent with Laissez-Faire Capitalism.
: Democracies are essentially reactive, i.e. they only do things in response
: to something that has occurred. Many of our laws were made to restrict
: employers' power, e.g. child labour laws, health and safety are obvious ones.
Child labour laws appeared *after* child labour had almost disappeared,
except for mining (I am talking about the UK). But what was the effect
of these laws? A rise in unemployment and poverty, because many child
were "de facto" forbidden to work, although they needed the money
(check your history books, or I can give you a reference, if you
need it).
: [...] ( the 'free market' is a temporary condition
: which requires active state intervention to maintain, and in fact doesn't
: exist in most countries, outside economists' textbooks).
No. Please prove your assertion.
: I would much rather suffer the rule of the majority than the rule of the rich.
I wouldn't suffer any other ruler than nature.
Tapani Tarvainen
[answering to chp...@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)]
>You consistently equate economic power with political power. Please
>consider that there is a difference between a bureaucrat pointing a
>gun at your head and ordering you to do what he wants, and the
>businessman who offers you money in exchange for your willingly
>working for him for some amount of time. There is the difference
>between a gun and $1.
Where exactly is the difference between political and economic power?
Both bureaucrats and moneymen can send gunmen after you (and frequently
do in various Latin American countries, for instance) or use less
violent, indirect methods of persuasion (more common - in both cases -
in "civilized" countries like USA or Sweden).
As I see it, power is power, whether you get it because you were
elected to some office, because you have successfully manipulated
your way through party bureaucracy, or because your father left
you a fortune.
>I wouldn't suffer any other ruler than nature.
What do you mean by "ruler"? You obviously suffer others (the rich)
to exercise power over your life - is there a point at which it becomes
ruling, and would you do something to stop that from being reached,
or do you trust the laws of nature (capitalism) to take care of that?
I understood you think it is OK to use the power one has acquired
(by inheriting, working or whatever means you approve of) in any way
whatsoever except "initiating violence", is that correct?
What then is violence? How about forcing people to live on starvation
threshold and do only the work they're ordered to or die?
How free is an average peasant in a third world country
("semi-capitalist" if you like) is to improve his life - how?
Working harder? oving away??
Unable to get any education, the only source of income is land,
which already belongs to somebody else (who was lucky enough to
inherit it).
Compare the chances of the child born to a poor peasant family
and one born rich, their chances to lead a pleasant life.
Do you consider that fair? Don't you really care??
Enough for now.
--
Tapani Tarvainen (tarv...@jyu.fi, tarv...@finjyu.bitnet)
Lars-Henrik Eriksson
>I wouldn't suffer any other ruler than nature.
Then you should consider whether human beings are disposed by nature
to live in isolation or in a society.
From everything I have ever heard about anthropolgy, there has not
been a single instance of human culture not consisting of smaller or
larger groups of people, in cooperation.
> Good Premises, Magnus -- eua...@euas10.ericsson.se
--
Lars-Henrik Eriksson Internet: l...@sics.se
Swedish Institute of Computer Science Phone (intn'l): +46 8 752 15 09
Box 1263 Telefon (nat'l): 08 - 752 15 09
S-164 28 KISTA, SWEDEN