Marilyn vos Savant - the conservative counterpoint to the liberal Einstein
Tim Starr
Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>...I would point out that "conservative genius" is
>something of an oxymoron, much like "airline food" or "male
>sensitivity." The greatest scientists in modern history have
>been overwhelmingly liberal, and they include Albert Einstein,
>Stephen Hawking, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein,
>Jean-Paul Sartre, Linus Pauling, John Maynard Keynes, Andrei
>Sakharov, Stephen J. Gould, and almost any other household name
>you could mention. Famous conservative thinkers like Milton
>Friedman do indeed exist but are rare. Ergo, appeals to
>authority are not a promising tack for conservatives.
Except that Russell, Wittgenstein, & Sartre, weren't scientists, they
were philosophers. Keynes was an economist, but hardly great. His
pre-General Theory work was basically straight Marshallian & hard to
distinguish from Monetarism. His main opponent at the London School
of Economics, F.A. Hayek, is one of the 6 libertarian economists to
have been awarded the Nobel Prize for economics for his explanation
of business cycles which he came up with while he was at the LSE &
trying to refute Keynes. That's more than Keynes ever got. The other
5 libertarian Nobel economists are Friedman, Stigler, Coase, Becker,
& Buchanan.
Furthermore, Einstein, Russell, Pauling, & Sakharov were all famous
for their opposition to State interventions into economics & violations
of human rights. Einstein was a strong critic of Alcohol prohibition &
State schooling, Russell was an anarchist & an anti-war activist, Pauling
was a great critic of FDA regulations, & Sakharov was better known as a
human rights activist opposed to the Soviet Socialist police state than
as a scientist.
Let's see: if they were consistent, Einstein would oppose the present
administration's attempts to regulate tobacco as well as make State
schooling more centralized, Russell would oppose sending troops to Bosnia,
Pauling would be opposed to the FDA's censorship of truthful information
about vitamins & nutritional supplements, & Sakharov would be opposed to
the coverups of the Ruby Ridge & Waco Massacres.
If that'd be "liberal," then what would that make the current regime?
>I would also point out that these great liberal scientists made
>lasting contributions to the human race;
Keynes' lasting contribution's the national debt, since he was the most
reputable advocate of deficit-spending. Einstein's lasting contribution's
the nuclear arsenals of the world. The contributions of Sartre & Wittgen-
stein are just more philosophical confusion, which hopefully won't last.
(BTW, Sartre was a communist, & Wittgenstein was a Nazi - what kind of
"liberalism" includes both commies & Nazis?) Those kinds of "lasting
contributions" we can do without, thank you very much!
>Furthermore, I would point out that geniuses are frequently
>brilliant only in narrow and specialized fields. We have had
>many grandmasters - indeed, world chess champions - whose
>general IQs were below average. There are idiot savants who can
>solve the deepest physics problems but do not know how to tie
>their own shoelaces. Hitler had a phenomenal memory - he could
>remember events exactly as they happened 10 years earlier - but
>his disordered thoughts in Mein Kampf prove that he was an
>incoherent thinker.
Sounds like a certain guy from Arkansas who now resides behind the Beltway
I could name...
>For conservatives distressed that Einstein was a liberal...
He was a socialist, actually, but his proposals for the political structure
of Israel were more syndicalist or fascist than anything else.
>...they may take comfort in the fact that his
>political statements have not stood well under the scrutinity
>of serious political scientists.
Just like Keynes' economic statements haven't stood well under the scrutiny
of serious economists, & the philosophic statements of Sartre & Wittgenstein
haven't stood well under the scrutiny of serious philosophers - except that
this is in their professional specialties, of course. Russell's philosophy
hasn't held up too well under philosophic scrutiny, either.
>Autistic people can crunch astronomical numbers but have no idea what they mean
>or represent.
You mean like being able to come up with all sorts of statistics but being
unable to interpret them - like a certain guy whose initials are S.K. that I
could name?
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of ISIL,
The International Society for Individual Liberty,
1800 Market St., San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 864-0952; FAX: (415) 864-7506; 71034...@compuserve.com
http://www.isil.org/
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Keith Marchington
: "How can we live in freedom and maintain that we are entitled
: to *anything* that we can't get without the labor of others?
: Remember, if we are entitled to the labor of others, that makes
: slaves of those others."
: -Marilyn vos Savant
: Parade Magazine, 12/31/95
[ five paragraphs of personal assault on MVS with nary a refutation
of her statement mercifully deleted ]
OK, Steve. Now that we know you don't like any conservatives at all,
why don't you try refuting what she said, instead of who she is.
--
Keith
Walker on Earth
"T. Carr" <tdc...@Coast.net> writes:
>Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>>The conservative partisanship that is regularly beshat out of
>>"Ask Marilyn" each week has finally inspired me to post a flame
>>on this self-proclaimed expert on everything. Undoubtedly there
>>are many who are impressed by her IQ, and therefore swallow
>>every bit of her admittedly coherent but clearly uninformed
>>opinions on every subject under the sun.
> Great Post(sarcasm) A diatribe attacking a person and not bothering to
>refute the position of her quote with facts, data or reasoning.
Excuse me, I believe Mr. Kangas was attacking the use of Ms. Savant
as an authority. I would have to agree with him; two years ago she had
caused to be published a book on Fermat's Last Theorem, a book purported
to 'explain it for the layman', and instead being a hopeless muddle,
confusing as it did- among other things- assumptions, axioms, and def-
initions. If I recall correctly, she has little if any mathematical
training, but she felt sure enough of her 'high IQ' credentials to
present herself as an expert anyway. If her 'high IQ' cannot save her
from such errant non sense on such simple a topic as FLT, I do not think
she should be cited as an authority on political philosophy based solely
on the same. One last observation- she took the same 'IQ' test(actual-
ly some MENSA concoction), question for question, three times before she
obtained her much trumpeted IQ score . . . I think even our own T. Mark
Gibson a.k.a. Synergy would get up to about 160 or thereabouts if af-
forded the same option.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. And many die that deserve life. Is it in
your power to give it to them? Then do not be so quick to deal out death in
judgement, for even the very wise may not see all ends."
Paul Knight
: In article <4ciohc$9...@news.scruz.net>, Steve Kangas
: <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
: > |"How can we live in freedom and maintain that we are entitled
: > |to *anything* that we can't get without the labor of others?
: > |Remember, if we are entitled to the labor of others, that makes
: > |slaves of those others."
: > |
: > | -Marilyn vos Savant
: > | Parade Magazine, 12/31/95
: {snip}
: And not one single word by Steve in his post to refute the simple logic
: and reasoning in Marilyn's statement. In an officiated/judged debate you
: would have gotten few, if any, points, Steve, because your ranting and
: raving proved nothing except that you can't refute the simple logic and
: reasoning in her statement.
Of the statements attributed to Marilyn vos Savant, which, of course is
not her real name, the first is a question. One cannot refute the logic
of the question because it is not a declarative statement, i.e., it states
nothing. The second sentence, in its current form, is an imperative sentence,
that is, it commands one to remember the rest of the statement. Therefore,
it is not making any assertions at all. Rather, it is just telling the
reader to remember a phrase.
In summary, there is no logic to refute since logic deals with the
relationship of declarative statements and not questions or commands.
However, let us assume that the second sentence were converted to a
declarative one by removing the "Remember" part. That is: if we are
entitled to the labors of others, we are slaves of those others.
In my dictionary, the slave is not defined as one who owes someone
else his labor or a part of his labor.
Thus, the quotation is using inflammatory terminology, i.e., slave, to
discredit social obligations and responsibility, which are expected
in every society.
In summary, if the quotation is correct, Marilyn vos Savant is not
nearly as smart as her attributions indicate. Furthermore, using
her statements as authority for renouncing important social responsibility
is just a smoke screen for a completely irresponsible, self-centered
personal attitude.
Peace and good health,
Paul L. Knight
Big O
> |"How can we live in freedom and maintain that we are entitled
> |to *anything* that we can't get without the labor of others?
> |Remember, if we are entitled to the labor of others, that makes
> |slaves of those others."
> |
> | -Marilyn vos Savant
> | Parade Magazine, 12/31/95
{snip}
And not one single word by Steve in his post to refute the simple logic
and reasoning in Marilyn's statement. In an officiated/judged debate you
would have gotten few, if any, points, Steve, because your ranting and
raving proved nothing except that you can't refute the simple logic and
reasoning in her statement.
--
"Big O" <joh...@aimnet.com>
"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."
Frederic Bastiat
Steve Kangas
"How can we live in freedom and maintain that we are entitled
to *anything* that we can't get without the labor of others?
Remember, if we are entitled to the labor of others, that makes
slaves of those others."
-Marilyn vos Savant
Parade Magazine, 12/31/95
The conservative partisanship that is regularly beshat out of
"Ask Marilyn" each week has finally inspired me to post a flame
on this self-proclaimed expert on everything. Undoubtedly there
are many who are impressed by her IQ, and therefore swallow
every bit of her admittedly coherent but clearly uninformed
opinions on every subject under the sun.
To such naifs, I would point out that "conservative genius" is
something of an oxymoron, much like "airline food" or "male
sensitivity." The greatest scientists in modern history have
been overwhelmingly liberal, and they include Albert Einstein,
Stephen Hawking, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein,
Jean-Paul Sartre, Linus Pauling, John Maynard Keynes, Andrei
Sakharov, Stephen J. Gould, and almost any other household name
you could mention. Famous conservative thinkers like Milton
Friedman do indeed exist but are rare. Ergo, appeals to
authority are not a promising tack for conservatives.
I would also point out that these great liberal scientists made
lasting contributions to the human race; MVS seems to be unable
to do little more than solve puzzles in a weekly article for
Parade magazine. I would posit that if she were truly talented
at the scientific method, she would be out there winning Nobel
Prizes.
Furthermore, I would point out that geniuses are frequently
brilliant only in narrow and specialized fields. We have had
many grandmasters - indeed, world chess champions - whose
general IQs were below average. There are idiot savants who can
solve the deepest physics problems but do not know how to tie
their own shoelaces. Hitler had a phenomenal memory - he could
remember events exactly as they happened 10 years earlier - but
his disordered thoughts in Mein Kampf prove that he was an
incoherent thinker. For conservatives distressed that Einstein
was a liberal, they may take comfort in the fact that his
political statements have not stood well under the scrutinity
of serious political scientists. Autistic people can crunch
astronomical numbers but have no idea what they mean or
represent. So just because someone has a mental gift in one
area does not mean they are omniscient on every topic that
humanity has ever grappled with.
Finally, one should make a distinction between reasoning
ability and education. I have no qualms accepting that MVS has
superior reasoning ability. But this hardly means she is
informed. After all, St. Thomas Aquinas was clearly one of the
greatest geniuses in European history, but he was informed by
the writings of Aristotle, and that is why he proclaimed the
earth is flat.
Steve Kangas
Steve Kangas
tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) wrote:
>In article <4ciohc$9...@news.scruz.net>,
>Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>>...I would point out that "conservative genius" is
>>something of an oxymoron, much like "airline food" or "male
>>sensitivity." The greatest scientists in modern history have
>>been overwhelmingly liberal, and they include Albert Einstein,
>>Stephen Hawking, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein,
>>Jean-Paul Sartre, Linus Pauling, John Maynard Keynes, Andrei
>>Sakharov, Stephen J. Gould, and almost any other household name
>>you could mention. Famous conservative thinkers like Milton
>>Friedman do indeed exist but are rare. Ergo, appeals to
>>authority are not a promising tack for conservatives.
>
>Except that Russell, Wittgenstein, & Sartre, weren't scientists, they
>were philosophers.
I'll let that gaffe fall of its own weight.
>Keynes was an economist, but hardly great. His
>pre-General Theory work was basically straight Marshallian & hard to
>distinguish from Monetarism.
Now I know you're economically illiterate. Monetarism and
Keynesianism are diametrically opposed to each other - one of
the great rivalries in economic history.
His main opponent at the London School
>of Economics, F.A. Hayek, is one of the 6 libertarian economists to
>have been awarded the Nobel Prize for economics for his explanation
>of business cycles which he came up with while he was at the LSE &
>trying to refute Keynes. That's more than Keynes ever got.
And Einstein wasn't awarded the Nobel Prize for his theory of
relativity either. Keynes is famous for one of the most famous
accomplishments in all economics: the disappearance of
depressions. Before WWII, it was common for recessions to
worsen into depressions, as happened in 1807, 1837, 1873, 1882,
1893, 1920, 1933 and 1937. But after WWII, when Keynesian
monetary policies were put into practice, the US has had nine
recessions: 1945-46, 49, 54, 56, 60-61, 70, 73-75, 79-82 and
90-92, and not one of them has worsened into a depression. This
is astonishing testimony to the power of Keynesian policies.
The other
>5 libertarian Nobel economists are Friedman, Stigler, Coase, Becker,
>& Buchanan.
These are not household names like Einstein and Hawking, to
whom I was referring.
>
>Furthermore, Einstein, Russell, Pauling, & Sakharov were all famous
>for their opposition to State interventions into economics & violations
>of human rights.
Liberals oppose all violations of human rights; this does not
make them conservatives. And be aware that when I call these
scientists liberal, this is a large classification meaning
generally to the left on the political spectrum. Certainly it
allows for variations and exceptions in individual beliefs.
Einstein was a strong critic of Alcohol prohibition &
>State schooling,
Just as liberals are opposed to drug laws...
>Russell was an anarchist & an anti-war activist,
Again, perfectly consistent with liberal views. (Leftist
anarchists are not uncommon). And on social matters, Russell
was to the left of... well, everybody.
>Pauling was a great critic of FDA regulations,
Pauling was an anti-war activist during the 60s and
an impassioned liberal on most social and economic issues.
>& Sakharov was better known as a
>human rights activist opposed to the Soviet Socialist police state than
>as a scientist.
Sakharov was the father of the Soviet atomic bomb, and one of
the most brilliant physicists of this century. Although not a
communist, he was a liberal in that he was a political
idealist, not a realist. He not only advocated the ending of
the Cold War and complete nuclear disarmament, but insisted on
the establishment of democracy, the protection of the
environment and the upholding of human rights.
(snip)
>
>>I would also point out that these great liberal scientists made
>>lasting contributions to the human race;
>
>Keynes' lasting contribution's the national debt, since he was the most
>reputable advocate of deficit-spending. Einstein's lasting contribution's
>the nuclear arsenals of the world. The contributions of Sartre & Wittgen-
>stein are just more philosophical confusion, which hopefully won't last.
>(BTW, Sartre was a communist, & Wittgenstein was a Nazi - what kind of
>"liberalism" includes both commies & Nazis?) Those kinds of "lasting
>contributions" we can do without, thank you very much!
You're being not a little silly. Keynes advocated mild deficit
spending, and only in depressions - not the orgy of debt that
the Reagan years saw. Oppenheimer - not Einstein - was the one
most responsible for the creation of the atomic bomb.
Wittgenstein returned to Cambridge in 1929, and in 1939 was
awarded the chair of philosophy formerly held by G.E. Moore;
the British would not have bestowed such a high honor on a
Nazi! Cite your sources.
>
(snip)
>
>>For conservatives distressed that Einstein was a liberal...
>
>He was a socialist, actually, but his proposals for the political structure
>of Israel were more syndicalist or fascist than anything else.
Only you would confuse socialism for fascism. By the way, I'm
using the term "liberal" here very broadly, to include
socialism, Marxism, etc.
>
>>...they may take comfort in the fact that his
>>political statements have not stood well under the scrutinity
>>of serious political scientists.
>
>Just like Keynes' economic statements haven't stood well under the scrutiny
>of serious economists, & the philosophic statements of Sartre & Wittgenstein
>haven't stood well under the scrutiny of serious philosophers - except that
>this is in their professional specialties, of course. Russell's philosophy
>hasn't held up too well under philosophic scrutiny, either.
You're a few french fries short of a Happy Meal, aren't you?
Neo-keynesianism is the prevailing economic theory in academia
at the moment, in case you're out of touch with academic
trends. Wittgenstein's has made lasting contributions to the
philosophy of langauge and meaning, and his work is being
carried into many other fields of science and philosophy.
Other famous philosophers are calling him the greatest
philosopher of the 20th century. Russell was one of the
founders of modern logic! Where do you come up with this
unsubstantiated crap?
>
>
>Tim Starr
Steve Kangas
Michael K. Ross
>Kangas wrote:
>
>: "How can we live in freedom and maintain that we are entitled
>: to *anything* that we can't get without the labor of others?
>: Remember, if we are entitled to the labor of others, that makes
>: slaves of those others."
>
>: -Marilyn vos Savant
>: Parade Magazine, 12/31/95
>
>[ five paragraphs of personal assault on MVS with nary a refutation
> of her statement mercifully deleted ]
>
>
>OK, Steve. Now that we know you don't like any conservatives at all,
>why don't you try refuting what she said, instead of who she is.
>
How about this: I'm entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness, but I can't get them without the labor of the police,
courts and military.
Gee, that wasn't so hard. Maybe she's not so smart after all.
- Mike Ross
K MacLeod
Tim Starr (tims...@netcom.com) wrote:
[Great Minds were liberal/conservative, so nyaahh! debate chomped]
Nits:
: Einstein's lasting contribution's
: the nuclear arsenals of the world.
Tim, Tim ... don't you think the Theory of Relativity will outlast the
nuclear arsenals? (Put it this way: I'm more optimistic about getting
rid of nuclear arsenals than of travelling faster than light.)
: The contributions of Sartre & Wittgen-
: stein are just more philosophical confusion, which hopefully won't last.
: (BTW, Sartre was a communist, & Wittgenstein was a Nazi - what kind of
: "liberalism" includes both commies & Nazis?) Those kinds of "lasting
: contributions" we can do without, thank you very much!
I think you're confusing Wittgenstein with someone else.
Wittgenstein wasn't a Nazi. He was a conservative. And his contribution
to philosophy doesn't strike me as a passing fad.
And on the subject of this thread:
The libertarians have on their side the classical liberals, most of the
great economists, and a respectable number of the great philosophers. It
seems only fair to cede to the statists most of the Great Minds of the
twentieth century. It's been their century, and they can keep it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken MacLeod | '... in the beginning all the world was America ...'
ke...@festival.ed.ac.uk | John Locke, Second Treatise of Government
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Carr
>
>"How can we live in freedom and maintain that we are entitled
>to *anything* that we can't get without the labor of others?
>Remember, if we are entitled to the labor of others, that makes
>slaves of those others."
>
> -Marilyn vos Savant
> Parade Magazine, 12/31/95
>
>"Ask Marilyn" each week has finally inspired me to post a flame
>on this self-proclaimed expert on everything. Undoubtedly there
>are many who are impressed by her IQ, and therefore swallow
>every bit of her admittedly coherent but clearly uninformed
>opinions on every subject under the sun.
>
>sensitivity." The greatest scientists in modern history have
>been overwhelmingly liberal, and they include Albert Einstein,
>Stephen Hawking, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein,
>Jean-Paul Sartre, Linus Pauling, John Maynard Keynes, Andrei
>Sakharov, Stephen J. Gould, and almost any other household name
>you could mention. Famous conservative thinkers like Milton
>Friedman do indeed exist but are rare. Ergo, appeals to
>authority are not a promising tack for conservatives.
>
>to do little more than solve puzzles in a weekly article for
>Parade magazine. I would posit that if she were truly talented
>at the scientific method, she would be out there winning Nobel
>Prizes.
>
>Furthermore, I would point out that geniuses are frequently
>brilliant only in narrow and specialized fields. We have had
>many grandmasters - indeed, world chess champions - whose
>general IQs were below average. There are idiot savants who can
>solve the deepest physics problems but do not know how to tie
>their own shoelaces. Hitler had a phenomenal memory - he could
>remember events exactly as they happened 10 years earlier - but
>his disordered thoughts in Mein Kampf prove that he was an
>was a liberal, they may take comfort in the fact that his
>astronomical numbers but have no idea what they mean or
>represent. So just because someone has a mental gift in one
>area does not mean they are omniscient on every topic that
>humanity has ever grappled with.
>
>Finally, one should make a distinction between reasoning
>ability and education. I have no qualms accepting that MVS has
>superior reasoning ability. But this hardly means she is
>informed. After all, St. Thomas Aquinas was clearly one of the
>greatest geniuses in European history, but he was informed by
>the writings of Aristotle, and that is why he proclaimed the
>earth is flat.
>
>Steve Kangas
>
Great Post(sarcasm) A diatribe attacking a person and not bothering to
refute the position of her quote with facts, data or reasoning.
BTW.. Do some research on autism other than watching "Rain Man" prior
to making general comments about austic people.
T. Carr
synergy
>In article <4cjkcc$1...@motown.coast.net>
>"T. Carr" <tdc...@Coast.net> writes:
>
>>Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>
>>>The conservative partisanship that is regularly beshat out of
>>>"Ask Marilyn" each week has finally inspired me to post a flame
>>>on this self-proclaimed expert on everything. Undoubtedly there
>>>are many who are impressed by her IQ, and therefore swallow
>>>every bit of her admittedly coherent but clearly uninformed
>>>opinions on every subject under the sun.
>
>> Great Post(sarcasm) A diatribe attacking a person and not bothering to
>>refute the position of her quote with facts, data or reasoning.
>
>Excuse me, I believe Mr. Kangas was attacking the use of Ms. Savant
>as an authority. I would have to agree with him; two years ago she had
>caused to be published a book on Fermat's Last Theorem, a book purported
>to 'explain it for the layman', and instead being a hopeless muddle,
>confusing as it did- among other things- assumptions, axioms, and def-
>initions. If I recall correctly, she has little if any mathematical
>training, but she felt sure enough of her 'high IQ' credentials to
>present herself as an expert anyway. If her 'high IQ' cannot save her
>from such errant non sense on such simple a topic as FLT, I do not think
>she should be cited as an authority on political philosophy based solely
>on the same. One last observation- she took the same 'IQ' test(actual-
>ly some MENSA concoction), question for question, three times before she
>obtained her much trumpeted IQ score . . . I think even our own T. Mark
>Gibson a.k.a. Synergy would get up to about 160 or thereabouts if af-
>forded the same option.
I can't speak for Mr. Gibson, but I scored well over 160 on an IQ test
I took when I was roughly 10 years old, and I have consistently scored
at least that high since then. You, on the other hand, are extremely
lucky to score in the triple-digit range, no doubt.
Come on, Wanker-on-Earth, get a clue and go away!
--
========================================================================
"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is
the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." -- William Pitt
Annoy a Fascist: Just Say No to Gun Control!
Elect Steve Forbes President of the U.S. in '96.
laj...@eskimo.com
>
>"How can we live in freedom and maintain that we are entitled
>to *anything* that we can't get without the labor of others?
>Remember, if we are entitled to the labor of others, that makes
>slaves of those others."
>
> -Marilyn vos Savant
> Parade Magazine, 12/31/95
>
>"Ask Marilyn" each week has finally inspired me to post a flame
>on this self-proclaimed expert on everything. Undoubtedly there
>are many who are impressed by her IQ, and therefore swallow
>every bit of her admittedly coherent but clearly uninformed
>opinions on every subject under the sun.
Actually, I've never been impressed with vos Savant because
she doesn't do my graduate physics problems for me. However, when
I read her quote, (usenet first, then I looked in the recycle bin
for my "Parade Magazine") I thought it was remarkably lucid.
>To such naifs, I would point out that "conservative genius" is
>something of an oxymoron, much like "airline food" or "male
>sensitivity."
That is a false statement, and you don't even support it. In
fact, you go on to refute your own assertion later on in your
post when you cite Friedman as an intelligent conservative.
I conclude that you are only saying it to gain your personal
satisfaction in insulting someone you disagree with.
>The greatest scientists in modern history have
>been overwhelmingly liberal, and they include Albert Einstein,
>Stephen Hawking, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein,
>Jean-Paul Sartre, Linus Pauling, John Maynard Keynes, Andrei
>Sakharov, Stephen J. Gould, and almost any other household name
>you could mention. Famous conservative thinkers like Milton
>Friedman do indeed exist but are rare. Ergo, appeals to
>authority are not a promising tack for conservatives.
Yes. Infact, Einstein was a socialist. He was also a Zionist.
Does his work in physics validate socialism and Zionism?
No more than vos Savant's solving simple puzzles for Parade
magazine.
On the other hand, Einstein having done great deeds in physics
and vos Savant's having scored high on an I.Q. test doesn't mean
that they cannot be right in other issues either.
>I would also point out that these great liberal scientists made
>lasting contributions to the human race; MVS seems to be unable
>to do little more than solve puzzles in a weekly article for
>Parade magazine. I would posit that if she were truly talented
>at the scientific method, she would be out there winning Nobel
>Prizes.
Let me summ up your argument; intelligence is not proof that someone
is right. (I agree with that.) And there are lots of scientist that
were socialist, (von Braun?) and you insulted conservatives, so
therefore von Savant is wrong.
That is pretty silly. Why don't you address what she said and explain
why you think she's wrong rather than making appeals to authoritative
sources that are not authorities in the subject?
> ... Hitler...
Sorry Steve! If you make a reference to Herr Hitler in a usenet
debate, it is considered by the usenet community that you lost
the debate and are totally wrong.
laj...@eskimo.com
>Newsgroups and followups trimmed.
>
>Tim Starr (tims...@netcom.com) wrote:
>
>[Great Minds were liberal/conservative, so nyaahh! debate chomped]
>
>Nits:
>
>: Einstein's lasting contribution's
>: the nuclear arsenals of the world.
>
>Tim, Tim ... don't you think the Theory of Relativity will outlast the
>nuclear arsenals? (Put it this way: I'm more optimistic about getting
>rid of nuclear arsenals than of travelling faster than light.)
Huh? Sorry, Einstein's work had nothing to do with nuclear bomb
technology.
All Al did was sign a letter someone else wrote saying that the
bomb should be built. Einstein intended that the weapon be used
against the Nazis before the Nazis could use their bombs on other
people.
Michael K. Ross
>
>To such naifs, I would point out that "conservative genius" is
>something of an oxymoron, much like "airline food" or "male
>sensitivity." The greatest scientists in modern history have
>been overwhelmingly liberal, and they include Albert Einstein,
>Stephen Hawking, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein,
>Jean-Paul Sartre, Linus Pauling, John Maynard Keynes, Andrei
>Sakharov, Stephen J. Gould, and almost any other household name
>you could mention. Famous conservative thinkers like Milton
>Friedman do indeed exist but are rare. Ergo, appeals to
>authority are not a promising tack for conservatives.
Oh, yeah??? What about Rush Limbaugh?
Hahahaha - I made a funny!
- Mike Ross
Chester Georges
What about the technological inventions of this century?
What about the computer your using?
And who says the liberals your talking about know what kind of liberals
there are today and what they do and say?
Chester Georges
Steve Kangas
how...@Priss.com (Curt Howland) wrote:
>Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> writes:
>|> To such naifs, I would point out that "conservative genius" is
>|> something of an oxymoron, much like "airline food" or "male
>|> sensitivity."
>
>have just catagorized every male as insensitive, or
>at least any sensitive male as effeminate.
>
>So, which are you? Insensitive, or effeminate?
>
Neither. I was being facetious for the conservative crowd, a
subtlety that was entirely lost on you. But that's all right.
Next time I'll signal my understated irony with diagram trees
and neon arrows.
Steve "Crocodile Dundee"
KANG...@scruznet.com
Steve Kangas
k...@cv.hp.com (Keith Marchington) wrote:
>Kangas wrote:
>
>: "How can we live in freedom and maintain that we are entitled
>: Remember, if we are entitled to the labor of others, that makes
>: slaves of those others."
>
>: -Marilyn vos Savant
>: Parade Magazine, 12/31/95
>
> of her statement mercifully deleted ]
>
>
>OK, Steve. Now that we know you don't like any conservatives at all,
>why don't you try refuting what she said, instead of who she is.
>
>Keith
I've gotten into many knock-down, drag-outs with libertarians
over this issue, posting threads that were as long as chapters
(the most recent on the Dr. Kelley and Welfare thread.) I
appreciate that these posts stay on the web for only a few days
before disappearing, and many people don't get to read them.
But I'll be specifically addressing this issue in a day or so,
if any one else would like enter intellectual combat.
Steve Kangas
Big O
Knight) wrote:
> |However, let us assume that the second sentence were converted to a
> |declarative one by removing the "Remember" part. That is: if we are
> |entitled to the labors of others, we are slaves of those others.
> |In my dictionary, the slave is not defined as one who owes someone
> |else his labor or a part of his labor.
My dictionary also states "conditions of slavery". The primary condition
of slavery was forced labor and the theft of that labor (via stealing the
fruits of the labor) by those applying the force. After all, what
justfication is there for slavery if it isn't to the slave owners economic
benefit?
Learn the difference between voluntary and involuntary servitude.
Curt Howland
|> To such naifs, I would point out that "conservative genius" is
|> something of an oxymoron, much like "airline food" or "male
|> sensitivity."
Oh great and powerfull Steve, please note that you
have just catagorized every male as insensitive, or
at least any sensitive male as effeminate.
So, which are you? Insensitive, or effeminate?
|> The greatest scientists in modern history have
|> been overwhelmingly liberal
Why not just state that you disagree? Why not demonstrate
how her statement is wrong?
M.V.S. is not one of my favorite "experts" either,
because of the attitude she presents. However, to
call her wrong and present no argument is infantile.
|> I would posit that if she were truly talented
|> at the scientific method, she would be out there winning Nobel
|> Prizes.
Would you *force* someone to do such labors? To
win prizes, or some other task you felt was worth
while?
Wouldn't that make them a slave to your opinion
of propper?
|> Finally, one should make a distinction between reasoning
|> ability and education. I have no qualms accepting that MVS has
|> superior reasoning ability. But this hardly means she is
|> informed. After all, St. Thomas Aquinas was clearly one of the
|> greatest geniuses in European history, but he was informed by
|> the writings of Aristotle, and that is why he proclaimed the
|> earth is flat.
I agree. I suggest you go outside your little room
and notice sensitive, manly-men do exist. Just that
one error on your part should be enough to shake
your entire self image to the point you might open
your eyes to the fact that an individual will never
fit the mold of what you think they should be.
|> Steve Kangas
Curt-
---
Curt Howland how...@Priss.com
"Laws do not persuade just because they threaten."
-Seneca, 65 AD
Curt Howland
|> How about this: I'm entitled to life,
You are alive, you have it. No one elses labor
required.
|> liberty
You may do or say anything that does no harm
to another. Again, no one else required.
|> and the pursuit of
|> happiness,
You are free to direct your efforts in any way
that pleases you and does no harm. Again, no
involvement of anyone else required.
|> but I can't get them without the labor of the police,
|> courts and military.
Non sequiter: These are only required when someon
does harm to another. They are not entitlements,
they are professionals hired by others to do the
dirty work. Hired, not entitled.
|> Gee, that wasn't so hard. Maybe she's not so smart after all.
You prove her statement, then disparage her statement?
Silly!
|> - Mike Ross
Curt-
!Rack Jite
answered by the sorely CONSERVATIVELY INCORRECT, Rack Jite:
!I can't speak for Mr. Gibson, but I scored well over 160 on an IQ
!test I took when I was roughly 10 years old, and I have consistently
!scored at least that high since then.
These are my favorites! The ultimate morons on the network claiming
prodigy and Mensa intellects! :) And it never fails...
The main attraction of the net for many of us of average abilities is
that it makes us feel like Albert Einstein. :)
"I suppose I can understand the selfish callous disregard,
it's the pride in it that passes me by." Rack Jite
Conservatively Incorrect http://turnpike.net/emporium/H/HR/index.htm
A Study in Intolerance http://turnpike.net/emporium/H/HR/soapbox.htm
Benedict Arnold
synergy (syn...@MCS.COM) wrote:
^^^
: Come on, Wanker-on-Earth, get a clue and go away!
Look who's talking about clueless! You support Karl "Stevie Wannabe"
Denninger, fool.
MCS: The AOL of Chicagoland.
--
"When I collect two solar masses of AOL Disks, I will use them to detonate
the Sun" Web Page URL: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/po/poulosio/poulosio.html
Honourable Member, alt.aol-sucks troll patrol.
Tim Starr
Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>news:timstarrD...@netcom.com
>tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) wrote:
>>In article <4ciohc$9...@news.scruz.net>,
>>Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>
>>>...I would point out that "conservative genius" is
>>>something of an oxymoron, much like "airline food" or "male
>>>sensitivity." The greatest scientists in modern history have
>>>been overwhelmingly liberal, and they include Albert Einstein,
>>>Stephen Hawking, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein,
>>>Jean-Paul Sartre, Linus Pauling, John Maynard Keynes, Andrei
>>>Sakharov, Stephen J. Gould, and almost any other household name
>>>you could mention. Famous conservative thinkers like Milton
>>>Friedman do indeed exist but are rare. Ergo, appeals to
>>>authority are not a promising tack for conservatives.
>>
>>Except that Russell, Wittgenstein, & Sartre, weren't scientists, they
>>were philosophers.
>
>I'll let that gaffe fall of its own weight.
What gaffe? My gaffe doesn't come until later.
>>Keynes was an economist, but hardly great. His
>>pre-General Theory work was basically straight Marshallian & hard to
>>distinguish from Monetarism.
>
>Now I know you're economically illiterate. Monetarism and
>Keynesianism are diametrically opposed to each other - one of
>the great rivalries in economic history.
"Keynesianism" refers to the school of thought which was based upon Keynes'
General Theory. I was referring not to the Walrasians who barely understood
the General Theory, but to what Keynes himself thought & practiced during
most of the 1920s before he wrote the General Theory. Then, what he said &
did are indistinguishable from Monetarism.
> His main opponent at the London School
>>of Economics, F.A. Hayek, is one of the 6 libertarian economists to
>>have been awarded the Nobel Prize for economics for his explanation
>>of business cycles which he came up with while he was at the LSE &
>>trying to refute Keynes. That's more than Keynes ever got.
>
>And Einstein wasn't awarded the Nobel Prize for his theory of
>relativity either. Keynes is famous for one of the most famous
>accomplishments in all economics: the disappearance of
>depressions.
And the appearance of "stagflation" in their place, as in the 1970s.
>Before WWII, it was common for recessions to
>worsen into depressions, as happened in 1807, 1837, 1873, 1882,
>1893, 1920, 1933 and 1937.
I don't believe that's accurate, but I'm sure you'll try to come up with a
definition of "depression" which will fit your claim, so I won't contest it
yet.
>>>I would also point out that these great liberal scientists made
>>>lasting contributions to the human race;
>>
>>Keynes' lasting contribution's the national debt, since he was the most
>>reputable advocate of deficit-spending. Einstein's lasting contribution's
>>the nuclear arsenals of the world. The contributions of Sartre & Wittgen-
>>stein are just more philosophical confusion, which hopefully won't last.
>>(BTW, Sartre was a communist, & Wittgenstein was a Nazi - what kind of
>>"liberalism" includes both commies & Nazis?) Those kinds of "lasting
>>contributions" we can do without, thank you very much!
>
>You're being not a little silly. Keynes advocated mild deficit
>spending, and only in depressions - not the orgy of debt that
>the Reagan years saw.
Yep. Most Keynesians took what Keynes actually said way out of proportion,
including Reagan.
>Oppenheimer - not Einstein - was the one
>most responsible for the creation of the atomic bomb.
That depends upon how you look at it. Without Einstein's theory of
relativity, & without his little chat with FDR to encourage him to start what
became the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer would've have ever had a hand in
the making of the bomb.
>Wittgenstein returned to Cambridge in 1929, and in 1939 was
>awarded the chair of philosophy formerly held by G.E. Moore;
>the British would not have bestowed such a high honor on a
>Nazi! Cite your sources.
This was my gaffe. I got the names confused. I was thinking of Heidegger,
not Wittgenstein. Sorry for my error.
>(snip)
>>
>>>For conservatives distressed that Einstein was a liberal...
>>
>>He was a socialist, actually, but his proposals for the political structure
>>of Israel were more syndicalist or fascist than anything else.
>
>Only you would confuse socialism for fascism.
No, lots of other people have "confused" them, including some respectable
scholars like F.A. Hayek.
>...By the way, I'm
>using the term "liberal" here very broadly, to include
>socialism, Marxism, etc.
I protest your overinclusive use of the term, as, I'm sure, all socialists &
marxists who know their tradition will as well if they're honest.
>>>...they may take comfort in the fact that his
>>>political statements have not stood well under the scrutinity
>>>of serious political scientists.
>>
>>Just like Keynes' economic statements haven't stood well under the scrutiny
>>of serious economists, & the philosophic statements of Sartre & Wittgenstein
>>haven't stood well under the scrutiny of serious philosophers - except that
>>this is in their professional specialties, of course. Russell's philosophy
>>hasn't held up too well under philosophic scrutiny, either.
>
>You're a few french fries short of a Happy Meal, aren't you?
>Neo-keynesianism is the prevailing economic theory in academia
>at the moment, in case you're out of touch with academic
>trends.
When did "Post-Keynesianism" fade from the scene? Last I heard, everyone had
pretty much given up on Keynesianism (due to stagflation), but hadn't come up
with any replacement. Are you saying that Keynesianism's been reconstructed &
brought back from the dead?
>Wittgenstein's has made lasting contributions to the
>philosophy of langauge and meaning, and his work is being
>carried into many other fields of science and philosophy.
Hooey. His positivist crap has been falling out of fashion for decades now in
academic philosophy. If he still has followers left, it's because they've
refused to acknowledge their errors.
>Other famous philosophers are calling him the greatest
>philosopher of the 20th century.
Then they're full of it, too. Either that, or this has been one hell of a bad
century for philosophy.
>Russell was one of the founders of modern logic!
Big deal. His attempt to reduce all logic to a few kinds of formal relations
failed, & no one's come up with a better way to do it since.
>Where do you come up with this unsubstantiated crap?
Oh, REASON & ANALYSIS, by Brand Blanshard, for starters. (Which Rorty gave
high praise to, even though Rorty didn't agree with it.)
Stephen Lajoie
Walker on Earth <C36...@mizzou1.missouri.edu> wrote:
>In article <4cjkcc$1...@motown.coast.net>
>"T. Carr" <tdc...@Coast.net> writes:
>
>>Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>
>>>"Ask Marilyn" each week has finally inspired me to post a flame
>>>on this self-proclaimed expert on everything. Undoubtedly there
>>>are many who are impressed by her IQ, and therefore swallow
>>>every bit of her admittedly coherent but clearly uninformed
>>>opinions on every subject under the sun.
>
>>refute the position of her quote with facts, data or reasoning.
>
>Excuse me, I believe Mr. Kangas was attacking the use of Ms. Savant
>as an authority. I would have to agree with him; two years ago she had
[snip]
Then you would have made the same mistake as Mr. Kangas. What Ms. vos Savant
said stands on it's own merrit for all people who think theft is wrong.
It doesn't matter if she said it, or Forrest Gump. True words stand on
their own.
Or would you have the level of human discorse sink to the level of name
calling, personal attacks, and irrelevant discussions about one's
personal life?
Until you and Mr. Kangas lean to discuss the issues and not make personal
attacks, neither of you will have much credibility.
--
--
Steve La Joie
laj...@eskimo.com
Big O
> |joh...@aimnet.com (Big O ) writes:
> |
> |>My dictionary also states "conditions of slavery". The primary condition
> |>of slavery was forced labor and the theft of that labor (via stealing the
> |>fruits of the labor) by those applying the force.
> |
> |>Learn the difference between voluntary and involuntary servitude.
> |
> |Interesting that you make this argument and then end it with that Basiat
> |quote. By what authority do these laws exist (that protect life, liberty
> |and the pursuit of happiness) without a government? This is not Stalinist
> |Russia or Nazi Germany, you are not without a voice in this government
> |unless you choose not to vote. I don't recall anything about slaves
> |getting any say in the conditions of their servitude.
And since when do you have the moral authority to vote me or anyone else
into slavery?
"Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom; socialism restricts
it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes
each man a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common
but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks
equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
- Alexis de Tocqueville
The reason we don't have absolute democracy in this country is to prevent
the tyranny of the majority.
But if you really believe in absolute democracy then I better see you out
there demanding the impeachment of every judge that throws out the
majority will of the voters on initatives/propositions.
> |Certainly it's a big country, and you don't feel like you've got as much
> |control as you like. Join the club. And feel free to move to some island
> |to create your libertarian utopia, 'cause that crap will never work in a
> |country of a hundred thousand, much less 250 million.
The Nazis got elected to office -- guess what they did must be OK since
they were "elected" - right?
> |I believe in free enterprise, and freedom of individuals. But large
> |societies (more than 30 individuals) tend to stratify, and we need controls
> |to keep the strong from enslaving the weak, both physically and
> |economically. If government let business do whatever it wanted, what's to
> |stop the biggest corporations from taking over control of the country (for
> |example, with no anti-trust laws ATT would today own all means of
> |communication between people and computers in this country). Government
> |needs to be big enough to protect the individuals from the largest economic
> |behemoths.
Your ignorance of histroy is amazing. Big business routinely assists
government in writing business regulations so that only the "economic
behemoths" can afford such while the small companies can not and thus can
no longer compete.
David Friedman
> >been overwhelmingly liberal, and they include Albert Einstein,
> >Stephen Hawking, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein,
> >Jean-Paul Sartre, Linus Pauling, John Maynard Keynes, Andrei
I find it a little hard to take seriously the idea that Albert Einstein
and Stephen J. Gould belong on the same list ... . How about one list for
Einstein and Von Neumann et. al., and another one for Gould and Asimov.
The first should include Teller, who is generally considered conservative,
and perhaps Herman Kahn as well.
That aside, it may depend on what you mean by "liberal" and
"conservative." If you split it as "pro-market" vs "anti-market," which
seems to be suggested by your counting Milton Friedman as a conservative,
the division becomes a lot less clear. I used to have a copy of the Road
to Serfdom with a glowing endorsement on the back--by John Maynard Keynes.
The fact that Liberals (in the modern American sense) approved of Keynes
does not imply that he would approve of the bulk of their program.
If you justs consider economics (my field), and identify "conservative"
with "pro-free market" I think the conservatives win overwhelmingly:
Smith, Ricardo, Marshall, Menger, Coase, Hayek, Stigler, Becker, ... .
Against them you have--Pigou, Samuelson, and part of Keynes. No contest.
Even the best socialist economists are pro-market for socialists (Abba
Lerner most notably). On the other hand, if "conservative" means "enamored
of existing institutions," then Smith is obviously a Liberal (as are many
of those on the list), and the people usually called Liberals in the U.S.
are conservatives.
It does not seem a very useful exercise, all things considered. But if you
must indulge, first define your terms.
David Friedman
Steve Kangas
incorrect form of argument called the "fallacy of appeal to
insufficient authority." I was indeed commenting on all the
intellectual lemmings out there who believe that democratic
laws are a form of theft because Ms. Savant said so. It was
precisely my point that these assertions need to be analyzed
rather than accepted as pronouncements from God.
And, frankly, La Joie, I wish you would stop to understand my
posts a little better before you so blindly attack them. You're
the one who wrote an entire chapter flaming my views on The
Bell Curve before I pointed out that you did not even know what
my views are on this subject, to which you lamely posted: "By
the way, what ARE your beliefs?"
I should also add that I then posted a very long, detailed and
technical exposition of why I believed The Bell Curve was
wrong, and I noticed that neither you nor a single conservative
or libertarian responded to it. I daresay they did not even
understand it.
Steve Kangas
Larry Nomer
writes:
>
>In my college logic class, we were taught that there is an
>incorrect form of argument called the "fallacy of appeal to
>insufficient authority." I was indeed commenting on all the
>intellectual lemmings out there who believe that democratic
>laws are a form of theft because Ms. Savant said so.
I believed that entitlement laws (not all "democratic laws") are
wrong, and amount to theft, long before I found out that
Ms. Savant shares this opinion.
Just what are the limits to the tyranny of the majority in your
view? Does the majority have the right to enslave me 100%
if they vote for it? How about 80%? How about any percent?
>Steve Kangas
-Larry Nomer
Big O
Knight) wrote:
> |Big O (joh...@aimnet.com) wrote:
> |: In article <4ck9bs$s...@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, kni...@cup.hp.com (Paul
> |: Knight) wrote:
> |
> |
> |: > |However, let us assume that the second sentence were converted to a
> |: > |declarative one by removing the "Remember" part. That is: if we are
> |: > |entitled to the labors of others, we are slaves of those others.
> |: > |In my dictionary, the slave is not defined as one who owes someone
> |: > |else his labor or a part of his labor.
> |
> |: My dictionary also states "conditions of slavery". The primary condition
> |: of slavery was forced labor and the theft of that labor (via stealing the
> |: fruits of the labor) by those applying the force. After all, what
> |: justfication is there for slavery if it isn't to the slave owners economic
> |: benefit?
> |
> |: Learn the difference between voluntary and involuntary servitude.
> |
> |
> |There is no slavery involved. An American is a slave only if he is
> |in prison and cannot leave the country. Otherwise, he lives here
> |voluntarily. Thus, he is totally free to not pay this society's
> |required obligations; he can leave. Being a member of a society
> |requires participation in the goals of that society.
The following fully agree with you that being a member of a society
requires participation in the goals of that society: Adolf Hitler, Benito
Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Envir
Hoxha, Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot, Kruhschev, Leonid Brezhnev, etc.
Paul Knight
James Repka
>My dictionary also states "conditions of slavery". The primary condition
>of slavery was forced labor and the theft of that labor (via stealing the
>fruits of the labor) by those applying the force.
>Learn the difference between voluntary and involuntary servitude.
Interesting that you make this argument and then end it with that Basiat
quote. By what authority do these laws exist (that protect life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness) without a government? This is not Stalinist
Russia or Nazi Germany, you are not without a voice in this government
unless you choose not to vote. I don't recall anything about slaves
getting any say in the conditions of their servitude.
Certainly it's a big country, and you don't feel like you've got as much
control as you like. Join the club. And feel free to move to some island
to create your libertarian utopia, 'cause that crap will never work in a
country of a hundred thousand, much less 250 million.
I believe in free enterprise, and freedom of individuals. But large
societies (more than 30 individuals) tend to stratify, and we need controls
to keep the strong from enslaving the weak, both physically and
economically. If government let business do whatever it wanted, what's to
stop the biggest corporations from taking over control of the country (for
example, with no anti-trust laws ATT would today own all means of
communication between people and computers in this country). Government
needs to be big enough to protect the individuals from the largest economic
behemoths.
But it's the responsibility of the individuals in society to reign in a
government that is becoming too big or unresponsive. If we don't have the
power or will to do that, then we certainly don't have the power or will to
exist as any kind of society without those protections.
How many libertarians on this group wrote letters of protest to CompuServe
over the banning of sex.groups and political.groups? Not many, from the
type of response the company has been getting (by the way, you have to send
hard copy, they can't deny receiving a half-million letters the way they
can a half-million emails). If this is the way you participate in society,
no wonder you consider yourselves slaves...
"In heaven there's no pain or need,
In heaven there's no fear or greed,
In heaven you get laid guaranteed.
But we're on earth, and here on earth
It's everyman for himself!"
--
--jim repka (jl...@earthsci.ucsc.edu)
Nathan L. Wurtzel
Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> writes:
>I should also add that I then posted a very long, detailed and
>technical exposition of why I believed The Bell Curve was
>wrong, and I noticed that neither you nor a single conservative
>or libertarian responded to it. I daresay they did not even
>understand it.
>
tarians who did not agree with the so-called "scientific underpinnings" of The
Bell Curve. There are better reasons for reducing or eliminating welfare rather
than resorting to the very questionable idea that intelligence is crystallized
and therefore any assistance aimed at increasing learning capacity is doomed y
to fail.
Nate
>Steve Kangas
>
Sharon Bolton
>To such naifs, I would point out that "conservative genius" is
>something of an oxymoron, much like "airline food" or "male
>sensitivity." The greatest scientists in modern history have
>been overwhelmingly liberal, and they include Albert Einstein,
>Stephen Hawking, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein,
>Jean-Paul Sartre, Linus Pauling, John Maynard Keynes, Andrei
>Sakharov, Stephen J. Gould, and almost any other household name
>you could mention. Famous conservative thinkers like Milton
>Friedman do indeed exist but are rare. Ergo, appeals to
>authority are not a promising tack for conservatives.
>Furthermore, I would point out that geniuses are frequently
>brilliant only in narrow and specialized fields.
>Steve Kangas
Other than the fact that you conveniently left off a whole list of
people who's acknowledgment would undermine your argument, you then
procede to undermine it anyway.
Sharon Bolton
"To act is easy -- to think is hard!" Goethe
"There's a mighty big difference between good sound reasons
and reasons that sound good." Hillis
Steve Kangas
>> >The greatest scientists in modern history have
>> >been overwhelmingly liberal, and they include Albert Einstein,
>> >Stephen Hawking, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein,
>> >Jean-Paul Sartre, Linus Pauling, John Maynard Keynes, Andrei
>
>I find it a little hard to take seriously the idea that Albert Einstein
>and Stephen J. Gould belong on the same list ... . How about one list for
>Einstein and Von Neumann et. al., and another one for Gould and Asimov.
>The first should include Teller, who is generally considered conservative,
>and perhaps Herman Kahn as well.
Yes, people are misunderstanding this list, and I take
responsibility for not clarifying my definititions. I meant
"liberal" in the broad sense of the term, meaning generally to
the left on the political spectrum. Obviously, there is no one
monolithic set of liberal beliefs, and there are probably as
many different types of leftists as there are people.
If I could rewrite that passage, I would emphasize that our
most famous scientists in history have had vehemently opposing
beliefs, which proves that simply having a high IQ is not
necessarily a ticket to Absolute Truth.
>
>That aside, it may depend on what you mean by "liberal" and
>"conservative." If you split it as "pro-market" vs "anti-market," which
>seems to be suggested by your counting Milton Friedman as a conservative,
>the division becomes a lot less clear. I used to have a copy of the Road
>to Serfdom with a glowing endorsement on the back--by John Maynard Keynes.
>The fact that Liberals (in the modern American sense) approved of Keynes
>does not imply that he would approve of the bulk of their program.
Economic beliefs were just a small part of the generally
leftist views that I attempted to describe above. The post in
reference (concerning vos Savant's opinions on entitlements)
actually addressed the social issue of slavery.
>
>If you justs consider economics (my field), and identify "conservative"
>with "pro-free market" I think the conservatives win overwhelmingly:
>Smith, Ricardo, Marshall, Menger, Coase, Hayek, Stigler, Becker, ... .
>Against them you have--Pigou, Samuelson, and part of Keynes. No contest.
>Even the best socialist economists are pro-market for socialists (Abba
>Lerner most notably). On the other hand, if "conservative" means "enamored
>of existing institutions," then Smith is obviously a Liberal (as are many
>of those on the list), and the people usually called Liberals in the U.S.
>are conservatives.
Needless to say, I disagree with your list. Although I concur
that the economists you mentioned are deservedly famous,
economics is not called the "dismal science" for nothing.
Listing all the exceptions to Adam Smith's invisible hand is
now college sport for freshman economists; just one of
countless examples is the prisoner's dilemma. Ricardo actually
predicted that economic progress would halt when population
growth squeezed the profits of capitalists and the wages of
workers! Marshall wrote a very famous model that works only as
long as you freeze time, technology, labor fluctuations,
economic trends and anything else that might occur in real
life. Yes, these men had a great impact on economic thought in
history, and made a few lasting contributions, but they were no
more 100 percent correct than Aristotle, Lamarck, or Freud.
And your list is merely a matter of opinion. Although I don't
subscribe to Marx's communist utopia (which he himself barely
described), I believe his critiques of capitalism were largely
accurate (which he described extensively). And you omit the
economists that are responsible for bringing neo-Keynesianism
back to the academic spotlight after the failure of some parts
of rational expectations and supply side economics. Namely,
George Akerlof, Janet Yellin, Paul David, Brian Arthur, Greg
Mankiw, Paul Krugman, Oliver Blanchard and Nobuhiro Kiyotaki.
Neo-keynesianism is still rather young, so their reputations
have not eclipsed those on your list, but I believe
neo-Keynesianism will supplant current conservative theories,
much like it took time for Freudian psychoanalysis to fall out
of favor and be replaced with biosociology.
>
>David Friedman
>
>--
>dd...@best.com
Steve Kangas
kang...@scruznet.com
Michael K. Ross
>mr...@dcc.com (Michael K. Ross) writes:
>|> How about this: I'm entitled to life,
>
>You are alive, you have it. No one elses labor
>required.
To maintain it requires somebody's labor.
>
>|> liberty
>
>You may do or say anything that does no harm
>to another. Again, no one else required.
Again, maintaining it requires the police & military
>
>|> and the pursuit of
>|> happiness,
>
>You are free to direct your efforts in any way
>that pleases you and does no harm. Again, no
>involvement of anyone else required.
Not true. There are many victimless crimes that are illegal. But
again, all of these things require the labor of others to maintain.
>
>|> but I can't get them without the labor of the police,
>|> courts and military.
>
>Non sequiter: These are only required when someon
>does harm to another. They are not entitlements,
>they are professionals hired by others to do the
>dirty work. Hired, not entitled.
I didn't say I was entitled to them, only that the rights I have been
endowed with, which I hold self-evident, are dependent on the labor of
others. And I stand by every word I _did_ say.
>
>|> Gee, that wasn't so hard. Maybe she's not so smart after all.
>
>You prove her statement, then disparage her statement?
You mis-spelled "disprove".
- Mike Ross
Gary Forbis
|> I believed that entitlement laws (not all "democratic laws") are
|> wrong, and amount to theft, long before I found out that
|> Ms. Savant shares this opinion.
All laws are theft in that those who wish to do otherwise than the law allows
are held accountable without their consent. Do you choose for all which are
wrong and which are not?
When one claims rights of ownership over that which existed without owner
or over some transformation thereof one takes without compensation that which
others might as well lay claim. Why is this not theft? Do you believe that
"To the early bird goes the worm" states a rightful claim to that worm?
Why is a claim of ownership not enslavement of others? Do you believe ownership
allows one to lay claim to the labor of others? What portion of the country
is unowned that a person may recieved the fruits of her or his labor
unobstructed?
|> Just what are the limits to the tyranny of the majority in your
|> view? Does the majority have the right to enslave me 100%
|> if they vote for it? How about 80%? How about any percent?
One cannot be enlaved in this way. One puts on the yolk of one's free will
because the alternative is worse. You, as a free person, may act as you
see fit. In this way a balance is reached.
I don't know why people want to justify their benefits through claims of rights
but fail to see others' benefits in the same light. People's needs come into
conflict. Resolution based strictly upon superior force may be somewhat risky
as superior force may be very temporal. On the other hand, a right that takes
but does not give leaves little alternative to superior force to those in need
and with superior force at hand.
--
--gary for...@u.washington.edu
Larry Nomer
writes:
>I believe in free enterprise, and freedom of individuals. But large
>societies (more than 30 individuals) tend to stratify, and we need controls
>to keep the strong from enslaving the weak, both physically and
>economically. If government let business do whatever it wanted, what's to
>stop the biggest corporations from taking over control of the country (for
>example, with no anti-trust laws ATT would today own all means of
>communication between people and computers in this country).
Not true. AT&T did own nearly all of the long distance business because
it was a _government_ sanctioned monopoly. Just look how much
cheaper long distance has become now that we have some free market
competition! As you can see, the problem is with government control.
>Government
>needs to be big enough to protect the individuals from the largest economic
>behemoths.
Oh, you want to have the fedthugs who already take $20,000+ of my
income every year _protect_ me from "behemoths" (many times smaller
than the government) like GM who already don't have any power to
make me buy their product? I see the state education system is doing
its job. :-(
Regulatory agencies tend to be taken over by the industry that they
regulate (just where do you find an expert on the trucking industry?),
and then end up protecting the big players from their less politically
connected competitors, at the expense of us consumers.
Trucking, airline, and long distance prices all went _down_ significantly
when regulation was _ended_. Just why was Tyson chicken permitted
by _government_ to lie to the American consumer claiming its previously
frozen chickens were fresh? The list of such incidents is almost endless...
(and it always will be with government/politicians running something).
>But it's the responsibility of the individuals in society to reign in a
>government that is becoming too big or unresponsive.
Quite true.
> If we don't have the
>power or will to do that, then we certainly don't have the power or will to
>exist as any kind of society without those protections.
Actually, it would be pretty easy to live without a crushing, corrupt
government burden. However, once a large government parasitic
tumor has grown, it can be quite difficult to remove. I would love
to hear your suggestions.
>--jim repka (jl...@earthsci.ucsc.edu)
-Larry Nomer
laj...@eskimo.com
>incorrect form of argument called the "fallacy of appeal to
>insufficient authority." I was indeed commenting on all the
>intellectual lemmings out there who believe that democratic
>precisely my point that these assertions need to be analyzed
>rather than accepted as pronouncements from God.
But then you neglected to explain why Ms vos Savant was wrong.
>And, frankly, La Joie, I wish you would stop to understand my
>posts a little better before you so blindly attack them. You're
>the one who wrote an entire chapter flaming my views on The
>Bell Curve before I pointed out that you did not even know what
>my views are on this subject, to which you lamely posted: "By
>the way, what ARE your beliefs?"
Hummm. Again you personalize your argument instead of discussing
merrit.
Your views were abundantly clear. You would then deny them in the
next post when it was pointed out what was wrong with your position.
So, I asked what your beliefs were. It was a form of sarcasm, and
an effort to pin you down to a position.
>I should also add that I then posted a very long, detailed and
>technical exposition of why I believed The Bell Curve was
>wrong, and I noticed that neither you nor a single conservative
>or libertarian responded to it. I daresay they did not even
>understand it.
It was, like this post, mostly nothing. You weren't amusing
anymore.
>Steve Kangas
Paul Knight
: The following fully agree with you that being a member of a society
: requires participation in the goals of that society: Adolf Hitler, Benito
: Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Envir
: Hoxha, Kim Il Sung, Pol Pot, Kruhschev, Leonid Brezhnev, etc.
All reasoned discussion of political issues loses civility when a participant
begins rolling out names like these. The problem with these discussion
groups is that, without personal contact, it is very easy to lose one's
perspective and start using names like this that carry a strong emotional
content but are totally misplaced. I'd bet that one could post a note
about the virtues of apple pie, and, after a dozen replies, someone is
likening another participant as a Nazi, Communist, or just unsanitary.
Peace,
P.
pzri...@tiac.net
>I was indeed commenting on all the
>intellectual lemmings out there who believe that democratic
>laws are a form of theft because Ms. Savant said so.
Name one.
Steve Kangas
>
>The Nazis got elected to office -- guess what they did must be OK since
>they were "elected" - right?
This is historically incorrect. Hitler never had more than
about a third of the votes, and given the firm opposition of
the Catholic Center party and the Social Democrats, there was
no hope in hell of him ever winning a majority of the vote. The
reason why Hitler succeeded in winning the chancellorship was
because the other political leaders dropped the democratic
process and entered into a series of backroom deals. Hitler was
jobbed into office by these unsuspecting bureaucrats, and he
enjoyed a remarkable and unbroken string of luck as well.
In short, it is a falsehood that democracy elected Hitler to
power.
>
>--
>"Big O" <joh...@aimnet.com>
>
Steve Kangas
Tim Johnson
>Karl Popper
>Friedrich Hayek
>Benjamin Disraeli
>Edmund Burke
>Cicero
>Marcus Aurelius
>Samuel Johnson
>Sir Walter Scott
>John Randolph
>Nataniel Hawthorne
>Theodore Roosevelt (yes, he was a conservative)
>Joseph Conrad
>Richard Weaver
>Freya Stark
>T.S. Eliot
>Wilhelm Roepke
>Donald Davidson
>W.H. Mallock
>Rose Wilder Lane
>Edward Teller
>Alexander Solzhenitsyn
>Bernard Shaw (yes--read his political plays)
>
>I hope that's convincing. And if you haven't heard of some of these people, con
>sider the indisputable fact that the organs of information ARE largely
>controlled by the left.
>
>--Nate
Nice list.
However, I hardly think you can call the leftism of the media an "indisputable fact." It has been disputed, many, many times. The =
fact that the majority of information organs are owned and operated by conservative organizations also colors that indisputability s=
omewhat.
I tend to think with the very universiality of the carping about the bias of the media, together with its banality (in our pop cultu=
re the media tends to shun offense), the media is probably is fairly centrist.
But good list. I haven't thought of some of those names in years.
Steve Kangas
>In article <4cs8ss$5...@news1.netzone.com>
>>>something of an oxymoron, much like "airline food" or "male
>>>been overwhelmingly liberal, and they include Albert Einstein,
>>>Stephen Hawking, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein,
>>>Jean-Paul Sartre, Linus Pauling, John Maynard Keynes, Andrei
>>>you could mention. Famous conservative thinkers like Milton
>>>Friedman do indeed exist but are rare. Ergo, appeals to
>>>authority are not a promising tack for conservatives.
>>
>>
>>>Furthermore, I would point out that geniuses are frequently
>>>brilliant only in narrow and specialized fields.
>>
>>>Steve Kangas
>>
>>Other than the fact that you conveniently left off a whole list of
>>people who's acknowledgment would undermine your argument, you then
>>procede to undermine it anyway.
>>
>>
>>Sharon Bolton
>
>
>Karl Popper
>Friedrich Hayek
>Benjamin Disraeli
>Edmund Burke
>Cicero
>Marcus Aurelius
>Samuel Johnson
>Sir Walter Scott
>John Randolph
>Nataniel Hawthorne
>Theodore Roosevelt (yes, he was a conservative)
>Joseph Conrad
>Richard Weaver
>Freya Stark
>T.S. Eliot
>Wilhelm Roepke
>Donald Davidson
>W.H. Mallock
>Rose Wilder Lane
>Edward Teller
>Alexander Solzhenitsyn
>Bernard Shaw (yes--read his political plays)
You get an E for Effort. Notice that in my original post, I
said "the greatest scientists in modern history." You've
provided a list of famous novelists, poets and politicians
whose expertise is hardly rigorous scientific thought and
logic. I mean, really, now - Rose Wilder Lane?!?! The one who
ghost-wrote her mother's diaries as the "Little House on the
Prairie" series? If you're comparing her to Einstein and
Hawking, you are one sick puppy.
Nor are the names on your list modern - Hawthorne was 19th
century, Johnson and Burke were 18th century, Raleigh was 16th
century, and Cicero and Aurelius were 2nd century! The reason
why I made the distinction "greatest modern scientists" is
because they represent the best minds informed by the most
recent science and logic. The farther you go back in history,
not only do you increasingly find such beliefs as the flat
earth and the propriety of slavery, but political convictions
rooted in aristocracy and theocracy.
And many on your list - Roepke, Weaver, and Stark - are hardly
household names like Einstein, Hawking and Bertrand Russell.
This must have gnawed on your mind, for you include the
following disclaimer:
>
>... And if you haven't heard of some of these people, con
>sider the indisputable fact that the organs of information ARE largely
>controlled by the left.
Hmmmmmm... isn't it funny how institutions that traffic in
knowledge and information - science, the media, academia - are
always lambasted as liberal?
Your inclusion of Teddy Roosevelt on your list is a
jaw-dropper. Although technically a Republican, TR was one of
the most radically liberal presidents of this century. He
incurred the eternal wrath of conservatives and corporations
with his activist governments, pro-environmental policies,
trust-busting and government intervention of strikes (usually
in favor of the strikers!). He pushed for corporate taxes and
created many government agencies that regulated big business.
However, I would note, however, that politicians like TR and
Disraeli were not among the most famous scientists in modern
history, and I do not know why you even included them on your
list.
I am impressed by only three names here: Popper, Teller and
Hayek. Meanwhile, listing the great modern liberal scientists
is easy to continue: Crick and Watson, Oppenheimer, Benjamin
Spock, Niels Bohr, Carl Sagan, B.F. Skinner, etc.
Again, I am not citing these lists because they "prove"
liberalism. I am merely trying to demonstrate that appeals to
authority, as in the case of Marilyn vos Savant, is an
unpromising debating tactic for conservatives.
>
>--Nate
Steve Kangas
Go directly to college; do not pass Rush Limbaugh, do not
collect the GI Bill.
Mark.O.Wilson
>
>(BTW, Sartre was a communist, & Wittgenstein was a Nazi - what kind
of
>"liberalism" includes both commies & Nazis?)
An accurate one.
--
Mark.O...@AtlantaGa.attgis.com
It ain't charity if you ain't using your own money.
Just because a mob calls itself a government, doesn't make it so.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for
dinner.
People who claim that money doesn't matter, are usually living on
someone else's money.
Society is a mental construct, formed by those people who are too
insecure too handle the concept of people as individuals.
Mark.O.Wilson
>
>Big O (joh...@aimnet.com) wrote:
>: In article <4ciohc$9...@news.scruz.net>, Steve Kangas
>: <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>
>: > |"How can we live in freedom and maintain that we are entitled
>: > |to *anything* that we can't get without the labor of others?
>: > |Remember, if we are entitled to the labor of others, that makes
>: > |slaves of those others."
>: > |
>: > | -Marilyn vos Savant
>: > | Parade Magazine, 12/31/95
>
>
>: {snip}
>
>: And not one single word by Steve in his post to refute the simple logic
>: and reasoning in Marilyn's statement. In an officiated/judged debate
you
>: would have gotten few, if any, points, Steve, because your ranting and
>: raving proved nothing except that you can't refute the simple logic and
>: reasoning in her statement.
>
>
>Of the statements attributed to Marilyn vos Savant, which, of course is
>not her real name, the first is a question. One cannot refute the logic
>of the question because it is not a declarative statement, i.e., it states
>nothing. The second sentence, in its current form, is an imperative
sentence,
>that is, it commands one to remember the rest of the statement.
Therefore,
>it is not making any assertions at all. Rather, it is just telling the
>reader to remember a phrase.
>
>In summary, there is no logic to refute since logic deals with the
>relationship of declarative statements and not questions or commands.
>
>However, let us assume that the second sentence were converted to a
>declarative one by removing the "Remember" part. That is: if we are
>entitled to the labors of others, we are slaves of those others.
>In my dictionary, the slave is not defined as one who owes someone
>else his labor or a part of his labor.
After a lengthy and well written piece dealing with logic and rhetoric,
you then descend to this. You attempt to refute the entirety of MVS's
statement, with the statement that your personal definition of slavery
does not correspond to hers.
Excuse me while ponder the glories of your logical expositions.
Now, if you are as smart as you claim to be, you should have no
trouble explaining why your definitions are superior to MVS's.
>Thus, the quotation is using inflammatory terminology, i.e., slave, to
>discredit social obligations and responsibility, which are expected
>in every society.
Slavery, child labor and wives submitting to their husbands were
considered social obligations which were expected in every society,
until quite recently. I am still waiting for you to put forth a rational
and logical argument why anyone must be forcibly bound to these
social obligations and responsibilities.
Larry Nomer
(Gary Forbis ) writes:
>In article <4cs3lc$c...@castle.nando.net>, lar...@nando.net (Larry Nomer) writes:
>|> I believed that entitlement laws (not all "democratic laws") are
>|> wrong, and amount to theft, long before I found out that
>|> Ms. Savant shares this opinion.
>
>All laws are theft in that those who wish to do otherwise than the law allows
>are held accountable without their consent.
No, actions that involve the initiation of the use of force or fraud are
wrong, and other actions are OK. (I am a libertarian.)
>Do you choose for all which are
>wrong and which are not?
No, see libertarian principle above.
>When one claims rights of ownership over that which existed without owner
>or over some transformation thereof one takes without compensation that which
>others might as well lay claim. Why is this not theft?
It is not theft because, as you postulated, that land (or whatever) was
"without owner" before you claimed it.
> Do you believe that
>"To the early bird goes the worm" states a rightful claim to that worm?
Well, in the case of a previously un-owned worm, yes. That was pretty
much the way the Homesteading Act worked.
>Why is a claim of ownership not enslavement of others?
Because, as you said before, there was no other owner in this example.
Why are you worried about ripping off people who never claimed to own
something? (And probably didn't even know it existed?)
> Do you believe ownership
>allows one to lay claim to the labor of others?
Of course not. All labor arrangements should be made in voluntary
contracts.
>What portion of the country
>is unowned that a person may recieved the fruits of her or his labor
>unobstructed?
Huh?
>|> Just what are the limits to the tyranny of the majority in your
>|> view? Does the majority have the right to enslave me 100%
>|> if they vote for it? How about 80%? How about any percent?
>
>One cannot be enlaved in this way.
Good! We agree. How about the 42%+ of my income that the
government takes from me by force every year? Am I not 42% a
slave in that I do not own that much of the product of my work?
>--gary for...@u.washington.edu
-Larry Nomer
Gary Forbis
|> Subject: Re: Marilyn vos Savant - the conservative counterpoint to the liberal Einstein
|> Date: 10 Jan 1996 04:31:52 GMT
|> Organization: News & Observer Public Access
|> Lines: 75
|> Message-ID: <4cvffo$1...@castle.nando.net>
|> References: <4ciohc$9...@news.scruz.net> <4cjkcc$1...@motown.coast.net> <17705B8D9S...@mizzou1.missouri.edu> <DKs6L...@eskimo.com> <4cs3lc$c...@castle.nando.net>
|> NNTP-Posting-Host: grail1419.nando.net
|> X-Newsreader: NeoLogic News for OS/2 [version: 4.2]
|> Xref: news.u.washington.edu alt.politics.libertarian:160880 alt.politics.usa.republican:133551 alt.society.conservatism:15635 alt.politics.reform:14935 alt.society.civil-liberty:11340 alt.politics.economics:36856 alt.politics.clinton:145018
|>
|> In message <4ct095$f...@nntp4.u.washington.edu> - for...@cac.washington.edu
|> (Gary Forbis ) writes:
|>
|> >In article <4cs3lc$c...@castle.nando.net>, lar...@nando.net (Larry Nomer) writes:
|> >|> I believed that entitlement laws (not all "democratic laws") are
|> >|> wrong, and amount to theft, long before I found out that
|> >|> Ms. Savant shares this opinion.
|> >
|> >All laws are theft in that those who wish to do otherwise than the law allows
|> >are held accountable without their consent.
|>
|> No, actions that involve the initiation of the use of force or fraud are
|> wrong, and other actions are OK. (I am a libertarian.)
I could guess. I toyed with the idea of being a libertarian in the late
seventies and early eighties. It sound good on the surface but rings hollow.
|> >Do you choose for all which are
|> >wrong and which are not?
|>
|> No, see libertarian principle above.
There is no standard to your standard. The initiation of the use of force
is a worthless standard. You use force to live. Force was used against you
from the day you were born. Everything can be framed as retaliation.
|> >When one claims rights of ownership over that which existed without owner
|> >or over some transformation thereof one takes without compensation that
|> >which others might as well lay claim. Why is this not theft?
|>
|> It is not theft because, as you postulated, that land (or whatever) was
|> "without owner" before you claimed it.
What makes the claim rightful? The claim is not sufficient to establish
ownership. Heck, I lay claim to the air. Your continued use is theft.
No, the claim is the initiation of the use of force.
|> > Do you believe that
|> >"To the early bird goes the worm" states a rightful claim to that worm?
|>
|> Well, in the case of a previously un-owned worm, yes. That was pretty
|> much the way the Homesteading Act worked.
The bird never owns the worm.
The Homestead Act is an act of law. That which law gives law can take away.
Societies create laws to serve their purposes. When laws no longer serve
their purposes societies create new laws.
|> >Why is a claim of ownership not enslavement of others?
|>
|> Because, as you said before, there was no other owner in this example.
|> Why are you worried about ripping off people who never claimed to own
|> something? (And probably didn't even know it existed?)
Ownership puts the focus in the wrong place.
I am but a ship on the ocean. I cannot help but displace water. When I
pass the water returns. Others pass where I have passed and I pass where
others have passed. What I take from the ocean others cannot. What others
take I cannot.
|> > Do you believe ownership
|> >allows one to lay claim to the labor of others?
|>
|> Of course not. All labor arrangements should be made in voluntary
|> contracts.
Did these party participate in the contract through which you lay claim to
ownership?
|> >What portion of the country
|> >is unowned that a person may recieved the fruits of her or his labor
|> >unobstructed?
|>
|> Huh?
By carving up the ownership of the resources claims have been placed on the
labor of others. They cannot take what they need through their own labor but
must "voluntarily" labor more than they need so as to satisfy the claims of
others.
|> >|> Just what are the limits to the tyranny of the majority in your
|> >|> view? Does the majority have the right to enslave me 100%
|> >|> if they vote for it? How about 80%? How about any percent?
|> >
|> >One cannot be enlaved in this way.
|>
|> Good! We agree. How about the 42%+ of my income that the
|> government takes from me by force every year? Am I not 42% a
|> slave in that I do not own that much of the product of my work?
I cannot be enslaved by your claims of ownership either. I respect your
claim because I respect the threat of force and I respect life and life's
necessities.
--
--gary for...@u.washington.edu
Steve Kangas
>In article <4cvhbq$e...@news.scruz.net> Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> writes:
>>You get an E for Effort. Notice that in my original post, I
>>said "the greatest scientists in modern history." You've
>>provided a list of famous novelists, poets and politicians
>>whose expertise is hardly rigorous scientific thought and
>>logic.
>
>necessarily lead to expertise in another--*not even in the sciences*. The
>local creationist at the university I attended was an engineering professor,
>and I have no doubts that he was an exemplary engineer. Linus Pauling's
>knowledge of chemistry didn't justify his claims that vitamin C would cure
>everything. Crookes was suckered in by a medium; some scientists believe
>in metal benders.
>
>So--once again, why should the political views of even the greatest modern
>scientists matter, versus the political views of the greatest modern auto
>mechanics?
My point exactly to those conservatives trying to impress us
with Marilyn vos Savant. Thank you for your agreement.
>
> James Jones
>
Steve Kangas
Curt Howland
|> >|> How about this: I'm entitled to life,
|> how...@priss.com (Curt Howland) elucidated:
|> >You are alive, you have it. No one elses labor
|> >required.
mr...@dcc.com (Michael K. Ross) writes:
|> To maintain it requires somebody's labor.
Do you work, or do you just sleep?
|> >|> liberty
|> >
|> >You may do or say anything that does no harm
|> >to another. Again, no one else required.
|>
|> Again, maintaining it requires the police & military
False. They are only of use when someone starts
abusing their power and forcing themselves on
others.
|> >|> and the pursuit of
|> >|> happiness,
|> >
|> >You are free to direct your efforts in any way
|> >that pleases you and does no harm. Again, no
|> >involvement of anyone else required.
|>
|> Not true. There are many victimless crimes that are illegal.
Then they are wrong, and only forcing one persons
opinion of morality on others.
|> But
|> again, all of these things require the labor of others to maintain.
False. Any maintenance is in reaction to anothers
abuse of power.
|> >|> but I can't get them without the labor of the police,
|> >|> courts and military.
|> >
|> >Non sequiter: These are only required when someon
|> >does harm to another. They are not entitlements,
|> >they are professionals hired by others to do the
|> >dirty work. Hired, not entitled.
|>
|> I didn't say I was entitled to them,
You said that you cannot have live, liberty, or
persuit of happyness without them, and since you
are entitled to the first, you are logically
entitled to the second.
So, which premise is wrong?
|>... only that the rights I have been
|> endowed with, which I hold self-evident, are dependent on the labor of
|> others. And I stand by every word I _did_ say.
You are in error. No one is required to act on your
behalf, many are paid by your labors in return for
theirs.
An entitlement is to require their efforts regardless
of your labor.
|> >|> Gee, that wasn't so hard. Maybe she's not so smart after all.
|> >
|> >You prove her statement, then disparage her statement?
|>
|> You mis-spelled "disprove".
You are again in error.
|> - Mike Ross
---
Curt Howland how...@Priss.com
"Laws do not persuade just because they threaten."
-Seneca, 65 AD
James Jones
>said "the greatest scientists in modern history." You've
>provided a list of famous novelists, poets and politicians
>whose expertise is hardly rigorous scientific thought and
>logic.
Again, as I believe you originally pointed out, expertise in one area doesn't
necessarily lead to expertise in another--*not even in the sciences*. The
local creationist at the university I attended was an engineering professor,
and I have no doubts that he was an exemplary engineer. Linus Pauling's
knowledge of chemistry didn't justify his claims that vitamin C would cure
everything. Crookes was suckered in by a medium; some scientists believe
in metal benders.
So--once again, why should the political views of even the greatest modern
scientists matter, versus the political views of the greatest modern auto
mechanics?
James Jones
Opinions herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of any
organization.
Nathan L. Wurtzel
Mark.O...@AtlantaGA.ATTGIS.com (Mark.O.Wilson) writes:
>
>In article <timstarrD...@netcom.com>, Tim Starr says...
>>
>
>>(BTW, Sartre was a communist, & Wittgenstein was a Nazi - what kind
>of
>>"liberalism" includes both commies & Nazis?)
>
>An accurate one.
s a relatively mild form of collectivism as compared to socialism, fascism, Naz
ism, and finally communism (I think it's probably accurate to put them in
that order of ascending collectivism).
Whether or not liberalism necessarily leads to the more oppressive forms of col
lectivism is a good topic for debate.
--Nate
>
>--
>Mark.O...@AtlantaGa.attgis.com
Steve Kangas
>In article <4cj5b6$b...@news.scruz.net>,
>Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>
>>Liberals oppose all violations of human rights;
>
>Except for the right to own property, and not have it stolen from you.
>
>-Thomas
>
>
I consider it theft when the average American worker increases
his hourly productivity rate by 1 percent a year, but 70
percent of the incipient income gains go to the top one
percent.
Why is it you libertarians and conservatives never stick up for
these kind of property rights?
Steve Kangas
Steve Kangas
>In <4d1i0a$k...@news.scruz.net>, Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> writes:
>
>>>So--once again, why should the political views of even the greatest modern
>>>scientists matter, versus the political views of the greatest modern auto
>>>mechanics?
>>
>>with Marilyn vos Savant. Thank you for your agreement.
>
>to do this.
The person who posted this Marilyn vos Savant quote in the
first place.
Steve Kangas
Walker on Earth
pzri...@tiac.net (Paul Zrimsek) writes:
>>My point exactly to those conservatives trying to impress us
>>with Marilyn vos Savant. Thank you for your agreement.
>Second request: Name just one conservative who's been trying
>to do this.
words, but by specifically mentioning they were hers ;-)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. And many die that deserve life. Is it in
your power to give it to them? Then do not be so quick to deal out death in
judgement, for even the very wise may not see all ends."
Nathan L. Wurtzel
tedw...@Glue.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards) writes:
>
>In article <4cj5b6$b...@news.scruz.net>,
>Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>
>>Liberals oppose all violations of human rights;
>
>Except for the right to own property, and not have it stolen from you.
1) See how well freedom of speech has held up at liberal-dominated universities
(Important to note that conservatives were just as bad in the 50's and 60's)
2) The right to defend yourself with firearms has no credence among most libera
ls
9 and 10) Sometimes I think liberals have never even heard of these amendments.
>-Thomas
--Nate
>
>
Gary Forbis
|> Subject: Re: Marilyn vos Savant - the conservative counterpoint to the liberal Einstein
|> Organization: Priss.com
|> Lines: 86
|> Distribution: world
|> Message-ID: <4d2etm$b...@news.arc.nasa.gov>
|> References: <4ciohc$9...@news.scruz.net> <4cjkcc$1...@motown.coast.net> <17705B8D9S...@mizzou1.missouri.edu> <DKs6L...@eskimo.com> <4cs3lc$c...@castle.nando.net> <4cvffo$1...@castle.nando.net> <4d0rpo$r...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>
|> NNTP-Posting-Host: noc.arc.nasa.gov
|> Xref: news.u.washington.edu alt.politics.libertarian:161148 alt.politics.usa.republican:134084 alt.society.conservatism:15870 alt.politics.reform:15164 alt.society.civil-liberty:11404 alt.politics.economics:37010 alt.politics.clinton:145346
|>
|>
|> |> lar...@nando.net (Larry Nomer) writes:
|> |> |> No, actions that involve the initiation of the use of force or
|> |> |> fraud are wrong, and other actions are OK. (I am a libertarian.)
|>
|> |> There is no standard to your standard. The initiation of the use
|> |> of force is a worthless standard.
|>
|> people are "libertarian" in form. I trade my labor
|> for compensation, I use that social money to trade
|> for the fruits of others labor, or trade directly
|> in agreement when I bring the pasta and someone
|> else brings the salad.
Most of the potlucks I've participated in have been more of a series of
gifts rather than trades. Some may not bring a thing and yet may fully
participate in the consumption.
A person who chooses to be lazy doesn't get invited to come and may after
a few instances be invited to leave. The larger the gathering the larger
the number of free riders the group will accept.
|> |> You use force to live.
|>
|> While I'm sure you might bring up my use of force
|> against vegetables in their harvest for food, I
|> don't think that's where you were headed.
|>
|> Can you be more specific? Who am I forcing by my
|> actions?
I don't know how to explain it to some one who does not see that acts have
effects both positive and negative.
When I was a kid I learned that in biblical times the wheat was gathered into
bundles during the harvest. Every tenth bundle was left in the field for the
poor to gather. I don't know if this was truth or myth.
|> |> Force was used against you
|> |> from the day you were born. Everything can be framed as retaliation.
|>
|> This would be usefull as the rationalization a
|> sociopath could be thinking about as they mow
|> down a room full of evil fast-food-restaurant
|> managers one of which fired them years ago, but
|> such sociopathy is why full rights are not allowed
|> to citizens in early life. Hopefully, a human will
|> learn to respect the rights of others before being
|> big enough to harm them.
|>
|> Seriously, "force" and "fraud" are the roots of
|> all crimes. No matter how you may not like the
|> fact that your mothers doctor might have slapped
|> your behind when you were born (BAD PRACTICE!),
|> you weren't holding the contract. Your mother was.
Either one accepts that contracts made on one's behalf are binding or one
does not. I don't understand this picking and choosing. Taxes are a part
of a contract made on your behalf every much as asignment away of the commons
to which God gave you shared title and stewardship responsibilities.
|> |> I am but a ship on the ocean. I cannot help but displace water. When I
|> |> pass the water returns. Others pass where I have passed and I pass where
|> |> others have passed. What I take from the ocean others cannot. What
|> |> others take I cannot.
|>
|> Beautifull philosophy. No force involved.
Thanks. But force is involved. What I take I take with reverence for the
posibilities I have destroyed. What I take others cannot.
|> |> By carving up the ownership of the resources claims have been placed on
|> |> the labor of others.
|>
|> That does not compute. If I choose not to mine my
|> mine, it doesn't get mined. I don't get paid, either.
I don't believe you have a mine even if ownership rights have been asigned to
you. Many who claim ownership of mines use the labor of others to extract
wealth from God's bounty. Why shouldn't others mine if you do not? Why
shouldn't they be entitled to the fruits of their labor?
|> |> They cannot take what they need through their own labor but
|> |> must "voluntarily" labor more than they need so as to satisfy
|> |> the claims of others.
|>
|> That is slavery. Nothing is worth that.
I glad you agree. Such is capitalism. But some things are worse. There
is value in capitalism.
|> |> |> Good! We agree. How about the 42%+ of my income that the
|> |> |> government takes from me by force every year? Am I not 42% a
|> |> |> slave in that I do not own that much of the product of my work?
|> |>
|> |>
|> |> I cannot be enslaved by your claims of ownership either.
|>
|> What claim is made on you?
Every claim of ownership. I can understand this taking what one needs but
what's with this taking what one does not need? It is an afront to my being
to make me labor extra for that which should be available for the taking.
I can understand assigned stewardship; I do not know and cannot hope to know
the ramifications of my taking whatever looks available. I do not understand
ownership without stewardship. I believe society has a moral responsibility
to take control of resources away from those who are not good stewards.
|> |> I respect your
|> |> claim because I respect the threat of force and I respect life and life's
|> |> necessities.
|>
|> The two are not synonimous. Just being alive does
|> not enslave anyone to anyone else. The only obligation
|> is not to force yourself on another, for doing so is
|> to declare that your life is more important than theirs.
|> It is wrong to force, and it is wrong to be forced.
Again I agree, well mostly. Nature has place certain responsibilities on
us whch we cannot avoid. We are force on threat of death to consume and
evacuate, to avoid being eaten, to find shelter, etc.
There are two sides to the philosophy that one life is as important as
the next. One side is as you say, that is, that my life is no more important
than yours. The other side is that my life is as important as yours. I
have no moral responsibility to watch you sit and live off the fruits of
my labor.
|> |> --gary for...@u.washington.edu
|> ---
|> Curt Howland how...@Priss.com
|> "Laws do not persuade just because they threaten."
|> -Seneca, 65 AD
--
--gary for...@u.washington.edu
Mark.O.Wilson
>
>In my college logic class, we were taught that there is an
>incorrect form of argument called the "fallacy of appeal to
>insufficient authority." I was indeed commenting on all the
>intellectual lemmings out there who believe that democratic
>laws are a form of theft because Ms. Savant said so.
Liberals are so used to getting all of their opinions from their
authority figures, that they now assume everyone else does as well.
Taxes are a form of theft because they are, not because Ms. Savant
says so.
Check any dictionary. If Bill says it's allright of course.
Curt Howland
|> lar...@nando.net (Larry Nomer) writes:
|> |> No, actions that involve the initiation of the use of force or fraud are
|> |> wrong, and other actions are OK. (I am a libertarian.)
for...@cac.washington.edu (Gary Forbis ) writes:
|> There is no standard to your standard. The initiation of the use of force
|> is a worthless standard.
Concept: The vast majority of interactions between
people are "libertarian" in form. I trade my labor
for compensation, I use that social money to trade
for the fruits of others labor, or trade directly
in agreement when I bring the pasta and someone
else brings the salad.
|> You use force to live.
While I'm sure you might bring up my use of force
against vegetables in their harvest for food, I
don't think that's where you were headed.
Can you be more specific? Who am I forcing by my
actions?
|> Force was used against you
|> from the day you were born. Everything can be framed as retaliation.
This would be usefull as the rationalization a
sociopath could be thinking about as they mow
down a room full of evil fast-food-restaurant
managers one of which fired them years ago, but
such sociopathy is why full rights are not allowed
to citizens in early life. Hopefully, a human will
learn to respect the rights of others before being
big enough to harm them.
Seriously, "force" and "fraud" are the roots of
all crimes. No matter how you may not like the
fact that your mothers doctor might have slapped
your behind when you were born (BAD PRACTICE!),
you weren't holding the contract. Your mother was.
|> I am but a ship on the ocean. I cannot help but displace water. When I
|> pass the water returns. Others pass where I have passed and I pass where
|> others have passed. What I take from the ocean others cannot. What others
|> take I cannot.
Beautifull philosophy. No force involved.
|> By carving up the ownership of the resources claims have been placed on the
|> labor of others.
That does not compute. If I choose not to mine my
mine, it doesn't get mined. I don't get paid, either.
|> They cannot take what they need through their own labor but
|> must "voluntarily" labor more than they need so as to satisfy the claims of
|> others.
That is slavery. Nothing is worth that.
|> |> Good! We agree. How about the 42%+ of my income that the
|> |> government takes from me by force every year? Am I not 42% a
|> |> slave in that I do not own that much of the product of my work?
|>
|>
|> I cannot be enslaved by your claims of ownership either.
What claim is made on you?
|> I respect your
|> claim because I respect the threat of force and I respect life and life's
|> necessities.
The two are not synonimous. Just being alive does
not enslave anyone to anyone else. The only obligation
is not to force yourself on another, for doing so is
to declare that your life is more important than theirs.
It is wrong to force, and it is wrong to be forced.
|> --gary for...@u.washington.edu
Paul Zrimsek
>>So--once again, why should the political views of even the greatest modern
>>scientists matter, versus the political views of the greatest modern auto
>>mechanics?
>
Curt Howland
|> how...@Priss.com (Curt Howland) writes:
|> |> Concept: The vast majority of interactions between
|> |> people are "libertarian" in form. I trade my labor
|> |> for compensation, I use that social money to trade
|> |> for the fruits of others labor, or trade directly
|> |> in agreement when I bring the pasta and someone
|> |> else brings the salad.
for...@cac.washington.edu (Gary Forbis ) writes:
|> Most of the potlucks I've participated in have been more of a series of
|> gifts rather than trades.
I'm sorry I was not more clear. Potluck has nothing
to do with it. My example was two people, each trading
something they have for somthing the other has.
|> Some may not bring a thing and yet may fully
|> participate in the consumption.
I also specifically used the term "in agreement" to
assure that this was a consentual situation.
|> A person who chooses to be lazy doesn't get invited to come and may after
|> a few instances be invited to leave.
The lazy person is forcing themselves on others.
[To skip ahead a bit...]
|> |> Seriously, "force" and "fraud" are the roots of
|> |> all crimes. No matter how you may not like the
|> |> fact that your mothers doctor might have slapped
|> |> your behind when you were born (BAD PRACTICE!),
|> |> you weren't holding the contract. Your mother was.
|>
|> Either one accepts that contracts made on one's behalf are binding or one
|> does not. I don't understand this picking and choosing.
The child is not "allowed" to enter into contracts
due to inexperience. I am not picking and choosing.
Once emansipated, the former child is well within
their rights to abrogate contracts they were entered
into without their consent.
|> |> Beautifull philosophy. No force involved.
|>
|> Thanks. But force is involved. What I take I take with reverence for the
|> posibilities I have destroyed. What I take others cannot.
"Take"? From who? Without return? Against their will?
That is forcing yourself on others, just like the
freeloader.
I honestly do not believe that is what you mean. The
fact of existance means that another cannot inhabit
the same space-time, they cannot eat the food that
you eat, etc. Fine. They also cannot do the work that
you do, cannot perform the same tasks or trade the
same skills. Trading your labors for something produced
by someone else is the perfect consentual contract.
Gary, I don't think we disagree anywhere. Since, as
you put it:
|> There are two sides to the philosophy that one life is as important as
|> the next. One side is as you say, that is, that my life is no more important
|> than yours. The other side is that my life is as important as yours. I
|> have no moral responsibility to watch you sit and live off the fruits of
|> my labor.
That is exactly my entire argument against state
imposed welfare. And it is also the basis of the
Libertarian consentual contractual interaction
ideal. No one has the right to force anyone against
their will.
I find it fascinating that we completely agree on
every point, and disagree as to the propriety of
abusive taxation, the gorging of the government
pork-fest fed from funds taken under threat of
inprisonment and violent retrobution.
Curt Howland
|> I consider it theft when the average American worker increases
|> his hourly productivity rate by 1 percent a year, but 70
|> percent of the incipient income gains go to the top one
|> percent.
I consider it stupid too. Why aren't these productive
people working for themselves?
|> Why is it you libertarians and conservatives never stick up for
|> these kind of property rights?
Every day, every post. I sorry you can't see it. I
try to be very specific about being inclusive of every
beings rights, not just the wealthy ones.
|> Steve Kangas
Curt-
Larry Nomer
writes:
>tedw...@Glue.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards) wrote:
>>In article <4cj5b6$b...@news.scruz.net>,
>>Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Liberals oppose all violations of human rights;
>>
>>Except for the right to own property, and not have it stolen from you.
>>
>>-Thomas
>>
>>
>I consider it theft when the average American worker increases
>his hourly productivity rate by 1 percent a year, but 70
>percent of the incipient income gains go to the top one
>percent.
>
>Why is it you libertarians and conservatives never stick up for
>these kind of property rights?
Maybe the top 1% deserved 70% of the benefit. Productivity
gains are not usually do to the "little guy" working harder. They are
most often due to better management and/or better production
equipment (capital investment).
The reason libertarians are not particularly concerned about
your statistic is because libertarians don't believe that it is
the government's job to micro-manage our nation's businesses.
The reason that workers have not done particularly well in the
past several decades is due to the huge growth in the non-
productive government sector. Total government take was
28% om 1950 and is 42%+ today. The number of pages of
federal regulations (the Federal Register) has grown in that
time period from 12,000 pages to 90,000 pages. The
Internal Revenue Code as grown from 984 pages to
9,400 pages.
If the government didn't take so much of our savings, more of
it would go into exactly those capital investments and modern
new factories and facilities that increase worker productivity
and make us wealthier.
>Steve Kangas
-Larry Nomer
Mark.O.Wilson
>However, I hardly think you can call the leftism of the media an
"indisputable fact." It has been disputed, many, many times. The =
>fact that the majority of information organs are owned and operated by
conservative organizations
The fact that you believe corporations are automatically conservative
indicates what little perspective you have.
John Switzer
Michael K. Ross <mr...@dcc.com> wrote:
>BR0...@bingvmb.cc.binghamton.edu (Nathan L. Wurtzel) elucidated:
>
>>In article <4d5mlg$1...@news.scruz.net>
>>Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> writes:
>>
>>A car is 10 times more likely to kill a loved one or friend than a handgun.
>>Should we ban cars? Eating foods high in fat is about 100 times more likely to
>>prematurely kill a friend or loved one than a handgun. Should we ban Twinkies?
>
>Illogical - cars' _intended_ purpose is not to kill people. But that
>is the only purpose of a handgun. We still do not know the purpose of
>Twinkies, but, yeah, I'm willing to ban them, too. :)
Sigh, talk about illogical. Tell me - are you truly stupid enough to believe
that "the only purpose of a handgun" is to kill or are you just engaging
in mindless cliches?
A handgun has many, many, many, many purposes, which you would know if you
would bother to investigate the subject for even the slightest amount of time:
o Self-defense: the FBI Uniform Crime reports, among other sources,
show that handguns are used at least 600,000 times to defend someone or
stop a crime. Since 600,000 people are not killed by handguns each year,
we can conclude that this is done without having to kill someone. In fact,
the vast majority of these self-defense uses don't even involving firing
the gun. This is only common sense - if someone is pointing a gun at you,
are you going to 1) run, 2) give up, or 3) fight? Most people choose 1) or
2) which is no big surprise.
o Recreation: the most often use of handguns is at the range, where
people shot at paper targets, clay targets, bottles, cans, or anything
else that strikes their fancy or is legal. This is a legit sport, as well,
with organized competitions both nationally and internatinoally.
o Hunting: handguns are used for hunting, for both big game and small.
Such hunters are interested in honing their woodcraft skills so that
they can get close enough to the game for a clean kill, which involves quite
a bit of skill and knowledge of animals.
And in case this still doesn't make any sense to you, why do most police
officers never have to fire their guns and rarely draw them? If their only
purpose is to "kill," as you claim, they wouldn't need them. The point is
that the presence of the gun is enough to make many people obey the
officers, as opposed to fighting. This is called "deterence" and applies
to civilians as well.
--
John Switzer | Talking about peace without first talking about
| freedom is like talking about sex without first
jswi...@limbaugh.com | talking about love.
*** Access the Congressional Record at http://thomas.loc.gov ***
Keith Hamburger
: How many libertarians on this group wrote letters of protest to CompuServe
: over the banning of sex.groups and political.groups? Not many, from the
: type of response the company has been getting (by the way, you have to send
: hard copy, they can't deny receiving a half-million letters the way they
: can a half-million emails). If this is the way you participate in society,
: no wonder you consider yourselves slaves...
I think you would find that most libertarians don't really care about
Compuserve's actions except as a "precedent" to other companies and
organizations. AOL has already censored a certain amount of usenet
groups and I'm sure there is a market for such a censored service. I
might be a bit more inclined to allow my 11 year old son play around
on there than on the completely unlimited service I currently use.
I think another post in this newsgroup had the right attitude. Bring
economic pressure on Compuserve if you want to protest the precedent.
What does a corporation care about letters written to them from those
that aren't their customers in the first place. If I were a Compuserve
I would cease to be so. If I had a service that Compuserve customers
might wish to access, I would not allow that access to encourage those
customers to bring pressure to bear. Otherwise, I will let them be.
Corporations have a right to make stupid decisions that affect their
customers. Governments shouldn't.
Keith
Steve Kangas
>In article <4d4mah$s...@news.scruz.net>,
>Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>>IMHO, libertarianism and individualism is a refuge of the
>>wealthy, and a disproportionate number of them are attracted to
>>it because it best protects what they have. I don't believe the
>>attraction is any more profound or intellectual than that.
>
>Then how do you explain the fact that most wealthy are far and away the
>most statist elements of society? How many famous rich people do you
>know of who're libertarians? How come they all keep endowing all these
>statist foundations which use the money to support statist causes? If
>they were libertarians, then they'd either keep the money to themselves
>or give it to libertarian foundations & causes, wouldn't they?
Actually, you bring up a good point. When it comes to helping
the working poor, the rich snarl, "Pull yourself up by your own
bootstraps!" But when it comes to themselves, they're front and
center at the public trough, bribing Congress for their $500
billion S&L bailouts.
>
>Tim Starr -
Steve Kangas
William House
This and other writings of James Madison found at:
"http://www.matisse.net/files/madison.html"
"James Madison - a Mainstream Revolutionary"
To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of
Virginia
Memorial and Remonstrance
We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken
into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last
Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision
for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same
if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous
abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to
remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are
determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,
1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that
religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of
discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by
force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the
conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every
man to exercise it as these may dictate.
This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable,
because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence
contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other
men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right From: will...@ix.netcom.com(William House )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics,ca.politics,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton
Subject: James Madison's 15 Reasons to Oppose the Religious Right.
References: <4cj5b6$b...@news.scruz.net> <4d40l9$q...@news.scruz.net> <4d4h9t$i...@news.arc.nasa.gov> <4d4mah$s...@news.scruz.net> <timstarrD...@netcom.com>
James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance -1785 20 June 1785
This and other writings of James Madison found at:
"http://www.matisse.net/files/madison.html"
"James Madison - a Mainstream Revolutionary"
To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of
Virginia
Memorial and Remonstrance
We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken
into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last
Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision
for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same
if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous
abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to
remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are
determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,
1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that
religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of
discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by
force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the
conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every
man to exercise it as these may dictate.
This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable,
because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence
contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other
men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right he late
Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power
had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in
precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they
avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this
lesson too much soon to forget it.
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish
Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with
the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all
other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to
contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one
establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in
all cases whatsoever?
4. Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis
of every law, and which is more indispensable, in proportion as the
validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If
"all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to
be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as
relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than
another, of their natural rights.
Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to
the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of
Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to
profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine
origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not
yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.
If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against
man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered.
As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens,
so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar
exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a
compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable?
can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship?
Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with
extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all
others?
We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these
denominations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over
their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the
common opposition to the measure.
5. Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a
competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as
an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension
falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and
throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the
means of salvation.
6. Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for
the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a
contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it
disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a
contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed
and flourished, not only without the support of human laws , but in
spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of
miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence
and the ordinary care of Providence.
Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by
human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was
established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who
profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and
the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject
it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to
trust it to its own merits.
7. Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments,
instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a
contrary operation.
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of
Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less
in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and
servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and
persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in
which it appeared in its greatest luster; those of every sect, point
to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy.
Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers
depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them
predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have
greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?
8. Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the
support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the
support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting
Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be
necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of
Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil
Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments
had on Civil Society?
In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on
the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been
seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have
they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers
who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an
established Clergy convenient auxiliaries.
A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.
Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen
in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which
protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal
rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.
9. Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous
policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of
every Nation and Religion, promised a luster to our country, and an
accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is
the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to
the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution.
It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those who see opinions
in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority.
Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it
differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other
the last in the career of intolerance. The magnanimous sufferer under
this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon
on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and
philanthrophy in their due extent, may offer a more certain respose
from his Troubles.
10. Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens. The
allurements presented by other situations are every day thinning their
number. To superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the
liberty which they now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which
has dishonored and depopulated flourishing kingdoms.
11. Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the
forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced
among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been split in the old
world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious
disscord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time
has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow
and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to
assuage the disease.
The American Theater has exhibited proofs that equal and complete
liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its
malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with
the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to
contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will
too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the
first fruits of the threatened innovation.
The very appearance of the Bill has transformed "that Christian
forbearance, love and charity," which of late mutually prevailed, into
animosities and jealousies, which may not soon be appeased. What
mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be
armed with the force of a law?
12. Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the
light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this
precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of
mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with
the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religion s; and
how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen
the disproportion?
No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of
revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by
example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those
who might convey it to them. Instead of Leveling as far as possible,
every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an
ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a w all of
defense against the encroachments of error.
13. Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to
go great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in
general, and to slacken the bands of Society. I f it be difficult to
execute any law which is not generally deemed necessary or salutary,
what must be the case, where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And
what may be the effect of so striking an example of impotency in the
Government, on its general authority?
14. Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought
not to be imposed, without the clearest evidence that it is called for
by a majority of citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed
by which the voice of the majority in this case may be determined, or
its influence secured.
The people of the respective counties are indeed requested to signify
their opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to the next Session
of Assembly." But the representatives or of the Counties will be that
of the people. Our hope is that neither of the former will, after due
consideration, espouse the dangerous principle of the Bill. Should
the event disappoint us, it will still leave us in full confidence,
that a fair appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against our
liberties.
15. Because finally, "the equal right of every citizen to the free
exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience" is
held by the same tenure with all our other rights.
If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we
weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the
"Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of
Virginia, as the basis and foundation of Government," it is enumerated
with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis.
Either then, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only
measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this
authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that
they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred:
Either we must say, that they may control the freedom of the press,
may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and
Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of our
very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and
hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to
enact into the law the Bill under consideration.
Conclusion:
We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth
have no such authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part
against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this
remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the
Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is
addressed, may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act
which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust
committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure
which may be worthy of his [blessing, may re]bound to their own
praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity
and the happiness of the Commonweath.
Libertarian Harry Browne for President in 1996
http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/
Steve Kangas
>|> how...@Priss.com (Curt Howland) wrote:
>|> >I consider it stupid too. Why aren't these productive
>|> >people working for themselves?
>
>|> Because business-creation requires capital.
>
>Hmmm. Likely one good reason that the people
>with money tend to either make more, or go
>broke.
>
>|> Then you deserve praise for your fairness. However, you just
>|> called the working poor stupid.
>
>No, I agreed with you that the situation of productive
>individuals stuck in dead end positions working
>for other people was stupid.
>
>|> What am I to discern about your
>|> biases with a statement like that?
>
>Since the bias is your illusion, you can make
>anything you want of it.
>
My apologies for having misinterpreted your sentence. If indeed
you are an equal advocate of the rights of everyone, and not
only the rich, you are to be commended.
>|> >|> Steve Kangas
>|> >
>|> >Curt-
>|>
>|> Steve Kangas
>
>Curt-
Steve Kangas
Steve Kangas
>In article <4d1t75$j...@hertz.isr.umd.edu>
>tedw...@Glue.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards) writes:
>
>>
>>Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Liberals oppose all violations of human rights;
>>
>>Except for the right to own property, and not have it stolen from you.
>
>
>1) See how well freedom of speech has held up at liberal-dominated universities
> (Important to note that conservatives were just as bad in the 50's and 60's)
Most liberals do not agree with the radicals who advocate this
sort of censorship. I certainly don't. At any rate, that fad
has been successfully challenged and is thankfully passing from
our campuses.
>
>2) The right to defend yourself with firearms has no credence among most libera
>ls
That's because a handgun is 6 more times more likely to kill a
loved one or friend than an unknown intruder. This is a
violation of THEIR rights.
>
>9 and 10) Sometimes I think liberals have never even heard of these amendments.
>>-Thomas
>
>--Nate
>>
The ninth amendment is enigmatically worded, and the Supreme
Court has interpreted it flexibly. The problem with enforcing
the tenth is that all the other amendments are open to
interpretation, and liberal and conservative justices have all
viewed them in their own way. Regretable, perhaps, but that's
how history has played out the generalness of the Constitution.
Steve Kangas
Erika
Nice propaganda spam dude! You need a lesson in self discipline.
You'll need if you ever want to even get close to self government.
- erika
Paul Knight
: In article <4ck9bs$s...@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, Paul Knight says...
: >
: >Big O (joh...@aimnet.com) wrote:
: >: In article <4ciohc$9...@news.scruz.net>, Steve Kangas
: >: <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
: >
: >: > |"How can we live in freedom and maintain that we are entitled
: >: > |to *anything* that we can't get without the labor of others?
: >: > |Remember, if we are entitled to the labor of others, that makes
: >: > |slaves of those others."
: >: > |
: >: > | -Marilyn vos Savant
: >: > | Parade Magazine, 12/31/95
: >
: >
: >: {snip}
: >
: >: And not one single word by Steve in his post to refute the simple logic
: >: and reasoning in Marilyn's statement. In an officiated/judged debate
: you
: >: would have gotten few, if any, points, Steve, because your ranting and
: >: raving proved nothing except that you can't refute the simple logic and
: >: reasoning in her statement.
: >
: >
: >Of the statements attributed to Marilyn vos Savant, which, of course is
: >not her real name, the first is a question. One cannot refute the logic
: >of the question because it is not a declarative statement, i.e., it states
: >nothing. The second sentence, in its current form, is an imperative
: sentence,
: >that is, it commands one to remember the rest of the statement.
: Therefore,
: >it is not making any assertions at all. Rather, it is just telling the
: >reader to remember a phrase.
: >
: >In summary, there is no logic to refute since logic deals with the
: >relationship of declarative statements and not questions or commands.
: >
: >However, let us assume that the second sentence were converted to a
: >declarative one by removing the "Remember" part. That is: if we are
: >entitled to the labors of others, we are slaves of those others.
: >In my dictionary, the slave is not defined as one who owes someone
: >else his labor or a part of his labor.
: After a lengthy and well written piece dealing with logic and rhetoric,
: you then descend to this. You attempt to refute the entirety of MVS's
: statement, with the statement that your personal definition of slavery
: does not correspond to hers.
: Excuse me while ponder the glories of your logical expositions.
: Now, if you are as smart as you claim to be, you should have no
: trouble explaining why your definitions are superior to MVS's.
In my posting, I stated that the definition of slavery comes from my
dictionary. My dictionary, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, defines
a slave as "one who is held in servitude as the chattel of another".
Chattel, as defined in the same dictionary is "an item of tangible
or movable or immovable property except real estate, freehold, and the
things which are parcel of it". Thus, as I interpret this dictionary,
a slave is the property of the slave holder.
In no way is a member of society a piece of property that is owned by
that society. He may have binding obligations to that society, but
he is not owned by that society. (This describes the situation of
an American today and does not refer to societies where ownership
of a slave is a legal claim as it was in the U.S. beffore the Civil War.)
Ms. vos Savant's use of the term "slave" is designed to excessively
simplify the relationship between a person and his society. I have no
doubt that her position would not be found conform to any legal test
in the U.S.
: >Thus, the quotation is using inflammatory terminology, i.e., slave, to
: >discredit social obligations and responsibility, which are expected
: >in every society.
: Slavery, child labor and wives submitting to their husbands were
: considered social obligations which were expected in every society,
: until quite recently. I am still waiting for you to put forth a rational
: and logical argument why anyone must be forcibly bound to these
: social obligations and responsibilities.
Different societies have define different social obligations. The
obligations may change with the times. However, for a society to
be viable, those obligations must match the needs of the society and
the ability of its members to meet those obligations. It is easy to
imagine that the social obligations of a nomadic tribe, an agricultural
village, and an industrial society may be different. Nevertheless, all
societies require some obligations from its members.
Now, if one wishes to form a new society that requires no social obligations,
that begins an interesting experiment. I would like to know if any such
society exists or ever existed. As far as I know, all existing societies
have obligations for the individual to meet.
Thus, the argument is simple. If one wishes to obtain the benefits of
any society, one comes under the rules for that society that define
the obligations of the individual. However, if one renounces the concept
of individual obligations, one can either leave society completely or
find a new society without obligations. That's just the way it is.
Changing the terminology does not really change how societies work.
Peace and good health,
P.
Curt Howland
|> how...@Priss.com (Curt Howland) writes:
|> |> I'm sorry I was not more clear. Potluck has nothing
|> |> to do with it. My example was two people, each trading
|> |> something they have for somthing the other has.
for...@cac.washington.edu (Gary Forbis ) writes:
|> I believe the trade is already on its way to immorality. I'm guilty.
Too bad. Morality has nothing to do with it.
If I have a hammer, and you have a nail, consentual
cooperation can succeed where neither of us can do
so alone. No force, no coersion, everyone gains.
|> I
|> have things I do not need. Sometimes life's pragmatic concerns take priority
|> over morality.
While I think I've grasped what you're trying to
say, please correct me: Owning two shirts is
wrong, because it deprives someone else of a shirt
while you can only wear one at a time?
|> Still, taking and holding what one does not need so as to
|> gain leverage other another is immoral.
If I know how to make pots, and make 3 so I can
trade two for things I don't know how to make,
how is this in any way force or fraud?
|>(I'm an athiest.)
I'm pleased. We can keep "gods" out of it, I have
no problem with that. Thank you.
|> I debase myself in this way as well. When I labor beyond my needs I limit
|> the possibilities of others.
Or, your efforts create more wealth, thus allowing
for a greater than "zero sum game". Labor can
create wealth where none existed before, thus
a net gain.
|> If others profess a need or desire and I have
|> a desire to meet that need I do so. This is the difference between a gift
|> and a trade. A trade lays claims to the labor of another, even a "fair trade."
Not in the slightest. A "fair trade" is one where
both parties enter, and leave, by their own free
will. Once the deal is done, both leave with no
claims or obligations forced on them what so ever.
If someone chooses to place claims on themselves,
such as a mortgage in trade for a house, that is
their choice. No force, no fraud.
|> |> The lazy person is forcing themselves on others.
|>
|> Yes. I believe that is the heart of the matter. Sometimes it is hard to
|> separate the lazy from the tired; I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt.
The lazy person in your example deliberately and
repeatedly forced themselves on others. A tired
person might take that path once, in error, but
not repeatedly. Your doubt will not last long.
The benefit of the doubt, however, is basic generosity,
a trait I admire and try to embody myself.
|> |> Once emansipated, the former child is well within
|> |> their rights to abrogate contracts they were entered
|> |> into without their consent.
|>
|> I believe you call this stealing when it comes to property rights.
Is the child paying on property his parrents purchased?
Is the crime committed by the parrent to bring punishment
on the child?
A contract beholding to someone who did not enter
into it willingly and knowingly is void.
|> Have
|> you been a good steward, increasing God's bounty? At what point are you
|> willing to hand over the emansipated child's share?
You mistake my statement. I said nothing about giving
the child the profits of my labor for no reason. I do
not grant, nor do I ask for, entitlements. No one has
claim to my labors without my consent.
|> Didn't we just cover this. Every act has effects. I see a quarter on the
|> ground; I reach down and pick it up. I don't consider the needs of those
|> who follow in my wake.
You consider lifting an abandoned quarter from the
sidewalk "theft" from someone who comes after?
By that measure, no one could pick it up, for the
most needy would be unable to, and anyone else would
be taking it from them.
|> Their need may exceed mine and I have taken away
|> a possibility for them through my labor. Such is the life of an owner.
I humbly recomend you try Budist Monk-hood. That's
the only life style that comes close to your altruistic
stand.
However, even they do it by choice for themselves,
and do not force others, by legislation, to follow
their tennants.
|> |> I find it fascinating that we completely agree on
|> |> every point, and disagree as to the propriety of
|> |> abusive taxation
|> I dislike abusive taxation. I don't mind retalitory taxation against those
|> who initiate force against others by laying claim to the commons,
You need to clarify something: "claim on the commons".
|> Labor for personal gain
|> is the first use of force.
Finally, we have a disagreement.
I think you are seriously out to lunch on this. I labor
for my own gain, wether that be physical or spiritual.
No other reason.
You tell me I'm wrong, and would force "retalitory
taxation" on me because of that opinion.
Be very glad you haven't tried to "liberate" some of
that un-needed wealth from me, I will fight to defend
it.
|> One takes what one needs from the commons, trying
|> to leave it a better place for all or to do as little damage as one can.
Only in a perfect world, where all work together without
conflict, without want or strife, or emotion.
It's been tried. It doesn't work on a population
larger than a commune, and only when everyone wants it
to work the same way.
|> The chain of events is clear. One lays claim to the commons. The group
|> decides the taking is excessive and demands restoration. Restoration is
|> not made. The group doles out retributive justice.
That works very well when each and every person agrees
with (1) what the commons is, (2) who the criminal is,
(3) what the retaliation is to be.
|> A just state taxes wealth so as to prevent its accumulation in the hands of
|> the lazy.
This requires a judgement: Who is lazy? What happens
when those who judge get paid off, corrupting the
system? Who then judges? How can the new judges be
trusted with the judgement of who gets to be rich
and who doesn't?
The only way to balance the system is to enable an
individual to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Where
there is no profit, there is no motovation. I do not
limit profit only the the physical.
|> It does this because wealth is a claim on the labor of others.
And I consider this completely baseless. My wealth
has been created by me, completely without taking
stuff from anyone else without their consent. My
labor is a service at this time in my life. I use
minimal resources, and thus am creating wealth from
nothing.
|> Look, I understand capitalism as an efficient allocator of scarce resources.
That's funny, I would have said it was rather bad
at allocating scarce resources. Thing is, there's
nothing else I've seen better, since "good" and
"bad" are judgements, and thus someone has to judge,
and we're right back where we started with kings
owning everything, dolling it out as they see fit.
|> I'm concerned about just allocation of scarce resources. Given our imperfect
|> world, I believe asset taxes serve justice where income taxes and head taxes
|> serve injustice.
So if I get lucky and make lots of money this year,
enough to retire, I am punished for having too much
wealth. I consider your philosophy personally
honorable, but you advocate forcing it on others and
I cannot condone that.
|> --gary for...@u.washington.edu
Curt-
Paul Zrimsek
>>>My point exactly to those conservatives trying to impress us
>>>with Marilyn vos Savant. Thank you for your agreement.
>>
>>Second request: Name just one conservative who's been trying
>>to do this.
>
>The person who posted this Marilyn vos Savant quote in the
>first place.
I evidently missed that article. (There was nothing in the article
with which you started this thread to indicate that it was a reply
to anyone specific.) Sorry to have doubted you.
Michael Williams
> To such naifs, I would point out that "conservative genius" is
> something of an oxymoron, much like "airline food" or "male
> sensitivity." The greatest scientists in modern history have
> been overwhelmingly liberal, and they include Albert Einstein,
> Stephen Hawking, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein,
> Jean-Paul Sartre, Linus Pauling, John Maynard Keynes, Andrei
> Sakharov, Stephen J. Gould, and almost any other household name
> you could mention. Famous conservative thinkers like Milton
> Friedman do indeed exist but are rare. Ergo, appeals to
> authority are not a promising tack for conservatives.
It's interesting that you begin the above with the insult
"naifs" and then proceed to attempt to apply modern, bastardized
political labels to great modern thinkers without any regard to
context. Doesn't show much concern for the interests of the
individual, as was once considered the hallmark of liberal
thought.
[Continued arguments against Marilyn
Vos Savant's political/moral/ideological
acuity snipped, not for lack of substance
but because the argument itself should
probably be a non-starter for most in
any case. She does write a weekly
column for "Parade", for Pete's sake.]
-----------
Michael Williams
Peter F. Krogh Scholar
Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service
Georgetown University
Washington, D.C. 20057
will...@gusun.acc.georgetown.edu
Roger Dapson
>>Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Liberals oppose all violations of human rights;
>>
>>Except for the right to own property, and not have it stolen from you.
>>
>>
>>
>I consider it theft when the average American worker increases
>his hourly productivity rate by 1 percent a year, but 70
>percent of the incipient income gains go to the top one
>percent.
>
>Why is it you libertarians and conservatives never stick up for
>these kind of property rights?
>
>
We do, but we handle it privately. It is far superior to the government
stealing your wages and then using them to deprive you of your rights,
subvert the moral fiber of society and drive the industry from the
country.
Roger
Michael K. Ross
>In article <4d6vj0$d...@sven.mn.interact.net>,
>Michael K. Ross <mr...@dcc.com> wrote:
>>BR0...@bingvmb.cc.binghamton.edu (Nathan L. Wurtzel) elucidated:
>>
>>>In article <4d5mlg$1...@news.scruz.net>
>>>Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> writes:
>>>
>>>A car is 10 times more likely to kill a loved one or friend than a handgun.
>>>Should we ban cars? Eating foods high in fat is about 100 times more likely to
>>>prematurely kill a friend or loved one than a handgun. Should we ban Twinkies?
>>
>>Illogical - cars' _intended_ purpose is not to kill people. But that
>>is the only purpose of a handgun. We still do not know the purpose of
>>Twinkies, but, yeah, I'm willing to ban them, too. :)
>
>Sigh, talk about illogical. Tell me - are you truly stupid enough to believe
>that "the only purpose of a handgun" is to kill or are you just engaging
>in mindless cliches?
>
>A handgun has many, many, many, many purposes, which you would know if you
>would bother to investigate the subject for even the slightest amount of time:
>
>o Self-defense: the FBI Uniform Crime reports, among other sources,
>show that handguns are used at least 600,000 times to defend someone or
>stop a crime. Since 600,000 people are not killed by handguns each year,
>we can conclude that this is done without having to kill someone. In fact,
>the vast majority of these self-defense uses don't even involving firing
>the gun. This is only common sense - if someone is pointing a gun at you,
>are you going to 1) run, 2) give up, or 3) fight? Most people choose 1) or
>2) which is no big surprise.
Duuuhhhhh - excuse my drooling - I'm just stupid, I guess. But let me
think - why would showing someone a handgun make them run away?
Because it is an instrument designed to let the possessor KILL???
Maybe the potential victim should just show the potential mugger his
CAR.
So far you have not shown any other use for a handgun that to KILL (or
maim). Oh, wait, let me amend that - another use is to threaten to
KILL.
>
>o Recreation: the most often use of handguns is at the range, where
>people shot at paper targets, clay targets, bottles, cans, or anything
>else that strikes their fancy or is legal. This is a legit sport, as well,
>with organized competitions both nationally and internatinoally.
Yeah. You see a lot of saturday night specials, .38's and the like in
sporting events. Right. If there were a "sport" that involved the use
of napalm, do you think that would be justification for making it
legal? Hah!
Sporting use of handguns is NOT the justification for keeping them
legal (which I am in favor of, by the way - I just don't want to be
dishonest about WHY). It is a bery _weak_ argument.
>
>o Hunting: handguns are used for hunting, for both big game and small.
>Such hunters are interested in honing their woodcraft skills so that
>they can get close enough to the game for a clean kill, which involves quite
>a bit of skill and knowledge of animals.
Oh, please.
>
>And in case this still doesn't make any sense to you, why do most police
>officers never have to fire their guns and rarely draw them? If their only
>purpose is to "kill," as you claim, they wouldn't need them. The point is
>that the presence of the gun is enough to make many people obey the
>officers, as opposed to fighting. This is called "deterence" and applies
>to civilians as well.
Again, the purpose of the gun is to KILL, and primarily to KILL HUMAN
BEINGS. Or threaten to do so. I lived in England for a while, and
their police don't carry guns at all. Perhaps this would be a good
idea in the US. After all, if the overwhelming majority of cops don't
use thier guns, why do they have them?
- Mike Ross
Michael K. Ross
>BR0...@bingvmb.cc.binghamton.edu (Nathan L. Wurtzel) wrote:
>>In article <4d1t75$j...@hertz.isr.umd.edu>
>>tedw...@Glue.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards) writes:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <4cj5b6$b...@news.scruz.net>,
>>>Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Liberals oppose all violations of human rights;
>>>
>>>Except for the right to own property, and not have it stolen from you.
>>
>>In the Bill of Rights, liberals are also kinda shaky on:
>>
>>1) See how well freedom of speech has held up at liberal-dominated universities
>> (Important to note that conservatives were just as bad in the 50's and 60's)
>
>Most liberals do not agree with the radicals who advocate this
>sort of censorship. I certainly don't. At any rate, that fad
>has been successfully challenged and is thankfully passing from
>our campuses.
Neither do I. And I would say that those in favor of PC censorship are
not acting very "liberal".
- Mike Ross
Curt Howland
|> Again, knives have other purposes. Guns don't. And don't go telling
|> me some story about "target shooting".
Oh? You have your opinion, you state it as fact,
then refuse to hear conflicting comment?
Welcome to usenet.
|> >The act of aggression is what determines the violation, not the
|> >existence of the instrument of aggression.
|>
|> True.
Thank you for contradicting yourself.
|> - Mike Ross
Curt-
Sharon Bolton
>qui...@netzone.com (Sharon Bolton) wrote:
>>Other than the fact that you conveniently left off a whole list of
>>people who's acknowledgment would undermine your argument, you then
>>procede to undermine it anyway.
>>
>>
>>Sharon Bolton
>I did not say that "conservative genius" was an absolute
>oxymoron; I said it was something of an oxymoron. I could draw
>a diagram tree of this sentence if you're confused over it.
>Steve Kangas
>Go directly to college; do not pass Rush Limbaugh; do not
>collect the GI Bill.
You can go ahead and diagram anything you want. It's still not going
to prove your point or make any more sense.
Sharon Bolton
"To act is easy -- to think is hard!" Goethe
"There's a mighty big difference between good sound reasons
and reasons that sound good." Hillis
Michael K. Ross
>mr...@dcc.com (Michael K. Ross) writes:
>|> Again, knives have other purposes. Guns don't. And don't go telling
>|> me some story about "target shooting".
>
>Oh? You have your opinion, you state it as fact,
>then refuse to hear conflicting comment?
I haven'r refused to hear it - I've just heard it before, and it's
bogus. The intended purpose for a cheap handgun (saturday night
special, etc.) is to shoot human beings. Hopefully, that means "bad"
human beings. (Like Dirty Harry says: there's nothing wrong with
shooting, as long as the right people get shot).
>
>Welcome to usenet.
>
>|> >The act of aggression is what determines the violation, not the
>|> >existence of the instrument of aggression.
>|>
>|> True.
>
>Thank you for contradicting yourself.
>
You misunderstand me. I am not in favor of banning guns. However -
the "target shooting" argument is bogus as hell. The purpose behind
the 2nd amendment was to allow people to defend themselves (from
criminals and from a government gone bad).
If they wanted to protect sports in the constitution, there would have
been an amendment concerning lawn bowling.
- Mike Ross
Paul Zrimsek
>If they wanted to protect sports in the constitution, there would have
>been an amendment concerning lawn bowling.
If the Revolutionary War had started when the British sent a troop of
redcoats out into the Massachusetts countryside to seize a hoard of
bocce balls, there probably would have been <g>.
Curt Howland
The purpose of a knife is to cut. The purpose of
a gun is to poke holes. As you agreed,
|> >|> >The act of aggression is what determines the violation, not the
|> >|> >existence of the instrument of aggression.
|> >|>
|> >|> True.
mr...@dcc.com (Michael K. Ross) writes:
|> I haven'r refused to hear it - I've just heard it before, and it's
|> bogus.
A gun pokes holes. I see nothing bogus with that
statement.
|> The intended purpose for a cheap handgun (saturday night
|> special, etc.) is to shoot human beings.
It is to poke holes. The gun is incapable of
choosing it's target, so it cannot be made for
any particular purpose beyond it basic function:
holes.
Intent is solely reserved to the person utilizing
the weapon, wether that be gun, knife, or bomb.
|> You misunderstand me. I am not in favor of banning guns. However -
|> the "target shooting" argument is bogus as hell.
Wether or not you think it's an apropriate argument,
the fact remains that poking holes it paper is a
reasonable, rational, peacefull use for a firearm.
|> The purpose behind
|> the 2nd amendment was to allow people to defend themselves (from
|> criminals and from a government gone bad).
"Allow"? No. It recognizes the basic fact that
defense of life, liberty, and property, is every
bit as much a right as what is being defended. It
tried to assure that people would always be able
to mount such a defense.
Like Mark Furman on the stand, exercising what
he called his "Fifth Amendment Privilige", your
acceptance of basic civil rights as somehow
granted by the constitution is just as dangerous as
someone saying that people don't need guns, we
have police.
|> If they wanted to protect sports in the constitution, there would have
|> been an amendment concerning lawn bowling.
They did. The 10th. I'm sorry you have been so
fooled into thinking that the constitution grants
"rights". Rights cannot either be granted or
taken away, they can only be infringed.
The Right remains.
|> - Mike Ross
Curt-
Caliban
: > >The greatest scientists in modern history have
: > >Stephen Hawking, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein,
: > >Jean-Paul Sartre, Linus Pauling, John Maynard Keynes, Andrei
:
: I find it a little hard to take seriously the idea that Albert Einstein
: and Stephen J. Gould belong on the same list ... . How about one list for
: Einstein and Von Neumann et. al., and another one for Gould and Asimov.
: The first should include Teller, who is generally considered conservative,
: and perhaps Herman Kahn as well.
Much as I like Kahn, I'd put him on the second list,
and Hawking on the first. (I think that being a Nobel
Prize winner, or the equivalent, is necessary [but not
sufficient] for making the A-list.)
So, Russell gets an A, Sagan gets a B, Watson and Crick A,
Tipler B, Bohr A . . .
:
: That aside, it may depend on what you mean by "liberal" and
: "conservative." If you split it as "pro-market" vs "anti-market," which
: seems to be suggested by your counting Milton Friedman as a conservative,
: the division becomes a lot less clear. I used to have a copy of the Road
: to Serfdom with a glowing endorsement on the back--by John Maynard Keynes.
: The fact that Liberals (in the modern American sense) approved of Keynes
: does not imply that he would approve of the bulk of their program.
Of the natural scientists mentioned above, which ones were
pro-market and which were anti-market?
:
: If you justs consider economics (my field), and identify "conservative"
: with "pro-free market" I think the conservatives win overwhelmingly:
: Smith, Ricardo, Marshall, Menger, Coase, Hayek, Stigler, Becker, ... .
: Against them you have--Pigou, Samuelson, and part of Keynes. No contest.
: Even the best socialist economists are pro-market for socialists (Abba
: Lerner most notably). On the other hand, if "conservative" means "enamored
: of existing institutions," then Smith is obviously a Liberal (as are many
: of those on the list), and the people usually called Liberals in the U.S.
: are conservatives.
Of course; I assume you're familiar with Blinder's _Hard
Heads, Soft Hearts_, in which he tries to explain, to
layment, _why_ every decent economist is by definition
pro-market . . .
:
: It does not seem a very useful exercise, all things considered. But if you
: must indulge, first define your terms.
:
Okay, let's use the Nolan chart, with pro-market and
anti-market crossing socially tolerant and socially
intolerant. Who goes where?
--
Caliban
cal...@gate.net
"Whoever dies with the most skills wins."
Nosy
<4d6vj0$d...@sven.mn.interact.net> <4d7931$e...@aimnet.aimnet.com>
<4d9cuj$f...@sven.mn.interact.net>
Distribution:
The same result can be obtained by display of a knife; are
knives made only to KILL?
< So far you have not shown any other use for a handgun that to KILL (or
< maim). Oh, wait, let me amend that - another use is to threaten to
< KILL.
Question for Ross: what, exactly, is an Olympic .22 single
shot target pistol designed to KILL?
< >o Recreation: the most often use of handguns is at the range, where
< >people shot at paper targets, clay targets, bottles, cans, or anything
< >else that strikes their fancy or is legal. This is a legit sport, as well,
< >with organized competitions both nationally and internatinoally.
< Yeah. You see a lot of saturday night specials, .38's and the like in
< sporting events.
Indeed, there are international pistol competitions where
.38 revolvers and small, short-barreled .38's at that
are used.
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant...
<Right. If there were a "sport" that involved the use
< of napalm, do you think that would be justification for making it
< legal? Hah!
Hmm. My neighborhood gasoline station sells gasoline,
and I can by Tide detergent down the street, along
with a large mixing bowl.
What's Ross's point, again?
< Sporting use of handguns is NOT the justification for keeping them
< legal (which I am in favor of, by the way - I just don't want to be
< dishonest about WHY). It is a bery _weak_ argument.
What's Ross's point, please?
< >o Hunting: handguns are used for hunting, for both big game and small.
< >Such hunters are interested in honing their woodcraft skills so that
< >they can get close enough to the game for a clean kill, which involves quite
< >a bit of skill and knowledge of animals.
< Oh, please.
Shrug. Hunting with handguns is legal in most States in the
US, and praticed in most as well.
Ross's ignorance doesn't excuse him.
< >And in case this still doesn't make any sense to you, why do most police
< >officers never have to fire their guns and rarely draw them? If their only
< >purpose is to "kill," as you claim, they wouldn't need them. The point is
< >that the presence of the gun is enough to make many people obey the
< >officers, as opposed to fighting. This is called "deterence" and applies
< >to civilians as well.
< Again, the purpose of the gun is to KILL, and primarily to KILL HUMAN
< BEINGS. Or threaten to do so. I lived in England for a while, and
< their police don't carry guns at all. Perhaps this would be a good
< idea in the US. After all, if the overwhelming majority of cops don't
< use thier guns, why do they have them?
What's Ross's point, again?
Followups.
Nosy
< how...@Priss.com (Curt Howland) elucidated:
< >mr...@dcc.com (Michael K. Ross) writes:
< >|> Again, knives have other purposes. Guns don't. And don't go telling
< >|> me some story about "target shooting".
< >
< >Oh? You have your opinion, you state it as fact,
< >then refuse to hear conflicting comment?
< I haven'r refused to hear it - I've just heard it before, and it's
< bogus. The intended purpose for a cheap handgun (saturday night
< special, etc.) is to shoot human beings.
What exactly *is* a "saturday night special", please?
< Hopefully, that means "bad"
< human beings. (Like Dirty Harry says: there's nothing wrong with
< shooting, as long as the right people get shot).
Motion pictures, alas, are not real life; they are poor
citations to use in the serious business of life and death.
Ross might want to make a note of this; there are better
sources on the issue of "gun control" than fictional
cops.
< >Welcome to usenet.
< >
< >|> >The act of aggression is what determines the violation, not the
< >|> >existence of the instrument of aggression.
< >|>
< >|> True.
< >
< >Thank you for contradicting yourself.
< You misunderstand me. I am not in favor of banning guns. However -
< the "target shooting" argument is bogus as hell. The purpose behind
< the 2nd amendment was to allow people to defend themselves (from
< criminals and from a government gone bad).
Applause.
< If they wanted to protect sports in the constitution, there would have
< been an amendment concerning lawn bowling.
So what's Ross's point, again?
Followups.
Big O
Howland) wrote:
> |Too bad. I turned rabbid libertarian when I was
> |working for $4.35/hr in a gas station, and
> |wondered how the Fed.Gov got away with taking
> |money from me even then.
Many of the libertarians I know are barely making ends meet while they are
working very hard at being their own employer.
Socialists strongly resent all economic success of *individual* efforts
and endevours.
--
"Big O" <joh...@aimnet.com>
"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place."
Frederic Bastiat
Mark.O.Wilson
>
>how...@Priss.com (Curt Howland) wrote:
>>Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> writes:
>>|> I consider it theft when the average American worker increases
>>|> his hourly productivity rate by 1 percent a year, but 70
>>|> percent of the incipient income gains go to the top one
>>|> percent.
>>
>>people working for themselves?
>
Not very much capital. It all depends on how far up the chain you
want to start.
You could start a hair salon in your garage, and work their part time.
The rest of your time spent at your regular job, until the new business
is established.
Start a home repair company. Grow veggies and sell them from your
front porch.
The possibilities are only limited by your imagination.
Mark.O.Wilson
>>>IMHO, libertarianism and individualism is a refuge of the
>>>wealthy, and a disproportionate number of them are attracted to
>>>it because it best protects what they have. I don't believe the
>>>attraction is any more profound or intellectual than that.
>>
>>Then how do you explain the fact that most wealthy are far and away
the
>>most statist elements of society? How many famous rich people do
you
>>know of who're libertarians? How come they all keep endowing all
these
>>statist foundations which use the money to support statist causes? If
themselves
>>or give it to libertarian foundations & causes, wouldn't they?
>
>Actually, you bring up a good point. When it comes to helping
>the working poor, the rich snarl, "Pull yourself up by your own
>bootstraps!" But when it comes to themselves, they're front and
>center at the public trough, bribing Congress for their $500
>billion S&L bailouts.
Sigh. Here we go again. The S&L bailout covered the cost of replacing
deposits. Those deposits were largely owned by low and middle
income people.
Big O
<kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
> |tedw...@Glue.umd.edu (Thomas Grant Edwards) wrote:
> |>In article <4cj5b6$b...@news.scruz.net>,
> |>Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
> |>
> |>>Liberals oppose all violations of human rights;
> |>
> |>Except for the right to own property, and not have it stolen from you.
> |>
> |>-Thomas
> |>
> |>
> |I consider it theft when the average American worker increases
> |his hourly productivity rate by 1 percent a year, but 70
> |percent of the incipient income gains go to the top one
> |percent.
> |
> |Why is it you libertarians and conservatives never stick up for
> |these kind of property rights?
Because the individual has the right to contract out his labor (i.e. - his
property) for terms he/she feels are acceptable to him/her -- the
individual does not need elitist to come along and tell him/her what
is/isn't acceptable. If the individual doesn't like the terms of the
contract then he/she doesn't enter into the contract or he/she terminates
the contract IAW the terms of the contract for doing such.
Freedom and liberty are totally based on people interacting with each in a
totally voluntary manner, thus forming a civil society; versus the
political society where the state dictates how people will interact with
each other.
Big O
<kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
> |Because business-creation requires capital. The working poor
> |are stuck in a vicious circle; unable to afford the education,
> |tools, capital, computers, and, yes, social contacts required
> |to start a business, so they are forced to work jobs where they
> |are exploited into even more poverty. It's not stupid, it's a
> |self-digging rut.
That's nothing more than 100% socialist BS.
It is your wonderful socialist regulation of business which place
tremendous roadblocks in the path of the lower class individual that wants
to establish his/her own business. Regulations cost this society
$600B/year and most lower class people can't afford the cost of meeting
those regulations. You socialists have deliberately dug the rut for the
lower class to make sure they have very little chance of being successful
thus forcing them to be so dependent upon a socialist gov't and therefore
trained not to bite the hand that feeds them.
I suggest you read all of Tomas Sowell's books and learn to deal with the
reality socialism has created.
> |IMHO, libertarianism and individualism is a refuge of the
> |wealthy, and a disproportionate number of them are attracted to
> |it because it best protects what they have. I don't believe the
> |attraction is any more profound or intellectual than that.
IMHO, libertarianism and individualism is far from being a refuge of the
wealthy. Name me some libertarians and individualists who are
millionaires -- the Libertarian Party needs to know who to hit up for
contributions.
Big O
<kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
> |But let's put the supply-side theory to the test. Why don't
> |corporate executives cut their compensation back from 61 to 22
> |percent, thus freeing capital which they can then invest?
Do you know how much capital that would free up for the typical large
corporation?
It would be but a drop in the bucket compared to all of a large
corporation's business expenses -- it would be even a drop in the bucket
compared to just all of a large corporation's labor expenses.
But don't let real numbers interfere with your mythology!
Big O
<kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
> |joh...@aimnet.com (Big O ) wrote:
> |>
> |>The Nazis got elected to office -- guess what they did must be OK since
> |>they were "elected" - right?
> |
> |This is historically incorrect. Hitler never had more than
> |about a third of the votes, and given the firm opposition of
> |the Catholic Center party and the Social Democrats, there was
> |no hope in hell of him ever winning a majority of the vote. The
> |reason why Hitler succeeded in winning the chancellorship was
> |because the other political leaders dropped the democratic
> |process and entered into a series of backroom deals. Hitler was
> |jobbed into office by these unsuspecting bureaucrats, and he
> |enjoyed a remarkable and unbroken string of luck as well.
> |
> |In short, it is a falsehood that democracy elected Hitler to
> |power.
There was enough Nazis ***elected*** to the Reichstag to ***force*** the
backroom politics. It was still democracy that made it all possible and
if you don't think backroom politics doesn't happen in the democracy of
the USA then you are a big fool.
Big O
<kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
> |That's because a handgun is 6 more times more likely to kill a
> |loved one or friend than an unknown intruder. This is a
> |violation of THEIR rights.
And how many attempted violent crimes does a gun of any type prevent? The
estimate is as high as 2.5 million/yr. Or don't potential victims have
the right to defend the lives, liberties, and property because the life
and liberty of a violent criminal are a much higher right than those of
the potential victim.
The original statistics in: "A gun in the home is more likely to kill you
(i.e., including suicide) or someone you know (e.g., including an abusive
husband or a rival drug dealer) than to kill (notice this -- KILL) an
intruder." [_Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths
in the Home_, Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay, The New England
Journal of Medicine 314, no., 24 (June 12, 1986): 1557-1560.]
Subtracting suicides and justifiable homicides, and realizing that a gun
is useful not only when it KILLS an intruder but when it STOPS A CRIME
(even if never fired), some of the MEANINGFUL comparisons read as
follows:
A gun is 50 times more likely to be used to defend against criminal
threat than to kill another person.
A gun is 50 times more likely to be used to defend against criminal
threat than to be used in suicide.
A gun is 245 times more likely to be used by a non-criminal to defend
against criminal threat than to commit criminal homicide.
A gun is 535 times more likely to be used to defend against criminal
threat than to accidentally kill anybody.
Sorry, Steve, but the gun-grabbers very own statistics very easily work
against their case.
Big O
<kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
> |pzri...@tiac.net (Paul Zrimsek) wrote:
> |>In <4d1i0a$k...@news.scruz.net>, Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> writes:
> |>
> |>>>So--once again, why should the political views of even the greatest modern
> |>>>scientists matter, versus the political views of the greatest modern auto
> |>>>mechanics?
> |>>
> |>>My point exactly to those conservatives trying to impress us
> |>>with Marilyn vos Savant. Thank you for your agreement.
> |>
> |>Second request: Name just one conservative who's been trying
> |>to do this.
> |
> |The person who posted this Marilyn vos Savant quote in the
> |first place.
> |
> |Steve Kangas
I'm not a conservative -- I'm a classical liberal!
Todd Lofton
: BR0...@bingvmb.cc.binghamton.edu (Nathan L. Wurtzel) elucidated:
: >In article <4d5mlg$1...@news.scruz.net>
: >Steve Kangas <kang...@scruznet.com> writes:
: >
: >>That's because a handgun is 6 more times more likely to kill a
: >>loved one or friend than an unknown intruder. This is a
: >>violation of THEIR rights.
: >
: >But a car is 10 times more likely to kill a loved one or friend than a handgun.
: > Should we ban cars? Eating foods high in fat is about 100 times more likely to
: > prematurely kill a friend or loved one than a handgun. Should we ban Twinkies?
: Illogical - cars' _intended_ purpose is not to kill people. But that
: is the only purpose of a handgun. We still do not know the purpose of
: Twinkies, but, yeah, I'm willing to ban them, too. :)
: >
: >If handguns started jumping out of bureaus and holsters on their own and shooti
: >ng people, I might be inclined to agree with you. But they don't. They're inani
: >mate objects, just like knives.
: Again, knives have other purposes. Guns don't. And don't go telling
: me some story about "target shooting".
A tool's purpose is whatever the wielder uses it for. No story is
needed as you seem to be aware of this fact and the fallacy of your
'single purpose' argument. Too bad it didn't stop you from attempting
to keep the myth alive.
: BTW - I am _not_ for banning guns, I just think your argument is
: somewhat flawed.
: >
: >Your most important point is the violation of the rights of the other. That occ
: >urs when they are harmed, not when someone owns something that could potentiall
: >y harm them. The act of aggression is what determines the violation, not the
: >existence of the instrument of aggression.
: True.
: - Mike Ross
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
* Todd Lofton *
* University of Nebraska - Lincoln *
* My opinions....
-----------------------------------------------------------------
...fabulously exciting occasional table...
Paul Knight
: In message <4d6kpo$k...@hpindda.cup.hp.com> - kni...@cup.hp.com (Paul Knight)
: writes:
: >Mark.O.Wilson (Mark.O...@AtlantaGA.ATTGIS.com) wrote:
: >: In article <4ck9bs$s...@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, Paul Knight says...
: >: >
: >: >Big O (joh...@aimnet.com) wrote:
: >: >: In article <4ciohc$9...@news.scruz.net>, Steve Kangas
: >: >: <kang...@scruznet.com> wrote:
: >: >
: >: >: > |"How can we live in freedom and maintain that we are entitled
: >: >: > |to *anything* that we can't get without the labor of others?
: >: >: > |Remember, if we are entitled to the labor of others, that makes
: >: >: > |slaves of those others."
: >: >: > |
: >: >: > | -Marilyn vos Savant
: >: >: > | Parade Magazine, 12/31/95
: >: >
: >: >
: >: >: {snip}
: >: >
: >: >: And not one single word by Steve in his post to refute the simple logic
: >: >: and reasoning in Marilyn's statement. In an officiated/judged debate
: >: you
: >: >: would have gotten few, if any, points, Steve, because your ranting and
: >: >: raving proved nothing except that you can't refute the simple logic and
: >: >: reasoning in her statement.
: >: >
: >: >
: >
: >In my posting, I stated that the definition of slavery comes from my
: >dictionary. My dictionary, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, defines
: >a slave as "one who is held in servitude as the chattel of another".
: OK, lets play the dictionary game. Ms. Savant, being who she is,
: probably has a bigger dictionary than you do. ;-) For example,
: the Websters Third New International Unabridged, includes other
: definitions of slavery including "one that labors for another". In
: other words, someone who does not own the value of their labor.
: >Chattel, as defined in the same dictionary is "an item of tangible
: >or movable or immovable property except real estate, freehold, and the
: >things which are parcel of it". Thus, as I interpret this dictionary,
: >a slave is the property of the slave holder.
: >Ms. vos Savant's use of the term "slave" is designed to excessively
: >simplify the relationship between a person and his society. I have no
: >doubt that her position would not be found conform to any legal test
: >in the U.S.
: Well, by the definition of owning the value of our labor, we are
: at least 42% slaves of the government as of 1990. This us up
: radically from about 8% of national income in 1900.
Given that there are multiple possible definitions of slavery in
the dictionaries, the use of this term is very imprecise. Perhaps
someone reading this would find a legal definition for the American
courts. Certainly owing income tax is not legally defined as slavery since
there is provision for this in the Constitution. Furthermore, I suspect
that nobody has ever won a case in an American court based on the
notion that taxes are illegal because they are slavery.
: >: >Thus, the quotation is using inflammatory terminology, i.e., slave, to
: >: >discredit social obligations and responsibility, which are expected
: >: >in every society.
: Only big government fans seem to overlook the huge growth in
: government this century and dismiss it all away because we
: have "responsibilities to society".
I am certainly not a fan of big government. Nor do I have a simple
reason for the growth of government. Since this nation does relatively
little for its citizens, compared with many industrialized nations, the
reason for the growth of government must not be exclusively with social
obligations.
: >Different societies have define different social obligations. The
: >obligations may change with the times. However, for a society to
: >be viable, those obligations must match the needs of the society and
: >the ability of its members to meet those obligations. It is easy to
: >imagine that the social obligations of a nomadic tribe, an agricultural
: >village, and an industrial society may be different. Nevertheless, all
: >societies require some obligations from its members.
: Yes, and it is precisely the question of how MUCH that you are
: dodging. Why do we need so much MORE government than
: we had 50 or 80 years ago?
Good question. Where are the new government employees working? I'll
bet a lot of them are working in the military.
: >Now, if one wishes to form a new society that requires no social obligations,
: >that begins an interesting experiment. I would like to know if any such
: >society exists or ever existed. As far as I know, all existing societies
: >have obligations for the individual to meet.
: Again you make no mention of how much.
Well, most industrialized nations provide education and health care for
their members. Those societies also expect the general population to
pay for them. America is a bit behind because we exclude a lot of
our society from health care or insurance for health care.
: >Thus, the argument is simple. If one wishes to obtain the benefits of
: >any society, one comes under the rules for that society that define
: >the obligations of the individual. However, if one renounces the concept
: >of individual obligations, one can either leave society completely or
: >find a new society without obligations.
: Oh, the old "love it or leave it" argument, how profound.
The argument is very simple. You live here voluntarily. You are not
a slave in chains. You are always free to leave if you really think
you are in slavery. The real problem is determining where you would
go that is better. Otherwise, if you remain here, you are willingly
(perhaps not happily) making those social obligations that society
demands or you are just dodging them.
: > That's just the way it is.
: >Changing the terminology does not really change how societies work.
: No, but discussing how the huge bloat of government this century,
: including the whole unconstitutional War on Drugs, has damaged
: our economy and our society might be productive.....
How, pray tell, did you determine that the war on drugs is unconstitutional?
I agree that it is a huge waste of resources and is an unwarranted intrusion
in the personal lives of Americans. However, the issue of constitutionality
is something that is determined by the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court.
It is not determined by either you or me. However, you do have options about
making it a constitutional issue if you become a victim of the drug laws.
Peace,
P.
Big O
Knight) wrote:
> |In my posting, I stated that the definition of slavery comes from my
> |dictionary. My dictionary, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, defines
> |a slave as "one who is held in servitude as the chattel of another".
> |Chattel, as defined in the same dictionary is "an item of tangible
> |or movable or immovable property except real estate, freehold, and the
> |things which are parcel of it". Thus, as I interpret this dictionary,
> |a slave is the property of the slave holder.
And as I pointed out my dictionary also includes "the condition of".
> |In no way is a member of society a piece of property that is owned by
> |that society. He may have binding obligations to that society, but
> |he is not owned by that society. (This describes the situation of
> |an American today and does not refer to societies where ownership
> |of a slave is a legal claim as it was in the U.S. beffore the Civil War.)
Binding obligations? Is that mutual and voluntary binding obligations as one
has in a non-coerced contract? Or is that one-sided and non-voluntary
binding obligations as one has in a *coerced* contract? If it is of the
later case then you have slavery.
> |Different societies have define different social obligations. The
> |obligations may change with the times. However, for a society to
> |be viable, those obligations must match the needs of the society and
> |the ability of its members to meet those obligations. It is easy to
> |imagine that the social obligations of a nomadic tribe, an agricultural
> |village, and an industrial society may be different. Nevertheless, all
> |societies require some obligations from its members.
In a free and civil society those obligations are accomplished through
mutual and voluntary consent of each and every individual. But in a
non-free and political society those obligations are forcefully imposed
upon each and every individual.
> |Now, if one wishes to form a new society that requires no social obligations,
> |that begins an interesting experiment. I would like to know if any such
> |society exists or ever existed. As far as I know, all existing societies
> |have obligations for the individual to meet.
The question is: Are those obligations going to be determined through
mutual and voluntary consent of each and every individual -- or -- are
they going to be determined by a dictator, olicharchy, monarch, or even a
simple majority and forcefully imposed upon some or all with total
disregard for some or all of the rights of the individual?
> |Thus, the argument is simple. If one wishes to obtain the benefits of
> |any society, one comes under the rules for that society that define
> |the obligations of the individual. However, if one renounces the concept
> |of individual obligations, one can either leave society completely or
> |find a new society without obligations. That's just the way it is.
> |Changing the terminology does not really change how societies work.
And so if a majority votes that the rule of society shall be that all with
the family name of 'Knight' shall always be the maintenance personal for
society's sewers you'll accept that without any dissent - right? Or would
you feel that your individual rights to life, freedom, and property had
been infringed upon?
Don Cline
>how...@Priss.com (Curt Howland) elucidated:
>>mr...@dcc.com (Michael K. Ross) writes:
>>|> Again, knives have other purposes. Guns don't. And don't go telling
>>|> me some story about "target shooting".
>>
>>Oh? You have your opinion, you state it as fact,
>>then refuse to hear conflicting comment?
>I haven'r refused to hear it - I've just heard it before, and it's
>bogus. The intended purpose for a cheap handgun (saturday night
>special, etc.) is to shoot human beings. Hopefully, that means "bad"
>human beings. (Like Dirty Harry says: there's nothing wrong with
>shooting, as long as the right people get shot).
The purpose of a cheap handgun, or any handgun, is to stop fights.
Most of the time that does not require shooting human beings.
>>
>>Welcome to usenet.
>>
>>|> >The act of aggression is what determines the violation, not the
>>|> >existence of the instrument of aggression.
>>|>
>>|> True.
>>
>>Thank you for contradicting yourself.
>>
>You misunderstand me. I am not in favor of banning guns. However -
>the "target shooting" argument is bogus as hell.
No, it is not. You have to be able to hit your target if you want to
defend yourself from criminals and/or a government gone bad.
Therefore the necessity of arms for target shooting is well
established.
> The purpose behind
>the 2nd amendment was to allow people to defend themselves (from
>criminals and from a government gone bad).
>If they wanted to protect sports in the constitution, there would have
>been an amendment concerning lawn bowling.
There is. It's called the Ninth Amendment.
>- Mike Ross
--
Don Cline
The Freedom Fighter Net
frd...@primenet.com
===============================================================
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of
servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go
home from us in peace. We seek not your counsels or arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your
chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams
===============================================================
Caliban
:
: Nice propaganda spam dude! You need a lesson in self discipline.
: You'll need if you ever want to even get close to self government.
:
Could you please be more specific about what you
disagreed with in the previous post?
Thanks!
Paul Zrimsek
>There was enough Nazis ***elected*** to the Reichstag to ***force*** the
>backroom politics. It was still democracy that made it all possible and
>if you don't think backroom politics doesn't happen in the democracy of
>the USA then you are a big fool.
Well, it probably doesn't happen in quite the same way in the US as it
did in a parliamentary system like Weimar. This is precisely the point
Mr. Kangas missed: in such a system, nothing is more common than that
sort of "backroom politics" (read: coalition building).
If a parliamentary system required one party to have an electoral
majority to form a government, then Italy would have anarchy
instead of, uhhhh, whatever it is they have now.