Help end wage-slavery

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Andrew Usher

unread,
Jul 12, 2008, 4:59:24 AM7/12/08
to
I propose the basic income, also known as the guaranteed minimum
income
or negative income tax, for modern civilised society. This entails
that
every person would receive a fixed payment from the government, which
is
enough to maintain oneself without working. I further maintain that
this
is only practical with a system of true national health care, as, for
one, persons with significant medical expenses could not rely on the
basic income otherwise.

How should it work?

I will refer only to the USA in the rest of this essay, though it
applies
to every comparable nation. The basic income would be paid out by the
federal government to everyone, and would replace all current welfare
and
redistribution programs (federal, state, and local) with possibly a
few
minor exceptions. Similarly the universal health care that accompanies
it
would replace all current provisions for health care; as these
combined
form about half of all government spending, their obsolescence would
free
a considerable amount of money.

The benefit could be paid based on individuals or based on households.
In
my mind, only payment based on individuals would be acceptable.
First,
there is the rampant fraud likely to arise if done the other way;
this
already exists with current welfare programs, and would be much worse
if
applied to the entire population. Second (and related), the costs of
managing the program would be much lower for an individual income as
the
means to count every person exactly once already exist. It may be
objected that this provides an incentive for persons to live in fewer
households, but this is no different from the situation now: in both
cases, one financially benefits from living with other persons as the
fixed costs do not scale with number of persons. Although I do not
like
that it is an issue of housing availability and not money per se.

Persons in prison or another involuntary institution should be
excluded,
but should begin to receive it again immediately upon their release.

The amount of the benefit

It is necessary to propose a monetary amount for the benefit. I say
$1,500 per month, plus $200 for each dependent child. This benefit
would
for obvious reasons have to be limited to citizens, or perhaps
citizens
and legal permanent residents.

My benefit of $200 per child seems low. However, I realise that to
avoid
encouraging high fertility, the amount must be less than the minimum
reasonable cost of raising a child. Also, as it may be assumed that
persons relying on the basic income are not working, it is unnecessary
to
account for regular child care; likewise, as health care will be free
I
do not need to include that, either.

Another issue is that I do not vary the amount with place of
residence,
while everyone knows that some places have a significantly higher cost
of
living than others. I answer that the reason such places do have such
a
high cost of living is the high demand to live there, and that
varying
the basic income by place of residence will only drive that demand
higher, thus further increasing the cost. The only way to partially
equalise these differences is to encourage more housing developement
in
high-cost areas, bringing the price of housing down there.

The amount would of course be automatically indexed to the cost of
living.

Paying for it

Concrete proposals for a basic income usually include a flat income
tax
(hence the term negative income tax - the benefit can be thought of as
a
flat tax minus the benefit amount). I concur. With a flat tax, it
makes
no difference if it is figured by individuals or married couples, so
I
will do it by individuals to match the benefit. My tax would have no
exceptions, and go from 30% up to 70%, with most ordinary people in
the
30% bracket and the very rich in the 70%. This would apply only to
earned
income (wages, salaries, and other compensation for work performed).
Investment income would be capped at 30% to avoid disadvantaging
investing, and punishing people for living on investment income.

Likewise, the corporate income tax, though it can not be made exactly
flat, would be made far more so, at 30 or 40%, greatly increasing
revenue; this is only restoring it to where it was in the 1950s.

Considering the amount of the benefit named above, the federal
government's revenue would have to approximately double to pay it.
The
taxes above would go a long way toward that, and others could make up
the
difference. The most important figure is the proportion of total GDP;
my
benefit would be approximately 38% of current GDP, which is not out
of
bounds for goverment revenue.

The basic law of the basic income

The basic income would surely decrease the amount of work performed.
Many
people would choose to not work at all, or to work only part-time,
rather
than a conventional job. Hence we may be certain that the average
income
would fall. This should not be a large effect, as soon employers
would
adjust to the new conditions, but it will exist. If the average
income
falls, while the worst-off become better off, it can only be by
decreasing the income of the rich. Indeed this will occur, by means
of
the taxes I propose, as well as the fact that businesses will have
less
to spend on salaries.

Automation

Though the essential argument does not depend on it, many thinkers
have
proposed that the basic income is essential to implement because of
automation. This may be.

I have a different argument, though: that the possibility of
automating
many jobs will dramatically reduce the impact of the basic income of
national production. As the effective cost of unskilled labor rises,
the
incentive to automate jobs that have not been automated increases.
For
example, I just observed, when making a doctor's appointment, that
that
could be entirely automated given what it now entails - of course, in
this particular case, a national health-care system would allow it to
be
done easily.

The basic income also reduces the impact of further automation on the
economy, as workers that lose their jobs face no risk of starving and
can
take ample time to train for a new career if desired. And as I know
that
most jobs can be largely automated, I would not be surprised if, say,
30-50 years after implementing a basic income less than 20% of adults
were working a normal job, calculated as full-time equivalents.

Therefore, this plan allows us to choose, individually, whether to
take
productivity increases as more leisure or more money. This is another
way
in which the basic income increases freedom.

Is it a form of communism?

If we consider the goal of communism to provide everyone a decent
living,
then we can say the basic income has the same goal. But nonetheless,
it
does not have the deficiencies of Marxist government.

First, it does not give any more power to the government. To the
contrary, government will have less power if anything.

Second, it does not try to abolish money. It is true that the world
once
ran without money, but the trend throughout history has been to put
more
and more on a money basis. It is today impossible to live even a
short
time without money in some form. The basic income accepts this.

Third, it has no ideological component beyond the basic idea. I'm
sure
everyone knows that governments having an ideological basis become
tyrannical because of their need to suppress dissent. This includes,
of
course, all historical communist governments.

Its effect on crime and criminals

I do not know for certain what impact it will have upon crime.
However, I
surmise that crime will be reduced overall. As no one would feel the
need
to turn to crime for a living, it would become a less attractive
option.
This applies especially to men getting out of prison, who now often
feel
unable to get reasonable work again and therefore want to go back to
the
criminal world.

Some crimes, of course, are unrelated to money, but I can not believe
there would be any substantial rise in their incidence. I am somewhat
concerned that the law would create more 'idle hands', but know that
reducing the overall level of crime would allow us to focus more on
eliminating the criminal subcultures that remain.

An end to wage-slavery

But all this is surpassed, of course, by the most pointed reason for
the
basic income; namely, to reduce the disparity of power between
employer
and employee. No longer would the boss be able to rely on employees'
willingness to do anything to avoid termination, for no one would have
to
fear his life reaching a crisis due to job loss. It is true that the
rich
would nonetheless have a significant reduction in income, but they
tend
to be treated better by their employers anyway, and also likely have
savings sufficient to make temporary loss of work less traumatic (As
well, many weathly couples have two incomes; I will not cite that as
a
primary reasons because I am focusing only on individuals in this
paper.)

Ironically, this scourge, created by this existence of money, will be
ended by money.

Andrew Usher

Androcles

unread,
Jul 12, 2008, 5:23:55 AM7/12/08
to

"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:40264ba7-c52c-4775...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

|I propose the basic income, also known as the guaranteed minimum
| income
| or negative income tax, for modern civilised society. This entails
| that
| every person would receive a fixed payment from the government, which
| is
| enough to maintain oneself without working. I further maintain that
| this
| is only practical with a system of true national health care, as, for
| one, persons with significant medical expenses could not rely on the
| basic income otherwise.
|
| How should it work?
|
| I will refer only to the USA


HA! As if that were a modern civilised society.

Now, please note the newsgroups you are posting to and
ask yourself what your post has to do with chemistry, physics,
mathematics and astronomy, you uncivilised cunt, and kindly
fuck off.


Andrew Usher

unread,
Jul 12, 2008, 7:52:38 AM7/12/08
to
How does this affect men's rights?

The essential difference between the opportunities afforded to the
sexes
at present is that women can normally rely on a man to support them,
if need be, and thus need not work, and most men must.

Therefore, the basic income, alone, would be a great step forward
for men. But there is more: with an income assured to all, the
justification for alimony and child support disappears. It would be
reasonable, then, to completely abolish them upon its implementation.
But if not, at least to protect the basic income from any awards.

How does this affect youth rights?

A few weeks ago, I wrote an essay, which is here

http://www.youthrights.org/forums/showthread.php?t=14961

proposing that the age of majority be made 15, and outlining a plan
to secure adult rights to young people (i.e. 15-20 years old). Since
the basic income would be paid to all adults, that would necessarily
entail that that be given to all those 15 and over (instead of 18 as
at
present).

Regardless of whether the age is 15, 18, 21, or otherwise, the plan
would surely cause more young people choosing to leave home
shortly after that age, simply because that would not require
employment. It does not seem that having the age 15 is much worse,
even if one considers this a bad thing.

Note that although many people in the youth rights movement say
that there should be no age of majority, it is plainly ridiculous to
not have a threshold age for the basic income, and paying it upon
birth would (as discussed above) become a huge reward for having
children, which can not be tolerated.

Andrew Usher

Tomoko Kanazawa dom arigato

unread,
Jul 12, 2008, 8:30:23 AM7/12/08
to
Economists and rich people everywhere will criticize this and probably
try to kill you.

Here's an interesting question. When we finally have enough robots and
automation to do "all" of the work, what will people do with
themselves ?

Ultimately, man must transition from being primarily a producer of
tangible goods into a producer of intangible goods. Can that
transformation take place without millions of people dieing in the
process ?

I'm all for it.

Uncle Al

unread,
Jul 12, 2008, 11:54:37 AM7/12/08
to
Andrew Usher wrote:
>
> I propose the basic income, also known as the guaranteed minimum
> income
> or negative income tax, for modern civilised society. This entails
> that
> every person would receive a fixed payment from the government,
[snip high school fabulist crap]

If you think things are expensive when you pay for them, just wait
until the government gives them to you for free. Government cannot
award people what it first has not stolen from them. What one man
receives without effort is confiscated from another who labors.

1) Do not penalize the productive.
2) Do not reward the unproductive.
3) Bottom line: Do NOTHING - no social engineering.
4) All economic problems will solve themselves within 90 days.
5) The alternative is mathematically inevitable utter ruin,

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/comprom.htm

We are from the government. We are here to help ourselves to you. We
have come for a piece of all mankind.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

galathaea

unread,
Jul 12, 2008, 12:51:50 PM7/12/08
to
On Jul 12, 7:30 am, Tomoko Kanazawa dom arigato

vonnegut's "player piano" has a particularly interesting take on this

it's also one of the earlier references
to what today might be described as industrial music
though vertov's notes for the silent
"man with a movie camera"
also give play to some of the same ideas

but
as the buddhists pointed out years ago
every living being has a burden just for being alive
and we haven't built the robots to automate this yet

until then
suggestions like the op's would only
halt the economy
stop food supplies and cause mass starvation
corrode the power grid (which requires constant maintenance)
and push us back to primitivism

if this was cost effective today it would be done naturally
since having infallible workers for 24-hour-a-day shifts
is certainly desirable by rich industrialists
but it requires significant investment and recurring costs
and does not reduce manpower significantly due to maintenance

it's only effect would be to bankrupt the economy

collective goals to reduce the burden of living is noble
but they must take an approach
founded in the dynamics they attempt to alter

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar

Huang

unread,
Jul 12, 2008, 2:00:36 PM7/12/08
to

I applaud him for thinking about such things, but the world aint ready
for it yet.

A completely artificial economy simply is not an economy. You need
free market processes, it makes much more sense to tear down the
barriers which block capitalism here in the US.

Question for the OP -
- Have you ever even tried to start up a business ? If you are in the
US, you will notice a couple things right away. #1, you wont get any
help from anyone, especially if you are just starting out. You will
have to comply with an endless list of zoning, licensing, permits,
vetting, and an infinite list of other stupid things.

The people who succeed are those who can fly under the radar somehow,
and THEN you need to find your customers and take care of them.

But the number of roadblocks which were put in place by the government
makes it VERY difficult for someone who was born here to start a
business. It is much easier if you come here from a different country
because there are people here (in government) who will help you get up
and running. The other alternative is to just move to Mexico, start up
a business there, and sell all of your crap here in this country.

Local governments dont really care if you are creating jobs or not.
Call them and tell them you want to open a business and create jobs.
They will probably hang up on you. Dont believe me ? Make the phone
call. They simply dont give a shit about anything beyond their own
supersized paychecks. And yes, I speak from experience.

People in government will kick sand in your face because US
citizenship has NO VALUE in their eyes. The only thing that they have
any respect for is $$$$$$$$. Get it ? So either get your ass out there
and vote the motherfuckers out of office, or suck it up and waste your
right to vote by being a sap. What you need to do is "cooperate" with
your fellow citizens to use your power to vote collectively like a big
flyswatter, and when you get an insect in a place of power you need to
SWAT HIM LIKE A ROACH.

Andrew Usher

unread,
Jul 12, 2008, 7:11:04 PM7/12/08
to
On Jul 12, 6:30 am, Tomoko Kanazawa dom arigato

As far as the psychological factors, I don't know. I'm sure we'll have
to find a way.

My plan only ensures that the economy will not suffer a crisis due
to this - that's the extent of my competence, I don't think anyone
can really plan out how people should live.

Andrew Usher

Andrew Usher

unread,
Jul 12, 2008, 7:14:21 PM7/12/08
to
On Jul 12, 9:54 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:

> If you think things are expensive when you pay for them, just wait
> until the government gives them to you for free. Government cannot
> award people what it first has not stolen from them. What one man
> receives without effort is confiscated from another who labors.
>
> 1) Do not penalize the productive.
> 2) Do not reward the unproductive.
> 3) Bottom line: Do NOTHING - no social engineering.
> 4) All economic problems will solve themselves within 90 days.
> 5) The alternative is mathematically inevitable utter ruin,
>
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/comprom.htm
>
> We are from the government. We are here to help ourselves to you. We
> have come for a piece of all mankind.
>

This isn't an argument and I'm well out of high school.
Your 'plan' is nothing.

Andrew Usher

Andrew Usher

unread,
Jul 12, 2008, 7:18:52 PM7/12/08
to
On Jul 12, 12:00 pm, Huang <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> A completely artificial economy simply is not an economy. You need
> free market processes, it makes much more sense to tear down the
> barriers which block capitalism here in the US.

I would be all in favor of removing such barriers, but I'm trying to
focus one one point at a time.

What you complain of is a politcally difficult issue because most
people aren't aware of it, and those that are may well have an
interest in the current system.

Andrew Usher

Uncle Al

unread,
Jul 12, 2008, 8:10:56 PM7/12/08
to

That's right, nothing. No government interference except for the big
things like national defense and currency - then, good and hard. The
indigent will not starve less State-mandated charity. They will work
or starve. That's a good choice. That is always the best choice
throughout history. If you cannot afford medical care you die, or
medical care recouples price and cost. Hey homie, don't get shot or
stabbed in a gang turf war without a bankroll.

Entered Parris Island you could march out a Marine, be imprisoned with
hard labor, or be carried out in a box. Most chose the hard way. Now
the Crucible is scaled down for big-ass Marines. The US deserves to
die.

Andrew Usher

unread,
Jul 12, 2008, 8:40:28 PM7/12/08
to
On Jul 12, 6:10 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> Andrew Usher wrote:
>
> > On Jul 12, 9:54 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
> > > If you think things are expensive when you pay for them, just wait
> > > until the government gives them to you for free. Government cannot
> > > award people what it first has not stolen from them. What one man
> > > receives without effort is confiscated from another who labors.
>
> > > 1) Do not penalize the productive.
> > > 2) Do not reward the unproductive.
> > > 3) Bottom line: Do NOTHING - no social engineering.
> > > 4) All economic problems will solve themselves within 90 days.
> > > 5) The alternative is mathematically inevitable utter ruin,
>
> > >http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/comprom.htm
>
> > > We are from the government. We are here to help ourselves to you. We
> > > have come for a piece of all mankind.
>
> > This isn't an argument and I'm well out of high school.
> > Your 'plan' is nothing.
>
> That's right, nothing. No government interference except for the big
> things like national defense and currency - then, good and hard. The
> indigent will not starve less State-mandated charity. They will work
> or starve. That's a good choice. That is always the best choice
> throughout history. If you cannot afford medical care you die, or
> medical care recouples price and cost. Hey homie, don't get shot or
> stabbed in a gang turf war without a bankroll.

Uncle Al should be thanked for demonstrating what is only
implicit in the arguments of most libertarians: namely, that
libertarianism isn't really an ideology at all, it has no
intellectual argument behind it, it is simply force in the
service of the corporate slave-masters, lies to persuade
the proles that they're really good for us. Hence it deserves
zero credibility.

Why do libertarians think this way? It is because they
fantasise they they are such special people that they
would 'make it' in any social system, so no matter what
help they needed to get where they are, they can
rationalise that as irrelevant.

Andrew Usher

pnachtwey

unread,
Jul 12, 2008, 10:00:03 PM7/12/08
to
This is where you lose all credibility. You would be free to work for
yourself, others or starve. You would enslave others to feed you or
use a proxy government force other to feed you.

>
> Why do libertarians think this way?

Because we are not ants.

Peter Nachtwey

rdu...@pdq.net

unread,
Jul 12, 2008, 10:12:21 PM7/12/08
to

China, India, and much of the developing world would be thrilled if
the US adopted your scheme. The future would be handed to them on a
plate. How do you think a system like you propose could ever produce
anything competetive in terms of price and quality with one where
everyone is, in effect, a trust-fund kid?

Andrew Usher

unread,
Jul 12, 2008, 10:15:08 PM7/12/08
to
On Jul 12, 8:00 pm, pnachtwey <pnacht...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Uncle Al should be thanked for demonstrating what is only
> > implicit in the arguments of most libertarians: namely, that
> > libertarianism isn't really an ideology at all, it has no
> > intellectual argument behind it, it is simply force in the
> > service of the corporate slave-masters, lies to persuade
> > the proles that they're really good for us. Hence it deserves
> > zero credibility.
>
> This is where you lose all credibility. You would be free to work for
> yourself, others or starve. You would enslave others to feed you or
> use a proxy government force other to feed you.

This is so far off the mark I don't know how to answer it.

People like you (assuming you're honest) were not attracted
to libertarianism by reason. No, you were attracted because
it gave a simple solution to the fact that you haven't achieved
as much as you would like: it's the government! Like all cults,
libertarianism functions by giving the believer someone to hate.

And it is a general rule that you can't reason a man out of
a position he didn't reason himself in to.

> > Why do libertarians think this way?
>
> Because we are not ants.

Wow, that's a pretty big non sequitur!

I see you snipped my actual explanation. No doubt: you
can't admit its truth.

A better one-sentence explanation would be 'Because we
are hypocrites.' - just like your HERO Ayn Rand who never
did any honest work in her life!

Andrew Usher

Andrew Usher

unread,
Jul 12, 2008, 10:35:52 PM7/12/08
to
On Jul 12, 8:12 pm, "rdub...@pdq.net" <rdub...@pdq.net> wrote:

> China, India, and much of the developing world would be thrilled if
> the US adopted your scheme. The future would be handed to them on a
> plate. How do you think a system like you propose could ever produce
> anything competetive in terms of price and quality with one where
> everyone is, in effect, a trust-fund kid?

Well, this is an intelligent criticism, so I'm bound to give an
intelligent answer.

You're concerned about our manufacturing capability. The fact is
that much of that has already been moved to China, India, etc. ,
and that will continue on our current course. Much of that
remaining here has been extensively automated, and now
requires many fewer hands, and thus increasing the cost of
labor will not affect it nearly so much; that trend will also
continue. So I don't think the effect on our manufacturing
industries will be too troubling.

Perhaps you are referring to intangible products instead,
like computer software, to take the most obvious example.
These products of the mind have also been affected by
offshoring, but even ignoring that, I do not think this much
more serious. People will still work in such industries;
the cost of American labor there is already fairly high and
so would not increase by much in proportion; also,
increased labor costs have always driven increases in the
productivity of labor, so that the total cost of labor goes
up more slowly than wages.

Remember, the basic income is just barely adequate,
and even if we had more resources, I would keep it at
that level, so as not to reduce the incentive to engage
in productive work too much.

You also mention that 'everyone is a trust-fund kid' under
my scheme. I suppose you can say that, but it's purely
an emotional reaction to believe that that's a bad thing.
We now do have the resources to provide everyone that
level of wealth - actually, we have for about 40 years.

Andrew Usher

Benj

unread,
Jul 13, 2008, 3:36:28 AM7/13/08
to
On Jul 12, 11:54 am, Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:

> [snip high school fabulist crap]
>
> If you think things are expensive when you pay for them, just wait
> until the government gives them to you for free.  Government cannot
> award people what it first has not stolen from them.  What one man
> receives without effort is confiscated from another who labors.

Ah so. Only this is a very OLD idea. Nixon (remember that
"personification of evil" of the uber left?) proposed to END ALL
POVERTY for citizens of the united states. No, not a "great society"
or "War against poverty" or "1000 points of light". it was the
"negative" income tax. Above the official "poverty level" everybody
pays taxes as usual, but once your income dropped below the poverty
line, you'd get a tax "refund" rather than paying taxes to provide the
money to boost you back to the poverty level. Sure there'd be some
people who'd not work at all and live at the poverty level for free.
It didn't need to be set real high. But it might keep them in beer,
cigarettes, guns and ammo. But most wouldn't opt for that. And IF you
wanted to live better, all you had to do was work harder and make more
money! No millions of bureaucrats watching the poor and setting rules
to keep them oppressed and making sure that if they earn an extra dime
they lose everything! In fact, ALL those bureaucrats not needed at
all! All of them FIRED! Not only would this have eliminated ALL
poverty in America but also SAVED money too. Note that it was
estimated if all the money spent on welfare and "helping' the
"poor" (in those days) were instead simply GIVEN TO THEM, they'd each
be getting $30,000 a year! Needless to say they weren't getting it.

So. There is is. A plan to cut costs for helping the poor. A plan to
ACTUALLY eliminate ALL poverty in the country FOREVER! A plan that
would greatly reduce the size of government by eliminating
administration of programs for the "poor". [Their'd be no more poor,
remember?] And would actually lower taxes while eliminating poverty.
Here's the history test, kiddies: What happened to this plan? I'll
give you ONE guess. That's right. EVERY POLITICIAN and BUREAUCRAT in
Washington and beyond was dead set AGAINST this idea. Democrats,
Republicans, independents, socialists, commies, EVERY ONE OF THEM
opposed this idea. EVERYBODY with a voice in government wanted to keep
poor people poor! Absolutely nobody wanted to give the poor a way out
of poverty. Nobody wanted them anything but totally subservient and
dependent upon government hand-outs. It's a wonder they didn't
propose handing out blankets for the poor infected with small pox.

So that is what YOUR bunch of lying politicians in Washington are all
about. They talk the talk but do not walk the walk. All they know is
grab the money and grab the power. And a freely upward mobile
underclass is definitely what they DO NOT want to see.

So much for the "negative tax" as a solution to anything.

tadchem

unread,
Jul 13, 2008, 7:52:39 AM7/13/08
to
On Jul 12, 4:59 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The only way to "end wage slavery" is to end wages.

That means bringing back REAL slavery.

Consider how well governments have done running things like a health
care system (the Veteran's Administration), mass transit (AMTRAK), and
the wars on poverty, terrorism, and so on.

Unfortunately, in the real world there are people who will kick back
and do nothing but whine (as Phil Gramm pointed out) while expecting
the government to give them everything they ask for free. Some people
just don't have the personal motivation to live as Libertarians - to
"Live Free of Die".

Socialism rapidly degenerates into first a feudal system and then an
autocracy.

Do you REALLY want your whole life run by under-motivated civil
servants who have no personal knowledge of your situation and no
vested interest in improving it? People who can sit and watch, doing
nothing as a patient spends 24 hours dying from DVT while waiting in
an *Emergency Room*?

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

Andrew Usher

unread,
Jul 13, 2008, 8:26:11 AM7/13/08
to
On Jul 13, 5:52 am, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Consider how well governments have done running things like a health
> care system (the Veteran's Administration), mass transit (AMTRAK), and
> the wars on poverty, terrorism, and so on.

Well, the basic income is too simple to run incompetently, so that's
not a concern. It's true that it would be accompanied by universal
health care, but the experience of other countries that have it shows
that it's not that bad. Mostly your assertions are just rhetoric.

> Unfortunately, in the real world there are people who will kick back
> and do nothing but whine (as Phil Gramm pointed out) while expecting
> the government to give them everything they ask for free. Some people
> just don't have the personal motivation to live as Libertarians - to
> "Live Free of Die".

Freedom to work for a corporate master is not freedom. 'Whining'
has nothing to do with it.

> Socialism rapidly degenerates into first a feudal system and then an
> autocracy.

And I suppose you could cite some real examples of this
transformation?

> Do you REALLY want your whole life run by under-motivated civil
> servants who have no personal knowledge of your situation and no
> vested interest in improving it? People who can sit and watch, doing
> nothing as a patient spends 24 hours dying from DVT while waiting in
> an *Emergency Room*?

Government health care could actually prevent such tragedies;
private health care has no incentive to, especially in the form
in which we implement it. A truly private health system would
involve everyone paying cash up front and I don't see anyone
proposing that.

Andrew Usher

Andrew Usher

unread,
Jul 13, 2008, 8:28:33 AM7/13/08
to
On Jul 13, 1:36 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

<snip good presentation>

Yeah, that's basically what the basic income does - completely
ends poverty. And we need it especially for all the bureaucrats
thrown out of work by it!

Andrew Usher

jmfbahciv

unread,
Jul 13, 2008, 8:34:39 AM7/13/08
to
Andrew Usher wrote:
> On Jul 12, 6:30 am, Tomoko Kanazawa dom arigato
> <huangxienc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Economists and rich people everywhere will criticize this and probably
>> try to kill you.
>>
>> Here's an interesting question. When we finally have enough robots and
>> automation to do "all" of the work, what will people do with
>> themselves ?
>>
>> Ultimately, man must transition from being primarily a producer of
>> tangible goods into a producer of intangible goods. Can that
>> transformation take place without millions of people dieing in the
>> process ?
>
> As far as the psychological factors, I don't know. I'm sure we'll have
> to find a way.
>
> My plan only ensures that the economy will not suffer a crisis due
> to this -

Right. It will be completely destroyed.

>that's the extent of my competence, I don't think anyone
> can really plan out how people should live.

But your writeup has everybody becoming poor and loving it.

/BAH

>
> Andrew Usher

jmfbahciv

unread,
Jul 13, 2008, 8:56:00 AM7/13/08
to

You need to work two years on a farm that has not been mechanized.

/BAH

rdu...@pdq.net

unread,
Jul 13, 2008, 10:42:56 AM7/13/08
to

I do see the logic in your ideas. Your proposal is not all bad. I am
afraid however that in practice the truism, "Character is Destiny"
would still exert itself. IOWs, way too many people and groups would
convert those monthly checks straight into booze and crack and never
do anything useful or located in reality their whole lives. THe
Founders of this country mostly agreed that a system like ours really
only can work when the bulk of the people act for the most part in
socially responsible ways. Freedom, at the end of the day, cannot
exist for long unless it is generally understood to mean freedom to
choose your own way to be industrious and un-hurtful. And how would
having children grow up (all children not just from loser/dependency
ridden groups) believing from birth that no effort from them is
required to be a member in good standing? Why is it that there is so
much downward mobility in America? Lots of kids of the successful fail
to develop the drive and sense of realism needed to get off their
asses.
I am of the opinion that the difference between progressive successful
societies and the other kind is found in how the top half behaves and
not in regard to the bottom layers. Inert, stoned, criminal folks are
the same everywhere. The question is, do the potential winners make a
dash for it or not.
So, is a trust fund from birth more like a cup of coffee in the
morning or a bong-hit of weed?

pnachtwey

unread,
Jul 13, 2008, 4:16:48 PM7/13/08
to
If you don't want to be a wage slave you are free to get your own
company. Leave us alone.
Can't you see it is you that is trying to force your will on everyone
else?

Peter Nachtwey

Bill Penrose

unread,
Jul 13, 2008, 6:12:23 PM7/13/08
to
On Jul 12, 5:40 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why do libertarians think this way? It is because they
> fantasise they they are such special people that they
> would 'make it' in any social system,

The economics theory journal Mad Magazine once put it, "He never knew
how many people it takes to make one self-made man."

Dangerous Bill

Avenger

unread,
Jul 14, 2008, 2:58:33 AM7/14/08
to

"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c29d3e94-03bf-469a...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

> On Jul 13, 5:52 am, tadchem <tadc...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Consider how well governments have done running things like a health
>> care system (the Veteran's Administration), mass transit (AMTRAK), and
>> the wars on poverty, terrorism, and so on.
>
> Well, the basic income is too simple to run incompetently, so that's
> not a concern. It's true that it would be accompanied by universal
> health care, but the experience of other countries that have it shows
> that it's not that bad. Mostly your assertions are just rhetoric.
>
>> Unfortunately, in the real world there are people who will kick back
>> and do nothing but whine (as Phil Gramm pointed out) while expecting
>> the government to give them everything they ask for free. Some people
>> just don't have the personal motivation to live as Libertarians - to
>> "Live Free of Die".
>
> Freedom to work for a corporate master is not freedom. 'Whining'
> has nothing to do with it.


There will always be the Alphas, Betas and Gammas in every society
regardless of whether it is a capitalistic or communist one. You think the
2% in the communist party in Russia lived like the rest of the people? The
top people had the best residences in Moscow and country estates or dachas
outside in the surburbs or in Sochi. They shopped at special stores or
bought what they wanted on trips outside of Russia.


>
>> Socialism rapidly degenerates into first a feudal system and then an
>> autocracy.
>
> And I suppose you could cite some real examples of this
> transformation?

Every place where it's been tried. You had the elite and the proles not too
different than in the novel 1984.


>
>> Do you REALLY want your whole life run by under-motivated civil
>> servants who have no personal knowledge of your situation and no
>> vested interest in improving it? People who can sit and watch, doing
>> nothing as a patient spends 24 hours dying from DVT while waiting in
>> an *Emergency Room*?

Let's remember that this was a psychiatric hospital and personal sees people
rolling on the floor all the time. Yes, they should be more diligent but in
99% of the cases it's just one of the mental patients acting up.

>
> Government health care could actually prevent such tragedies;
> private health care has no incentive to,

They certainly do; it's called a lawsuit. The government is immune in many
cases or there are strict rules and procedures you need to follow to sue the
gov't and there are usually limits on the judgements and punitive danages
(if any allowed at all)

especially in the form
> in which we implement it. A truly private health system would
> involve everyone paying cash up front and I don't see anyone
> proposing that.

You see this all the time in places like the UK where there is socialised
medicine. If you want the good doctors at your convenience you either pay up
front or show that you have private insurance to pay the bill.

>
> Andrew Usher


Avenger

unread,
Jul 14, 2008, 3:09:17 AM7/14/08
to

<rdu...@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:d6a8102f-6cc7-416e...@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...

They're doing it now. A good 10% of the US lives this way. You want to make
it 90%?


and never
do anything useful or located in reality their whole lives. THe
Founders of this country mostly agreed that a system like ours really
only can work when the bulk of the people act for the most part in
socially responsible ways.

The population back then was mostly homogenous and literate. Craftsmen and
workers were well paid and lived decently for the time.

Freedom, at the end of the day, cannot
exist for long unless it is generally understood to mean freedom to
choose your own way to be industrious and un-hurtful. And how would
having children grow up (all children not just from loser/dependency
ridden groups) believing from birth that no effort from them is
required to be a member in good standing? Why is it that there is so
much downward mobility in America? Lots of kids of the successful fail
to develop the drive and sense of realism needed to get off their
asses.

Well, it's even higher among the unsucessful. At least the children of the
sucessful had a good model and probably got some education pounded into
their heads. The lower orders are completely lost with only rare exceptions.


I am of the opinion that the difference between progressive successful
societies and the other kind is found in how the top half behaves and
not in regard to the bottom layers. Inert, stoned, criminal folks are
the same everywhere. The question is, do the potential winners make a
dash for it or not.
So, is a trust fund from birth more like a cup of coffee in the
morning or a bong-hit of weed?

From what I've seen it's more like a sedative.


Viking

unread,
Jul 14, 2008, 12:17:06 PM7/14/08
to
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 05:30:23 -0700 (PDT), Tomoko Kanazawa dom arigato
<huangx...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Economists and rich people everywhere will criticize this and probably
>try to kill you.
>
>Here's an interesting question. When we finally have enough robots and
>automation to do "all" of the work, what will people do with
>themselves ?

Starve. It's the people who OWN the robots that will prosper.

Fred Kasner

unread,
Jul 14, 2008, 6:28:40 PM7/14/08
to

You are totally wrong about the claim that in the late 18th century
craftsmen and workers were well paid and live decently for the time. The
thing that kept the population from pressuring the Indians and grabbing
more land on the frontier was that most people did not have much if any
financial resources. Land was the great attraction since if you could
successfully farm well chosen land you could manage to live off the land
and generate enough income to purchase those small essentials that any
household needed and each generation could increase in material wealth
generated by very hard labor and shortened life spans. The women were
worked to death. Only those who managed to marry a rich man could count
on a reasonable life span. Those who married poor were sure to perish
from overwork. And when those who had no land entered the factories they
were doomed. The budding capitalists who built factories were without
any hearts at all. They worked women and young people until they
dropped. Any attempt a labor activism led to immediate firing. It was a
tough life.
FK

trigonometry1972@gmail.com |

unread,
Jul 15, 2008, 5:05:10 AM7/15/08
to
On Jul 12, 5:40 pm, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I see Al viewpoints are those of an old line Progressive based on a
Darwinian
survival of the fittest concept. Libertarians will proposed one
damaged
by pollution sue the polluter, but of course the "conservatives"
have cap damages and stacked the deck in the legal systems.
This is all a dance. When a party is out of power it can propose
its "ideal" solutions but once in power it has its set of
less than ideal solutions. The far Left read the far Right and
they both copy each other. And the middle parties are often
rotten to the core and are beholden to those who brought
to the big party.

All government steal whether they are Libertarian, Progressive,
Representative,
Democratic, or Autocratic. In a pinch they will draft the young and
the able to offer on the alter of Mars. Does this prevent worse
things? Sometimes but often not.

Avenger

unread,
Jul 15, 2008, 4:19:31 PM7/15/08
to

"Fred Kasner" <fka...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:urQek.4941$np7....@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com...

Land was given to people like the Penns etc and protected by the British
military which is what those tiny taxes were paying for.It was very hard to
get people to live in the colonies without some incentives and there was a
shortage of labour.

since if you could
> successfully farm well

What makes you think it was all about farming? NY the largest city was more
about trading.

chosen land you could manage to live off the land
> and generate enough income to purchase those small essentials that any
> household needed and each generation could increase in material wealth
> generated by very hard labor and shortened life spans. The women were
> worked to death. Only those who managed to marry a rich man could count on
> a reasonable life span.

Nonsense. Even the slaves in the south in the US had a relatively easy life
compared to the rest of the world.


Those who married poor were sure to perish
> from overwork. And when those who had no land entered the factories they
> were doomed.

What factories existed in 1780 in the US? In fact, that was one of the
reasons the greedy colonists declared independence;to be able to manufacture
their own goods rather than send the raw materials to England.

The budding capitalists who built factories were without
> any hearts at all. They worked women and young people until they dropped.
> Any attempt a labor activism led to immediate firing. It was a tough life.

Go back to school, brainwashed fool.


> FK


rdu...@pdq.net

unread,
Jul 15, 2008, 6:52:30 PM7/15/08
to
On Jul 15, 1:19 pm, "Avenger" <aven...@avengers.co.uk> wrote:
> "Fred Kasner" <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:urQek.4941$np7....@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Avenger wrote:
> >> <rdub...@pdq.net> wrote in message
> > FK- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

THe "difficulties" between the colonists and the Mother Country really
had nothing to do with taxes or economics. That was just a cover story
that was convenient to both sides. The real question was, "Will the
American land mass be under local, unified political control or not?"
Despite an abundance of good will towards their American cousins, the
British ruling class was finally not willing to let them take control
of the whole continent no matter how friendly the Americans might be
towards GB. IOWs, divide to conquer was a fixed idea in London which
could not be given up in those days. The underlying problem for London
was that the elites in America had such stratospheric notions of their
own destiny, no rope or bridle could ever be kept on them for long.
And the bulk of the Scots-Irish colonial underclass were not going to
be pro-British now were they?

jmfbahciv

unread,
Jul 16, 2008, 9:17:52 AM7/16/08
to
Avenger wrote:

<snip>

> What factories existed in 1780 in the US?

You really do need to learn how things were.

>In fact, that was one of the
> reasons the greedy colonists declared independence;to be able to manufacture
> their own goods rather than send the raw materials to England.

Which were?

<snip>

/BAH

Huang

unread,
Jul 16, 2008, 9:36:03 AM7/16/08
to
On Jul 16, 8:17 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
> Avenger wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > What factories existed in 1780 in the US?
>
> You really do need to learn how things were.


Heh. That was the best time manufacturers ever enjoyed.

Agriculture,
Textiles,
Coatings,
Lumber,
Iron,
Bronze,
Coal,
and of course Human Trafficing (Slavery) which still exists today.


> >In fact, that was one of the
> > reasons the greedy colonists declared independence;to be able to manufacture
> > their own goods rather than send the raw materials to England.


Wrong. The problem was taxation without representation. A problem
which is even worse today than it was back then.

And if you think that you are represented by your government, just
call them on the phone sometime and you'll find out how sincerely they
care about your problems. Think "Hurricane Katrina", or maybe Waco.

I feel very RIPPED OFF by my so-called government because I have PAID $
$$$$$ hard earned TAX MONEY for them to defend the constitution, and
all I get is a government that SPIES ON ME, they legalize their own
crimes as if such a thing were possible, domestic SPYING, exporting
TORTURE, and refusing to enforce existing laws such as Immigration
laws. The whole thing adds up to a very bleak picture of a bunch of
desperate men in expensive suits who are NOT really Americans who are
simply pulling the strings, but in reality they all belong in JAIL.

The last thing that they want, the thing that they fear is pure
Democracy. They fear living in a society where people actually vote on
issues and self govern themselves by referrendum. They fear it because
they would lose their precious power which clearly they have abused,
and continue to abuse without shame.

We need to have referrendums on EVERYTHING. No politician should EVER
make a decision on ANYTHING. Everything should be decided by
referrendum !!!!!!!

jmfbahciv

unread,
Jul 16, 2008, 10:13:40 AM7/16/08
to
Huang wrote:
> On Jul 16, 8:17 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:
>> Avenger wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> What factories existed in 1780 in the US?
>> You really do need to learn how things were.
>
>
> Heh. That was the best time manufacturers ever enjoyed.
>
> Agriculture,
> Textiles,

I worked in one of those New England Mills. The floors were
so soaked with lanolin, they were slippery. Fire drills were
no joking matter. I had a pair of shoes with wooden heels;
if I walked too fast, I would slip and slide.

/BAH

Huang

unread,
Jul 16, 2008, 9:29:32 PM7/16/08
to


One of the first big industries in the colonies was making pitch
coatings for ships and whatever else they put it on. One hell of a
coating material, it was a big business.

There are some old blast furnaces which have fallen into ruin in the
eastern states. I saw a photo of one, really quite amazing. Quite
interesting how they did things back then.


Andrew Usher

unread,
Jul 18, 2008, 3:05:07 PM7/18/08
to
On Jul 13, 6:34 am, jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> wrote:

> > My plan only ensures that the economy will not suffer a crisis due
> > to this -
>
> Right. It will be completely destroyed.

And what would be the alternative?

> >that's the extent of my competence, I don't think anyone
> > can really plan out how people should live.
>
> But your writeup has everybody becoming poor and loving it.

What does 'poor' mean here? My plan would prevent anyone
from being really poor.

Andrew Usher

Andrew Usher

unread,
Jul 18, 2008, 3:12:34 PM7/18/08
to
On Jul 13, 8:42 am, "rdub...@pdq.net" <rdub...@pdq.net> wrote:

> Why is it that there is so much downward mobility in America?

I'll answer this separately; I assume 'downward mobility' has
its normal meaning of people not attaining the same class
as their parents. First, if there were no downward
mobility there would be no upward mobility either - this
could be simply a matter of luck.

Second, there is downward mobility in every society. There
is a fundamental demographic reason for this: the rich
always have a birth rate above replacement. This has been
true is just about every society, and is still true in ours, if
one confines oneself to the truly rich.

Third, even if you think that wealth should be passed by
inheritance, we have estate tax, and many wealthy people
do not pass on all their accumulated wealth. All these are
factors other than the one you're thinking of.

Andrew Usher

Jeff▲Relf

unread,
Jul 22, 2008, 1:40:41 AM7/22/08
to
I know a guy who gets almost 900 USD per month ( for disablity ),
but his drug habit ( crack, heroin ) has him “ flying a sign ”
that reads: “ Homeless vet ”.

He is a veteran, but not homeless .. his rent is 375 per month.

Already, jobless mothers have it good .. I see it first-hand.
They get free daycare, free college for themselves,
checks ( cash ) in the mail,

bad-ass apartments for a tiny fraction of those checks,
free medical, free food ( lots of free food, WIC, food stamps, etc. )
free bus fair .. the list goes on and on.

The “ sperm donors ” get the bill in the form of
a nation-wide network of computers implementing
automatic liens .. liens that Never Ever expire ..

liens that no judge can touch.
Interest and penalties of about 12 A.P.R. accrues on this debt.
( penalties vary by state )

How many planets do we have ? two ? no, just one,
and these babies are burning it up like a log in the fire.

Anything short of hibernation will shorten your life ..
and even that could kill you toot sweet.
Same goes for humanity as a whole.

Andrew Usher

unread,
Jul 22, 2008, 11:30:13 AM7/22/08
to
On Jul 21, 11:40 pm, Jeff▲Relf <Jeff_R...@0.Invalid> wrote:
> I know a guy who gets almost 900 USD per month ( for disablity ),
> but his drug habit ( crack, heroin ) has him “ flying a sign ”
> that reads: “ Homeless vet ”.
>
> He is a veteran, but not homeless .. his rent is 375 per month.
>
> Already, jobless mothers have it good .. I see it first-hand.
> They get free daycare, free college for themselves,
> checks ( cash ) in the mail,
>
> bad-ass apartments for a tiny fraction of those checks,
> free medical, free food ( lots of free food, WIC, food stamps, etc. )
> free bus fair .. the list goes on and on.

I admit I'm not an expert on it, but I don't doubt that single mothers
now receive fairly good benefits. Actually my proposal is intended
to economically benefit men more than women.

> The “ sperm donors ” get the bill in the form of
> a nation-wide network of computers implementing
> automatic liens .. liens that Never Ever expire ..
>
> liens that no judge can touch.
> Interest and penalties of about 12 A.P.R. accrues on this debt.
> ( penalties vary by state )

If you're talking about mandatory child support, my proposal
would allow us to eliminate it, or at least seriously reduce it.

> How many planets do we have ? two ? no, just one,
> and these babies are burning it up like a log in the fire.

What?

Andrew Usher

Jeff▲Relf

unread,
Jul 22, 2008, 12:34:39 PM7/22/08
to
As I said:
“ Anything short of hibernation will shorten your life ..

and even that could kill you toot sweet.
Same goes for humanity as a whole. ”.

You don't understand that ?

More “ babies ” spells more consumption,
and, just as drinking too much ruins your health,
overpopulation is ruining the health of the planet.

As you guessed, I was taking about child suport when I said:
“ The ‘ sperm donors ’ get the bill in the form of


a nation-wide network of computers implementing

automatic liens .. liens that Never Ever expire .. ”.

Society is over-feeding the babies and shanking the sperm donors.

Andrew Usher

unread,
Jul 22, 2008, 12:47:31 PM7/22/08
to
(changing the subject line back)

On Jul 22, 10:34 am, Jeff▲Relf <Jeff_R...@0.Invalid> wrote:
> As I said:
> “ Anything short of hibernation will shorten your life ..
> and even that could kill you toot sweet.
> Same goes for humanity as a whole. ”.
>
> You don't understand that ?
>
> More “ babies ” spells more consumption,
> and, just as drinking too much ruins your health,
> overpopulation is ruining the health of the planet.

Yes, but you hardly expressed that. Your quote above
appears to be meaningless.

Andrew Usher

Jeff▲Relf

unread,
Jul 22, 2008, 1:36:48 PM7/22/08
to
I'm sorry you feel the following is “ meaningless ”:

“ Anything short of hibernation will shorten your life ..
and even that could kill you toot sweet.
Same goes for humanity as a whole. ”.

It means that, generally, living faster means dying sooner.
This is true for you, me, and humanity as a whole.

Andrew Usher

unread,
Jul 22, 2008, 1:58:02 PM7/22/08
to

You're an idiot. And stop changing the subject line; that's NOT
what it's for.

Andrew Usher

Jeff▲Relf

unread,
Jul 22, 2008, 2:42:14 PM7/22/08
to
I'm talking to you, Andrew Usher, you're in my “ References: ” field.
Threads drift, the title should reflect that.

“ Except for houseflies, animal species tested with
CR [ Caloric restriction ] so far, including primates,
rats, mice, spiders, Drosophila, C. elegans and rotifers,
have shown lifespan extension.

CR is the only known dietary measure capable of
extending maximum lifespan, as opposed to average lifespan. ”.
-- WikiPedia

Andrew Usher

unread,
Jul 22, 2008, 2:51:08 PM7/22/08
to

Andrew Usher

unread,
Jul 22, 2008, 4:46:44 PM7/22/08
to
I have not mentioned that another concomitant of the basic income, not
absolutely necessary but desirable, would be the abolition of the
minimum wage. The reason, evidently, is that the advantages of having
the minimum wage are obviated by the basic income, while the
disadvantages are not.

That is, the basic income secures to all a more-than-minimum
sustenance, and therefore abolishes the 'iron law of wages'. Since it
would then be possible for a worker to work for arbitrarily low wages
and still maintain himself, the government minimum wage would
not be needed to effect that, as it is now (theoretically, at least).
Rather,
the minimum could be set by the free market as the price workers
place on their time, below which they would lose by taking work.

The economic efficiency of allowing workers to be hired for less than
the current minimum wage is evident, I think. The jobs for which
workers are most likely to be found at such low wages are those for
which the conditions are such that employees would enjoy the work
to a significant extent. Now, there is nothing in between workers
taking nothing (volunteering) and workers taking the minimum wage;
under a system with a basic income opening up that range would
surely be helpful. It might be said that it would discourage
automation - but so what? It would discourage automation only
where it is economically inefficient, and anyway, jobs that can be
automated tend to be not very enjoyable and hence unlikely to be
so affected.

Andrew Usher

Jeff▲Relf

unread,
Jul 22, 2008, 5:46:52 PM7/22/08
to
Each post is unique, a message from me to you.
Threads can branch off anywhere, at anytime.

Andrew Usher

unread,
Jul 22, 2008, 5:50:38 PM7/22/08
to

Jeff▲Relf

unread,
Jul 22, 2008, 6:29:38 PM7/22/08
to
Stop birthing kids while on the dole, genius.

Andrew Usher

unread,
Jul 22, 2008, 6:39:25 PM7/22/08
to
On Jul 22, 4:29 pm, Jeff▲Relf <Jeff_R...@0.Invalid> wrote:

<snip crap>

Michael Moroney

unread,
Jul 22, 2008, 7:08:55 PM7/22/08
to
Andrew Usher <k_over...@yahoo.com> writes:

>On Jul 22, 4:29 pm, Jeff▲Relf <Jeff_R...@0.Invalid> wrote:

><snip crap>

Ignore him, Andrew. Jeff Relf is a pathetic individual who doesn't
understand the concept of convention. It's a good thing he can't afford
a car, because he'd probably drive on the left side of the road or believe
that red traffic lights mean go and green means stop or something.
He rarely posts anything on topic, so just killfile or ignore him.

Jeff▲Relf

unread,
Jul 22, 2008, 8:34:34 PM7/22/08
to
Changing the title to reflect a branch in the thread
is not the same thing as driving down the wrong side of the freeway
or birthing kids while on the dole ( as Andrew Usher does ).

Jeff▲Relf

unread,
Jul 22, 2008, 9:04:10 PM7/22/08
to
Andrew Usher is a victim of his environs, South Dakota.
“ 47 states showed lower teen birth rates than five years before,
but South Dakota was not one of them. ”
-- June 2008,
community.feministing.com/2008/06/south-dakota-fails-to-keep-pac.html

Near as I can tell, this has left him with some serious mental issues.

Jeff▲Relf

unread,
Jul 22, 2008, 10:06:49 PM7/22/08
to
As you indirectly suggested,
a “ sedative ” is exactly what Andrew Usher wants / needs.

Likely, he's a victim of his environs, South Dakota.

The U.S. already has a safty net, and it's producing a lot of kids.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages