Immorality of Socialism
J Ganaposki
Christianity Is Anti-Socialism
by Jeff Ganaposki
In political dialogues, Socialists presume to claim a moral high ground,
when they claim to champion the cause of the downtrodden worker. The
rhetoric sounds so beguiling and persuasive. How can we not care about
starving children, or suffering mothers, or the unemployed fathers?
The Socialist wags his finger in the face of his opponents and denounces
them as slime and pond scum.
In fact, Socialists are slumming in a moral gutter. =
What makes the socialist agenda a moral gutter?
Their real agenda is based upon piracy, disguised by psychological
double talk.
Most people would agree that the media portrays =
the Left Wing =3D Good / Socialist =
and the Right Wing =3D Bad / Capitalist / Fascist. =
Or they would claim that Leftists are for "people," and Rightists are
for "business."
According to Webster's dictionary:
COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production,
distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with
wealth shared on the principle of =91to each according to his need', each=
yielding fully =91according to his ability'.
SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective
ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is
based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the
community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the
community can provide.
Now I'm no wizard of words, but can you tell me where there is any
significant difference between a Socialist, who wants collective
ownership (no private property rights) and a Communist, who wants
collective ownership (no private property rights)?
Why are private property rights important?
"All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy."
If you have no private property rights, you have no law - only the
tyranny and dictates of the LEADER.
CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production,
distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private
profit.
Capitalism isn't an ideology, it's a process whereby the surplus wealth
of society is created by the people who own their own tools, whether
those tools are land, labor or intelligence.
Capitalism is not to be confused with commerce. Business that crosses
boundaries is commerce. A farmer raising his own crops and selling them
at a stand on his property is not commerce.
In many Socialist media, there is a persistent sneer that private gun
ownership is a scourge of capitalism. But the question should be: How
else should a free man protect his family and property from attacks by
brigands? Will governments guarantee protection? And will they indemnify
the victims when they fail?
Unfettered commerce is not capitalism, either. The buying and selling of
harmful and dangerous products and services isn't moral or reasonable.
Private property rights, that are held by the people, is true
capitalism.
In any argument with a wily adherent of socialism / communism you need
to watch out for the simple trap of words. No matter who the intended
beneficiary is: children, mothers, elderly, or the sick, in the
socialist (& communist) viewpoint, the nasty world and its nasty
capitalists would be converted into paradise if only the wealth were
distributed fairly. And you can trust the revolutionaries to divide the
spoils - uh - wealth evenly.
Socialism is the political and economic theory advocating collective
ownership of the means of production and control of distribution.
Collective ownership means you don't own yourself, your labor, nor the
fruits of your labor. =
The enemies of Socialism are often attacked with the invective: Fascist.
FASCISM - any political or social ideology of the extreme right which
relies on a combination of pseudo-religious attitudes and the brutal use
of force for getting and keeping power.
Remember - NAZI Germany was called FASCIST. But NAZI is an acronym, in
German, for National Socialism. NAZIs are socialists! Socialists are
left wing! =
So who are really FASCISTS?
If you can't understand the terminology, then the BIG LIE is immune from
attack.
Actually, the word Fascist is derived from the ancient Roman Fasces, a
bundle of sticks and an axe head. The moral of the story was that one
small stick is easily broken, but a bundle of sticks is strong. Thus,
Romans were taught to band together for their mutual defense, as
illustrated by the axe and the bundle.
And coincidentally, the United States Congress is graced with Fasci.
Does that make America's Congress Fascist? =
Point one: the means of production and distribution are another way of
saying property and the merchants who move goods and services. To
produce something you need land upon which the machinery, crops and / or
labor is performed upon. When there is surplus, the merchants can move
the surplus products to other locations, in the never ending procession
that builds prosperity.
And what do pirates prey upon? The merchants and their wares, the goods
and production of the property holders and laborers. Thus the socialist
pirates are really seeking to rob the hard working people of their labor
and property.
Point two: collective ownership means no private ownership. Why? Think
of a public park. Who determines the opening and closing hours? Who
controls what is permitted and what is proscribed? The governing body
rules the park, not the collective. Collective ownership is the big lie
fed to the believers in democracy. =
Democracy is best explained as three wolves and one lamb voting on
what's on the menu for dinner. Since Americans are guaranteed a
republican form of government, in which the people directly exercise the
powers of sovereignty, we must be careful of social democrats espousing
collectivism. It is evil.
Point three: recipients of socialism's largesse are accepting charity
from the public treasury. The proper name for that is pauperization.
According to the definition of a pauper, the poor recipient must own no
property, nor work sufficiently to support himself. In other words, it's
a voluntary declaration that he's a lazy, no-good bum. Now the true
morality is exposed. The recipient and supporter of socialism is nothing
but a dispossessed member of a pirate crew who shares in the booty
stolen from the productive class. And the tragedy is compounded when the
workers and former owners are persuaded to be skinned alive, and
encouraged to thank their benefactor. =
These three points illustrate the evilness of socialist piracy. For any
Christian, the need to oppose such piracy is self evident. When the
socialists claim that they are acting in the highest ideals of Christ,
the people must voice their disbelief and disgust at such blatant lying.
There is no evidence that Jesus advocated that charity was found at the
edge of a sword or a barrel of a gun! Jesus never preached that it is
moral to rob Peter to pay Paul. Jesus never preached to compel the
righteous to support the unrighteous. Yet today's socialists do not
hesitate to imprison, confiscate and even kill those who won't comply
with their idea of compelled charity. In America, the card carrying and
numbered socialists are waking up to their voluntary enslavement.
If Christians can perceive that socialists are pirates, then they can
begin to understand the motivations and methods. Even as early as the
16th century, pirates were discovering that they couldn't survive the
attacks of the warships guarding their prey. Many pirates insinuated
themselves into government, like former pirate Henry Morgan, who became
the governor of Jamaica, or awarded knighthood like Sir Francis Drake.
Pirates everywhere realized that they could enjoy prosperity by
cooperating with a government that robbed the people via taxes. The
illusion that socialists care about the poor is the biggest lie. They
ferociously feed on the body politic misled by that false claim. All the
socialists really care about is getting the power and wealth taken from
someone else's labor. They believe that they, as the predators, deserve
to prosper at the expense of the sheeple. =
Have you ever seen socialist leaders voluntarily live in utter poverty
to help their fellow men? Or do they live a lifestyle commensurate with
their stature as leaders. Just ask yourself if these leaders are serving
the people? Are they suffering in their expensive suits, first class
accomodations and luxury transportation? Look at the various political,
religious, and philosophical leaders that enjoy a good life at the
expense of the led.
Contrast that with true unselfish service that is evident in those who
do live a life of poverty, denial and renunciation in order to help
others. Look at the Mother Teresa's of the world. And look at the =
millions of parents who are nameless, but do struggle to make ends meet
and rear their children.
For proof of the assertion that socialists breed unsocial behavior,
consider your reaction when you hear of welfare mothers having more
children, dead beat panhandlers, double dippers and other socialist
beneficiaries getting it while the getting is good. When asked to give
more charity, many feel that they already gave enough via taxation to
the charity programs of government.
The sinister side of the socialist revolution is exposed by their tactic
of forming alliances with the pariahs of the world. Those who practice
vices that are destructive, vile or proscribed find support and
protection in the ranks of the socialist. And now we see that evils of
immorality, abortion and slavery are elevated into desirability by the
socialist agenda. To perceive the magnitude of the change in society,
just watch the movie Peyton Place. When the physician was asked by a
victim of rape to abort her fetus, fathered by her raping step-father,
the doctor said abortion was a crime against God and man. It was also
against the physician's Hippocratic oath, until recently. Look at the
proscription against usury in the Bible, and look at the positive
perception of credit cards, interest bearing checking accounts, and
savings accounts - all forbidden USURY!
Now some readers may take afront at my claim that usury begets slavery.
But if you examine the typical home mortgage, I think you'll agree that
33 years of servitude to hold (not own) a dwelling is slavery. And when
you calculate that a typical mortgage gives the banksters triple what
you originally paid, I think you'll agree that usury is also robbery.
And to add insult to injury, the dwelling is controlled by socialist
codes, zoning, and taxed.
As many elderly have discovered, the inflationary increase in property
taxes have forced them to sell their homesteads and move to government
funded warehouses, called "nursing" homes.
The clever brainwashing and programming of our moral codes to accept
vices as normal, and virtues as abnormal are key to understanding what
the Christian is up against.
What are the alternatives to socialism?
Faceless Big Brother socialism relies on the fact that bureaucracies
only wish to create more bureaucracies. There will never be a career in
administration if the administrator ends the problems that fueled his
position. No welfare worker would knowingly seek unemployment by
successfully helping recipients leave welfare. No economist will survive
in public service if he admits that we're victims of a grand hoax and
all currency is wastepaper debt. No politician will commit political
suicide and solve the problems facing the nation.
The Christian of the 21st century is faced with two struggles. The first
struggle is to unlearn the socialist propaganda taught to him or her.
Christian charity is not compelled by the sword. The second struggle is
dealing with the world. Christian morality must be intolerant of any
behavior that violates the property rights to person and property.
The Roman Fasces is perhaps germaine after all, for if we accept the
duty to band together and look out for each other from the attacks of
those Socialist wolves and Pirate bankers, the world would be a better
place.
But it takes a big heap of common sense to see that joining the pirate
Ship of State is never going to be moral for Christians.
-- =
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
<> Rt.Rev.Dr.Jeff Ganaposki
<_>mailto:jgm...@bellsouth.net [attachments & HTML]
<__>mailto:livin...@freeyellow.com
<___>mailto:living...@juno.com [ASCII Text only]
<____>http://www.freeyellow.com/members/living-word
<______>Warning: Socialists may be offended by contents
Charles Cawley
J Ganaposki wrote in message <347FEF...@bellsouth.net>...
Christianity Is Anti-Socialism
Collective ownership is the big lie
fed to the believers in democracy.
Democracy is best explained as three wolves and one lamb voting on
what's on the menu for dinner. Since Americans are guaranteed a
republican form of government, in which the people directly exercise the
powers of sovereignty, we must be careful of social democrats espousing
collectivism. It is evil.
<____>http://www.freeyellow.com/members/living-word
<______>Warning: Socialists may be offended by contents
So, the whole theory of Democracy is dismissed. It is indirectly described
as evil.
I find I hard to believe that someone, able to write as you do, is not aware
of the strange and incredible attempt you have made to reduce the entire
theory of Democracy, to two short paragraphs Democracy is not just people
voting, and there you have it: the majority say so wins the day.
The theory extends to acceptance that all co-operation depends on the
ability to co-operate. So Democracy must ensure, for its own survival that
people are fed, healthy, can communicate efficiently, and are free from
fear. These factors alone are central to any reasonably sophisticated
theory. Democracy does not just float around without foundations.
Marxism has had lots of fine books written about it but just because the
academics out of incompetence cowardice or sloth, have failed to give it
proper attention, does not mean Democracy is a simple, easy to dismiss,
theory. On the contrary, a full blown sophisticated system has been
developed.
This is rooted in the nature of information and its relationship to force,
authority and power. The theory appears to indicate Democracy is the most
efficient system at information flow and therefore creates the most long
term potent state.
I am not a Collectivist and not a Social Democrat however I am a strong
Democrat and hope to never live under less potent systems, in the long term,
such as Dictatorship, Tyrrany, Aristocracy, Oligarchy or Anarchy. These are
the other choices, would you prefer your children to live under such
regimes?
Yes, I know Democracy as practiced is still a poor version, but I would
prefer an old auto which splutters its way down the road to an oxcart. I
might be able to fix the car, and I am doing my best to help, but the oxcart
top speed will always be 5kph.
How many academics will pile in to defend Democracy? As usual, I suspect a
shameful silence will persist.
Regards,
Charles Cawley. Gatewa...@BTInternet.com
J Ganaposki
Charles Cawley wrote:
>
> J Ganaposki wrote in message <347FEF...@bellsouth.net>...
> Christianity Is Anti-Socialism
>
> fed to the believers in democracy.
>
> what's on the menu for dinner. Since Americans are guaranteed a
> republican form of government, in which the people directly exercise the
> powers of sovereignty, we must be careful of social democrats espousing
> collectivism. It is evil.
>
> <______>Warning: Socialists may be offended by contents
>
> as evil.
AMERICANS, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY DO NOT.
> I find I hard to believe that someone, able to write as you do, is not aware
> of the strange and incredible attempt you have made to reduce the entire
> theory of Democracy, to two short paragraphs Democracy is not just people
> voting, and there you have it: the majority say so wins the day.
ANCIENT GRECIAN DEMOCRACY PASSED "LAWS" BY VOTE OF WHOLE BODY OF
CITIZENS, IN PUBLIC.
BUTMINORITY RIGHTS WERE NOT SECURED FROM ATTACK BY THE MAJORITY.
> The theory extends to acceptance that all co-operation depends on the
> ability to co-operate.
I LIKE CO-OPERATION. CO-OPERATION DOESN'T REQUIRE DEMOCRACY - JUST
CO-OPERATION.
> So Democracy must ensure, for its own survival that
> people are fed, healthy, can communicate efficiently, and are free from
> fear.
THANK GOODNESS I HAVE A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, WHEREIN I CAN
DEFEND MYSELF FROM SOCIALIST / DEMOCRATS. WHY? THE SUPREME COURT ALREADY
RULED THAT A) POLICE ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE, AND
B) YOU CAN'T SUE THE POLICE FOR FAILURE TO PROTECT.
STILL BUYING THE "BIG LIE?"
WHEN GOVERNMENT "TAKES CARE" OF THE POOR, THE POOR ARE SUBJECT TO THEIR
BENEFACTOR. WHEN PEOPLE THINK THEY CAN VOTE FREE BREAD AND CIRCUSES,
THEY ONLY MAKE THE CHAINS HEAVIER UPON THEMSELVES AND THEIR CHILDREN.
READ DEFINITION OF PAUPER IN LEGAL DICTIONARY. B.T.W. EVERYONE WITH A
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER IS A PAUPER, AT LAW. THAT'S WHAT GRANTS THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO INTRUDE UPON THE STATES AND VIOLATE
RIGHTS.
> These factors alone are central to any reasonably sophisticated
> theory. Democracy does not just float around without foundations.
THE DEFINITION IS CLEAR - THE SOVEREIGN POWER RESIDES IN THE WHOLE BODY
OF CITIZENS IN A DEMOCRACY.
IN A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, IT RESIDES IN PEOPLE, INDIVIDUALLY.
I AM A FREEMAN IN MY REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. I DON'T HAVE TO BE A
CITIZEN.
> Marxism
*ANOTHER NAME FOR PIRACY...
> has had lots of fine books written about it but just because the
> academics out of incompetence cowardice or sloth, have failed to give it
> proper attention, does not mean Democracy is a simple, easy to dismiss,
> theory. On the contrary, a full blown sophisticated system has been
> developed.
>
> This is rooted in the nature of information and its relationship to force,
> authority and power. The theory appears to indicate Democracy is the most
> efficient system at information flow and therefore creates the most long
> term potent state.
YEAH, AND I HAVE A BRIDGE FOR SALE. JOKING ASIDE, I DON'T CARE WHAT LAWS
ARE MADE OR WHO MAKES THEM AS LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH THE SIMPLE RULE
THAT UNALIENABLE RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY ARE NOT INFRINGED.
BUT IF THESE GOVERNMENTS INFRINGE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, WHETHER THEY
CALL IT THEOCRACY, DEMOCRACY, SOCIALISM, OR FLUGALCRATS, THEY ARE
ENEMIES OF THE FREE PEOPLES OF THIS WORLD.
> I am not a Collectivist and not a Social Democrat
IF YOU HAVE A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, YOU ARE A SOCIALIST!
> however I am a strong
> Democrat and hope to never live under less potent systems, in the long term,
> such as Dictatorship, Tyrrany, Aristocracy, Oligarchy or Anarchy. These are
> the other choices, would you prefer your children to live under such
> regimes?
WHAT LED YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THOSE ARE THE ONLY CHOICES?
IN A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, USING THE PREVIOUS DEMOCRACY ANALOGY
OF THREE WOLVES AND TWO SHEEP VOTING ON THE DINNER MENU, THE SITUATION
IS CHANGED TO THREE MUZZLED WOLVES AND TWO SHEEP WITH AK-47'S.
SURE, THE WOLVES MIGHT TRY TO VOTE LAMB CHOPS FOR DINNER, BUT THEY ARE
MUZZLED AND FACING SURE DEATH FOR INFRINGING THE RIGHTS OF THE SHEEP.
ANOTHER GREAT REASON WHY WE SHOULD OPPOSE DISARMAMENT BY A PIRATE
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT!
> Yes, I know Democracy as practiced is still a poor version, but I would
> prefer an old auto which splutters its way down the road to an oxcart. I
> might be able to fix the car, and I am doing my best to help, but the oxcart
> top speed will always be 5kph.
>
> How many academics will pile in to defend Democracy? As usual, I suspect a
> shameful silence will persist.
> Regards,
>
> Charles Cawley. Gatewa...@BTInternet.com
I GUESS THE MESSAGE GOT MANGLED IN TRANSMISSION.
AMERICANS ARE GUARANTEED A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN THEIR
"STATES."
BUT SERVANT GOVERNMENTS ARE OPERATED UNDER DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN A HOME, DOES THE WHOLE FAMILY VOTE ON THE DINNER MENU,
OR DOES ONE PERSON TAKE CHARGE?
THAT'S A REPUBLICAN FORM - TOTAL FREE TO CHOOSE AND ACT WITHOUT PRIOR
RESTRAINT OF A MAJORITY AND THE PASSIVE CONSENT OF OTHERS (SUFFERANCE).
--
===========================================================
Charles Cawley
J Ganaposki wrote in message <348072...@bellsouth.net>...
>Charles Cawley wrote:
>>
>> J Ganaposki wrote in message <347FEF...@bellsouth.net>...
>> Christianity Is Anti-Socialism
>>
>> Collective ownership is the big lie
>> fed to the believers in democracy.
Deletion
>>
>> So, the whole theory of Democracy is dismissed. It is indirectly
described
>> as evil.
>NOT EXACTLY - GOVERNMENTS MAY RUN THEMSELVES AS DEMOCRACIES, BUT
>AMERICANS, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY DO NOT.
>
I have no argument with this observation, except that Democracy may be an
idea still only in the first stages of development. Because an idea is
hijacked or only partially used by groups not too keen in developing it any
further, only to further their own interests, does not make the idea wrong.
Bad people stealing cars to rob and kill do not make the cars bad things of
themselves.
>> I find I hard to believe that someone, able to write as you do, is not
aware
>> of the strange and incredible attempt you have made to reduce the entire
>> theory of Democracy, to two short paragraphs Democracy is not just
people
>> voting, and there you have it: the majority say so wins the day.
>ANCIENT GRECIAN DEMOCRACY PASSED "LAWS" BY VOTE OF WHOLE BODY OF
>CITIZENS, IN PUBLIC.
>BUTMINORITY RIGHTS WERE NOT SECURED FROM ATTACK BY THE MAJORITY.
>
Ancient Greece was only the beginning of the Democracy idea, and a very poor
one at that, as the state was supported by a slave system which made their
Democracy very partial indeed. However they did make the first step.
>> The theory extends to acceptance that all co-operation depends on the
>> ability to co-operate.
>I LIKE CO-OPERATION. CO-OPERATION DOESN'T REQUIRE DEMOCRACY - JUST
>CO-OPERATION.
>
Without a system to prevent the spread of fear and to organise things so we
can all co-operate even with people we may only see once in our lives, how
can we co-operate? There is a need for uniform justice, respect for
illusions in others that they may be convinced otherwise and patience.
Democracy provides a mechanism not only for these but a system to state what
is moral and immoral without moralisers.
>> So Democracy must ensure, for its own survival that
>> people are fed, healthy, can communicate efficiently, and are free from
>> fear.
>THANK GOODNESS I HAVE A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, WHEREIN I CAN
>DEFEND MYSELF FROM SOCIALIST / DEMOCRATS. WHY? THE SUPREME COURT ALREADY
>RULED THAT A) POLICE ARE UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE, AND
>B) YOU CAN'T SUE THE POLICE FOR FAILURE TO PROTECT.
>
>STILL BUYING THE "BIG LIE?"
>
The USA is a great country, but there are many others and for some reason
Democracy is spreading across the world in one form or another. If it is so
useless, how come millions appear to disagree, are they all stupid? Are we
in this small world on the computers, the ones with access to truth and they
have not? This is an unfair argument, but you used a put down line which
appeared to excuse you from listening. Someone once taught the importance
of listening when berated for eating with a tax collector.
>WHEN GOVERNMENT "TAKES CARE" OF THE POOR, THE POOR ARE SUBJECT TO THEIR
>BENEFACTOR. WHEN PEOPLE THINK THEY CAN VOTE FREE BREAD AND CIRCUSES,
>THEY ONLY MAKE THE CHAINS HEAVIER UPON THEMSELVES AND THEIR CHILDREN.
>
Some truth in this. However in London I have seen poor Indians terrified
out of their wits paralised into silence by certain extreme political
groups. In this state they are incapable of any communication not even to
be persuaded by arguments such as these. In this state they are non
citizens.
There will always be some very nasty people, and some are born that way.
Others are the opposite.
>READ DEFINITION OF PAUPER IN LEGAL DICTIONARY. B.T.W. EVERYONE WITH A
>SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER IS A PAUPER, AT LAW. THAT'S WHAT GRANTS THE
>FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO INTRUDE UPON THE STATES AND VIOLATE
>RIGHTS.
>
The federal government of the USA does not define the fundamentals of
Democracy. And the definition you refer to would not have made much sense
in a state with no such numbers. Book definitions are often utterly off the
mark, and may even have been subject to the minds behind the system you feel
may be so inappropriate.
>> These factors alone are central to any reasonably sophisticated
>> theory. Democracy does not just float around without foundations.
>THE DEFINITION IS CLEAR - THE SOVEREIGN POWER RESIDES IN THE WHOLE BODY
>OF CITIZENS IN A DEMOCRACY.
Another one liner. Ok this is cheap, but the thing is much more interesting
than that.
>IN A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, IT RESIDES IN PEOPLE, INDIVIDUALLY. I
DON'T HAVE TO BE A CITIZEN.
I am not my brothers keeper. On the other hand, the good Samaritan was a
decent fellow. Love thy neighbour as thyself etc:. Citizenship implies
rights and responsibilities. Every action has an equal and opposite
reaction you can't have one without the other.
Oh, dear, the poverty of thought left by the total abnegation of duty by the
Academics has left us to slug it out on such basic grounds. Democratic
theory has come on vast leaps the last three years, and yet still these
simple (not naive), arguments persist.
The need for a democratic system and its ability to offer the most potency
to a nation is its justification, however that justification in no way
condones or permits dictatorship. Democracy cannot commit suicide. Any
such attempt would undermine its foundations and thus be self defeating.
(Pun intended).
>> Marxism
>*ANOTHER NAME FOR PIRACY...
>
No. However I am not too keen on it to say the least.
>> has had lots of fine books written about it but just because the
>> academics out of incompetence cowardice or sloth, have failed to give it
>> proper attention, does not mean Democracy is a simple, easy to dismiss,
>> theory. On the contrary, a full blown sophisticated system has been
>> developed.
>>
>> This is rooted in the nature of information and its relationship to
force,
>> authority and power. The theory appears to indicate Democracy is the
most
>> efficient system at information flow and therefore creates the most long
>> term potent state.
>Deletion
I DON'T CARE WHAT LAWS
>ARE MADE OR WHO MAKES THEM AS LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH THE SIMPLE RULE
>THAT UNALIENABLE RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY ARE NOT INFRINGED.
>BUT IF THESE GOVERNMENTS INFRINGE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE Deletion THEY ARE
>ENEMIES OF THE FREE PEOPLES OF THIS WORLD.
>
You cannot be free to enjoy property or even use it at all if there is no
law. Property is only practical if there is a system which permits you to
enjoy it. Without the system no one will be able to enjoy their property.
If you cannot use what you own, is there much meaning to ownership? the
definition of what these rights are and how they can be protected is the big
question. Democracy just might provide an answer. (Not the simple
undeveloped version).
>> I am not a Collectivist and not a Social Democrat
>IF YOU HAVE A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, YOU ARE A SOCIALIST!
>
I have a national Insurance number, but I think that is different from the
US number. They dish them out like candy over here. I take that back. It
was a little cheap. The definition of Socialist appears a little odd if
that direct relationship is accepted.
>> however I am a strong
>> Democrat and hope to never live under less potent systems, in the long
term,
>> such as Dictatorship, Tyrrany, Aristocracy, Oligarchy or Anarchy. These
are
>> the other choices, would you prefer your children to live under such
>> regimes?
>WHAT LED YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THOSE ARE THE ONLY CHOICES?
Socrates/Plato. 'The Republic'. (Strange that word cropping up here). The
ancient Greek which system I have above tried to indicate was only on the
first step towards a fully developed idea of Democracy. (OK. So I am
struggling a little here).
Deletion
>ANOTHER GREAT REASON WHY WE SHOULD OPPOSE DISARMAMENT BY A PIRATE
>DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT!
I strongly oppose the idea that a US 'Democrat' is necessarily a Democrat in
the world sense. We may have been partly arguing at cross purposes.
>
>> Yes, I know Democracy as practiced is still a poor version, but I would
>> prefer an old auto which splutters its way down the road to an oxcart. I
>> might be able to fix the car, and I am doing my best to help, but the
oxcart
>> top speed will always be 5kph.
>>
>> How many academics will pile in to defend Democracy? As usual, I suspect
a
>> shameful silence will persist.
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Charles Cawley. Gatewa...@BTInternet.com
>
>I GUESS THE MESSAGE GOT MANGLED IN TRANSMISSION.
Deletion
>BUT SERVANT GOVERNMENTS ARE OPERATED UNDER DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES.
>FOR EXAMPLE, IN A HOME, DOES THE WHOLE FAMILY VOTE ON THE DINNER MENU,
>OR DOES ONE PERSON TAKE CHARGE?
I am not talking about the organistion of a household but about how a system
can not only act to protect property, freedom from fear but can identify in
detail what needs to be done in a changing world where one person or a small
group is bound not to have sufficient current experience to know of
themselves the requirements. Democracy enables this to happen.
>THAT'S A REPUBLICAN FORM - TOTAL FREE TO CHOOSE AND ACT WITHOUT PRIOR
>RESTRAINT OF A MAJORITY AND THE PASSIVE CONSENT OF OTHERS (SUFFERANCE).
I will have to think about this, as I am uncertain how do answer. Freedom
presumes an ability to act which assumes certain things are already laid on
such as freedom from fear etc etc. However I will have to think further
about this.
>
I think I will have to take more time to show how a fully developed system
of Democracy can work. It is ten thousand times more sophisticated than is
often envisaged.
It seems odd to me, when at University in England 20 years ago, some people
used to call me Fascist and yet, and this may be a bad thing, my general
outlook has not changed much. I know this proves nothing, but it just came
to mind as I thought over all this.
Regards,
Charles Cawley. Gatewa...@BTInternet.com
Lepore
> Democracy is best explained as three wolves and one lamb voting on
> what's on the menu for dinner.
Whoever made up that idiotic cliche must have been
one of the most reactionary and anti-progress writers
in history.
An *absense* of democracy means the *certainty* of having
people who fancy themselves as wolves eating victims whom
they wish to have serving as lambs.
Since it's always the wealthy few who exploit and
oppress the relatively propertiless majority, democracy means
the *cessation* of such behavior.
It is the extreme right wing (Adolf Hitler, Ayn Rand, etc.)
who maintain that people become divided into rulers and
ruled "naturally", because the rulers are "creative geniuses",
ergo, according to that viewpoint, any removal of the
steep class gradient is seen as "mob rule." The opposite
of that viewpoint is the democratic or socialist view,
in which the distinction between rulers and rulers is
an artificial edifice of socioeconomic practices, and
all people have the ability to participate in collective
self-management.
Victor Khomenko
Lepore <lep...@mhvx.net> wrote:
>> Democracy is best explained as three wolves and one lamb voting on
> > what's on the menu for dinner.
>
Could you please explain to us how an individual, who refuses to participate in
that "collective self-management" is handled? Is he allowed to leave the
collective? Is he murdered (as had been the case million times before)? Is he
indoctrinated to accept that collective mentality (China comes to mind)?
How about those who don't like the collective dscisions? What rights do they
have?
All that socialist balloney is based on a totally unnatural doctrine of "creating
a new man". I would submit to you, that any society that relies on some new type
of people, and very uniform one at that, is nothing but idiocy.
By comparisson, capitalism is an extremely resilient form of societal
organization and it doesn't require such nonexistent creatures for it to prosper.
The beauty of capitalism is that it will tolerate all kinds of people: good,
bad and lazy. Even socialists.
You can be your own individual under the free structure. Not under the "group
collective self-management". I, for one, refuse to self-manage withing a
collective. What would be my fate?
Victor.
Harold
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997 10:51:59 -0500, Lepore <lep...@mhvx.net> wrote:
>The opposite
>of that viewpoint is the democratic or socialist view,
these are not equivalent. In fact, they are opposed.
>in which the distinction between rulers and rulers is
>an artificial edifice of socioeconomic practices, and
>all people have the ability to participate in collective
>self-management.
Let me continue that for you, just a moment. Collectivist self
management mean that the group determines how to use the body which
should be yours. The product of your labor is disposed of by the
collective, the individual has no rights.
Regards, Harold
-----
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment
us without end for they do so with the approval of their own
conscience."
-C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)
Justin Flude
Harold wrote in message <3489d3b4...@nntp.st.usm.edu>...
>Let me continue that for you, just a moment. Collectivist self
>management mean that the group determines how to use the body which
>should be yours. The product of your labor is disposed of by the
>collective, the individual has no rights.
Harold, who made the computer you are using? The chair you are sitting on?
Who grew the food you just ate? The car you drive in? Who provides the
water you drink? Who makes the clothes you wear?
Unless you're a very strange man, it was the collective labour of other
people. Capitalism promotes the illusion that individuals have autonomy and
the right to dispose of their labour how they see fit. But the truth is
that you are part of a social division of labour, the movements and
adjustments of which you experience as "market forces". Whether you like it
or not, the collective decides how your labour is disposed of, whether its
product is sold and you eat, or it isn't and you starve. Capitalism gives
each individual the illusion of autonomy while denying the reality to
everyone. Instead of a collection of free individuals cooperating and
producing for themselves, we have a mass of formally autonomous private
producers whose mutual interaction, uncontrolled and uncomprehended by
anyone, dominates them.
Overcoming that unconscious self-domination, revealing the free association
of individuals that underlies it, is what socialism is all about.
Justin
Alvin Sylvain
Justin Flude wrote:
>
> Harold wrote in message <3489d3b4...@nntp.st.usm.edu>...
> >Let me continue that for you, just a moment. Collectivist self
> >management mean that the group determines how to use the body which
> >should be yours. The product of your labor is disposed of by the
> >collective, the individual has no rights.
>
> Harold, who made the computer you are using? The chair you are sitting on?
> Who grew the food you just ate? The car you drive in? Who provides the
> water you drink? Who makes the clothes you wear?
A collective of *individuals* working together *volunatarily*,
including the "capitalist" who provided the funding and the
"exploited wage-slave" who provided the labor.
Each individual freely negotiated the expertise, labor, or capital
that went into whatever product. Each individual at the option
to put their expertise, labor, or capital in any other product that
they might have felt could have better served their needs. It works
because it's dynamic.
> Unless you're a very strange man, it was the collective labour of other
> people. Capitalism promotes the illusion that individuals have autonomy and
> the right to dispose of their labour how they see fit.
Which is exactly why we drive the cars we do, and not Volkswagons.
No collective decided for us what would be the most "economical"
to drive, or the most "practical" to drive. We individually
decided we wanted things to be "fun" to drive, or "impressive"
to drive, etc. Hence, we drive Porches and Mercedes.
Sometimes I find that people who have the most problem with
free markets are people who don't personally approve of the
choices people freely make; eg, people who believe we all
*should* be driving Volkswagons.
> But the truth is
> that you are part of a social division of labour, the movements and
> adjustments of which you experience as "market forces". Whether you like it
> or not, the collective decides how your labour is disposed of, whether its
> product is sold and you eat, or it isn't and you starve.
But it's the free association that counts, isn't it? If the collective
decides my expertise is valuable, then it pays me a higher wage. If it
doesn't, then it pays me a lesser wage. So long as one can bargain
with the collective on a free basis and negotiate for the best value,
then you have the perfect socialist situation, don't you?
Pretty much what a free market means, isn't it? What better mechanism
could a collective choose for deciding the value of one's expertise?
> Capitalism gives
> each individual the illusion of autonomy while denying the reality to
> everyone. Instead of a collection of free individuals cooperating and
> producing for themselves, we have a mass of formally autonomous private
> producers whose mutual interaction, uncontrolled and uncomprehended by
> anyone, dominates them.
Which is exactly why is works so well. No sooner do you get an
"expert" or an "authority" to step in an attempt to comprehend the
whole mess, and exert some "controlling influence", then you screw
up the works.
In chaos there are patterns. In the uncontrolled, uncomprehended
morass of free, mutual interactions, you see the creation of
prosperity. In the attempts at controlling this uncomprehensible
morass you create poverty, if for no other reason that it *can*
*not* be fully comprehended.
> Overcoming that unconscious self-domination, revealing the free association
> of individuals that underlies it, is what socialism is all about.
No one is denying the free association of individuals underlying
a freely bargained collective. Free Market Capitialism, thru the
mechanisms of privately held property and freely negotiated
interactions, allows this free association to flourish.
Socialism, on the other hand, is only about the "free association
of individuals" so long the means of production is collectively
owned. "Property" exists only in minor trivialities. Anything
important is "owned" by the collective, and therefore there's no
one responsible for it's competent utilization or management.
Just Wondering
In <34818B...@mhvx.net> Lepore <lep...@mhvx.net> writes:
>[...]It is the extreme right wing (Adolf Hitler, Ayn Rand, etc.)
>who maintain that people become divided into rulers and
>ruled "naturally", because the rulers are "creative geniuses",
>ergo, according to that viewpoint, any removal of the
>steep class gradient is seen as "mob rule." [...]
No, Ayn Rand never "maintained that people become divided
into rulers and ruled 'naturally'".
It is unconscionable to ascribe to her
views that she so detested. Here are a few samples
of what she did maintain:
|| " by its *metaphysically given nature*, a man's volition
|| is outside the power of other men. [...] Man is neither
|| to be obeyed nor to be commanded.
|| [...]
||
|| Natural objects can be reshaped to serve men's goals
|| and are to be regarded as means to men's ends, but man
|| himself cannot and is not.
|| [...]
||
|| What one must accept is that the minds of other men are
|| not in one's power, as one's own mind is not in theirs;
|| one must accept their right to make their own choices [...].
||
|| The only means of "changing" men is the same as the means
|| of "changing" nature: knowledge - which, in regard
|| to men, is to be used as a process of *persuasion*,
|| when their minds are active; when they are not, one
|| must leave them to the consequences of their own
|| errors."
||
|| (Ayn Rand, _The Metaphysical and the Man-Made_)
Justin Flude
Alvin Sylvain wrote in message <3483B7...@NO.JUNK>...
>In chaos there are patterns. In the uncontrolled, uncomprehended
>morass of free, mutual interactions, you see the creation of
>prosperity.
No you don't: it is undeniable that the uncontrolled, uncomprehended
interaction periodically breaks down, leading to the economic recession and
slump that the world is in today.
Justin
Lepore
> In chaos there are patterns.
Check the mathematical theory. Chaotic systems have
such hypersensitivity to initial conditions that they
end up growing complex forms which are neither predicted
nor controlled.
Harold
On Mon, 01 Dec 1997 17:40:44 -0500, Lepore <lep...@mhvx.net> wrote:
>> Collectivist self management mean that the group determines how
> > to use the body which should be yours. The product of your labor
> > is disposed of by the collective, the individual has no rights.
>
>The only way to avoid having others involved in the decisions
>about what we will do with the products of our labor would be for
>each of us to live like Robinson Crusoe on individual islands.
>Assuming that we are going to have a civilization, the only
>question is how best to choose who shall be determining what is to
>be done with the products of our labor, and what their purposes in
>doing so should be.
Thank you for illustrating my point. Let me proceed a little further.
In a free capitalist economy, I am at liberty to examine a market or
economic sector, determine what I think will be sufficiently useful to
others, and then supply it. Examples would be purchase of an
injection molding machine because I thought widgets were in short
supply. Real world examples would be opening a clothes cleaners, a
used car lot or starting Nike or Hewlett-Packard.
In a communalistic society, this freedom would not exist. I would
have to convince a consensus of the public that such an activity was
desirable. This is a lot harder than it would be to just save money,
or get your friends to capitalize you or even persuade a banker.
But why would I do that? There is no personal reward (profit). The
resources I would gather would belong to the community. History has
shown that a communalist economy works, when it does, only in small
communities and in the absence of high technology.
Lepore
Reply to Harold
> In a free capitalist economy, I am at liberty to examine a market
> or economic sector, determine what I think will be sufficiently
> useful to others, and then supply it. Examples would be purchase
> of an injection molding machine because I thought widgets were in
> short supply. Real world examples would be opening a clothes
> cleaners, a used car lot or starting Nike or Hewlett-Packard.
I'm glad you said "I" rather than "anyone." We are still left
with the fact that the wealthiest one percent of the population
has as much in assets as the bottom ninety percent of the
population (New York Times, 4/21/92).
> In a communalistic society, this freedom would not exist. I
> would have to convince a consensus of the public that such an
> activity was desirable.
Not necessarily. The communalistic society might have a standing
policy that many new proposals (that aren't on the health hazard
list) can be implemented as small prototype projects, and then
allow the subsequent consumer choice of the product to be the
thing that signals the allocation of additional resources
for expansion.
> This is a lot harder than it would be to just save money, or get
> your friends to capitalize you or even persuade a banker.
Saving: Here's a math problem: If you need $1,000,000, and you
can save $15 per month, how many years do you have to save?
Getting it from your friends: Well, that's what I said.
The system that is supposedly a "meritocracy" in reality
makes financial success largely a matter of dumb luck.
Convincing a banker to lend it: Unless you intend to
charge the construction of your new factory to your Visa
or Mastercard, bankers usually ask to see something called
"your collateral."
And even then, the bank owns the business, you don't. Some of
the so-called "worker owned companies" have been financed
with 100 year mortgages.
> But why would I do that? There is no personal reward (profit).
> The resources I would gather would belong to the community.
You are saying that no one has ever started a nonprofit
organization, becuase in the absense of profit there was no
reason to do so? But nonprofit organizations do exist.
> History has shown that a communalist economy works, when it does,
> only in small communities and in the absence of high technology.
Becuase people have to try little islands of cooperation in the
middle of a competitive system in which one percent of the
population owns the vast majority of the capital. No wonder
financial failure is typical. They're lighting a match in a
hurricane.
Loren Petrich
In article <3483B7...@NO.JUNK>, Alvin Sylvain <al...@NO.JUNK> wrote:
>Each individual freely negotiated the expertise, labor, or capital
>that went into whatever product. ...
In the way that you freely negotiated every penny of the taxes
you pay???
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
JMH
I'll probably say this poorly but it's interesting that
the the more closely connected and meshed economic relations
and interactions get the greater the risk of a big crash. Why?
As everything comse into close sync one mistake anywhere causes
a pretty strong backlash thorugh out the economic system.
The decentralized system might not guite get to its full potential
but in its failing tends to create some circuit breakers.
JMH
JMH
Lepore wrote:
>
> > In chaos there are patterns.
>
> such hypersensitivity to initial conditions that they
> end up growing complex forms which are neither predicted
> nor controlled.
But aren't the forms recognizable and, even if unpredictable,
allow use to act, react or contingent plan in some rational
manner within a chaotic system?
JMH
Justin Flude
JMH wrote in message <348477...@erols.com>...
>Justin Flude wrote:
>>
>> Alvin Sylvain wrote in message <3483B7...@NO.JUNK>...
>> >In chaos there are patterns. In the uncontrolled, uncomprehended
>> >morass of free, mutual interactions, you see the creation of
>> >prosperity.
>>
>> No you don't: it is undeniable that the uncontrolled, uncomprehended
>> interaction periodically breaks down, leading to the economic recession
and
>> slump that the world is in today.
>
>I'll probably say this poorly but it's interesting that
>the the more closely connected and meshed economic relations
>and interactions get the greater the risk of a big crash. Why?
>As everything comse into close sync one mistake anywhere causes
>a pretty strong backlash thorugh out the economic system.
That's very true - for example, the recent economic turbulence in East Asia
had the Brits in a fluster, wondering if it would lead the Japanese and
Koreans to withdraw their investments in the UK. The fear is exaggerated
(but that's another explanation) but in principle they were absolutely
right.
"Globalisation" theorists have decided that the level of integration is so
much that its all wildly out of control ...
Justin
Les
łFor one thing, one of the frequent contemporary uses [of the word
democracy] appears to have been very close to the original meaning of the
Greek word, i.e., rule of the poor or lower classes. Naturally, insofar as
the term was associated with class dominance, democracy would not be
regarded with favor by men who did not think of themselves as members of
that [ruling] class.˛ Cecelia M. Kenyon (ed.), The Antifederalists
(Northwestern University, 1985), p. xxxii.
łGreece was the Home of Democracy. ŚGr. demokratia; demos, of the
people, krato, Rule.ą This is based on the fact that four people out of
five in Greece were slaves. For further information about PURE DEMOCARCY
in its supposed place of origin, one should read the ŚRepublic of Plato.ą
łWe now already why ŚDEMOSą means PEOPLE. It is because DEMO (DM) is
the same word as Adam (DM) which is Man. And we know also why KRATEO or
CRATEO, which is CRS or CRT or KRT means RULE. But all this does not
explain why the Greeks used those words, or how and where they got that
idea, that the PEOPLE RULED; when all facts contradict it.
łThe artisansą name was Adam (DM), they had always RULED themselves,
that is, the BROTHERHOOD or Union, was their administration that took care
of them from the cradle to the grave. Could it then have been because of
the unrest among slaves everywhere, that the politicians combined those two
words ŚDEMO KRATEOą as a joker, to dupe the slaves? It seems that they
were led to believe that because their name DEMO was used side by side with
KRATEO, it proved that their conditions were being considered for
improvement, Śbut it takes time, you know.ą But the facts as known, show
that the meanings in that strange combination of words meant: The people
(DM) are RULED by the RULING CLASS (KRT).˛ Joseph Reiss, Language, Myth
and Man (N.Y.: Philosophical Library, 1963), pp. 103-104.
łWhat is futile is to puzzle ourselves as to whether the American or the
Russian use of Śdemocracyą is the true or correct one.˛ T. D. Weldon, The
Vocabulary of Politics (Penguin Books, 1953), p. 23.
ł[T]he first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the
proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for
democracy.˛ Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto of 1848.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Lepore wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>Reply to Harold
>
> > In a free capitalist economy, I am at liberty to examine a market
> > or economic sector, determine what I think will be sufficiently
> > useful to others, and then supply it. Examples would be purchase
> > of an injection molding machine because I thought widgets were in
> > short supply. Real world examples would be opening a clothes
> > cleaners, a used car lot or starting Nike or Hewlett-Packard.
>
>I'm glad you said "I" rather than "anyone."
In a free capitalist economy, *anyone* is at liberty to examine a
market or economic sector, determine what he thinks will be
sufficiently useful to others, persuade sufficient providers of
capital (which at minimum consists solely of himself) that he is
likely correct, and then supply that good or service.
> We are still left
>with the fact that the wealthiest one percent of the population
>has as much in assets as the bottom ninety percent of the
>population (New York Times, 4/21/92).
If the most economically powerful 1% control only as much assets as
the bottom 90%, that makes us clearly more egalitarian than any more
socialized system -- including, but not limited to, the Soviet Union
and feudual Europe.
Might I point out that the 0.0002% that constitute the law-making
ability of the United States government directly (by ownership)
control approximately 40% of the real estate in the United States.
However, in the Soviet Union, a smaller percentage had legal control
of 100% of the assets of the country, including but not limited to
real estate.
> > In a communalistic society, this freedom would not exist. I
> > would have to convince a consensus of the public that such an
> > activity was desirable.
>
>Not necessarily. The communalistic society might have a standing
>policy that many new proposals (that aren't on the health hazard
>list) can be implemented as small prototype projects, and then
>allow the subsequent consumer choice of the product to be the
>thing that signals the allocation of additional resources
>for expansion.
The community only has so much capital with which to fund such
prototype projects. How does the community judge which projects to
fund?
Running such a prototype project is a lot of work for the innovator.
Under a communalistic society, there is no economic reward for this
work even if the project is successful. Why does the innovator
bother?
If the communalistic society extends beyond personal acquaintance,
there is no systemic method by which consumer choice is communicated
back to the resource-allocation process. The somewhat stiff and
unpleasant person will find his project given fewer resources, while
the open and friendly person gets more. Unfortunately, successful
innovators tend to be hard to get along with: they don't accept the
way things are. Thus, the system will tend to channel resources away
from good innovations.
> > This is a lot harder than it would be to just save money, or get
> > your friends to capitalize you or even persuade a banker.
>
>Saving: Here's a math problem: If you need $1,000,000, and you
>can save $15 per month, how many years do you have to save?
Your saying "here's a math problem" simply displays your ignorance of
capitalist processes.
It's a BUSINESS problem, and you don't provide enough information to
even begin to answer it.
Depending on what the other information is, the answer varies from 72
hours to eternity.
>Getting it from your friends: Well, that's what I said.
>The system that is supposedly a "meritocracy" in reality
>makes financial success largely a matter of dumb luck.
>
>Convincing a banker to lend it: Unless you intend to
>charge the construction of your new factory to your Visa
>or Mastercard, bankers usually ask to see something called
>"your collateral."
And if you have a sufficiently good idea and a sufficiently good
business plan, you can sell a portion of the company you haven't even
created yet to provide the startup money.
>And even then, the bank owns the business, you don't. Some of
>the so-called "worker owned companies" have been financed
>with 100 year mortgages.
With no clause prohibiting early payback. If the company does well,
that 100 year mortgage might be paid off in two years. If the company
fails, the bank has nothing.
> > But why would I do that? There is no personal reward (profit).
> > The resources I would gather would belong to the community.
>
>You are saying that no one has ever started a nonprofit
>organization, becuase in the absense of profit there was no
>reason to do so?
Please take a quick look at the economic productivity of non-profits
as opposed to for-profit companies. The latter are clearly superior
in delivering prosperity. If you are willing to abandon a good system
in favor of an inferior system, fine. That is your privilege.
Provided you allow us the equal privilege to choose the good system.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, ß227,
any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of $500
US. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
Caliban
In talk.politics.libertarian Harold <Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu> wrote:
: On Mon, 01 Dec 1997 17:40:44 -0500, Lepore <lep...@mhvx.net> wrote:
: >> Collectivist self management mean that the group determines how
: > > to use the body which should be yours. The product of your labor
: > > is disposed of by the collective, the individual has no rights.
: >
: >The only way to avoid having others involved in the decisions
: >about what we will do with the products of our labor would be for
: >each of us to live like Robinson Crusoe on individual islands.
: >Assuming that we are going to have a civilization, the only
: >question is how best to choose who shall be determining what is to
: >be done with the products of our labor, and what their purposes in
: >doing so should be.
Actually, I think that the question is where to draw the
line between collective ownership/control and individual
ownership/control. Libertarians don't want to force one
system on every person or every situation. Free market
societies have plenty of collective entities including
corporations, labor unions, churches, clubs, neighborhood
associations, families, and so forth. The idea is to have
collective ownership where it is appropriate, and individual
ownership where it is appropriate, and not to arbitrarily
say that there is only One True Way.
: Thank you for illustrating my point. Let me proceed a little further.
: In a free capitalist economy, I am at liberty to examine a market or
: economic sector, determine what I think will be sufficiently useful to
: others, and then supply it. Examples would be purchase of an
: injection molding machine because I thought widgets were in short
: supply. Real world examples would be opening a clothes cleaners, a
: used car lot or starting Nike or Hewlett-Packard.
I work for a company that does (among other things)
extruding and injection molding, and we're usually
hiring. Are you familiar with the technologies
involved?
: "Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its
: victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live
: under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
: The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
: may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment
: us without end for they do so with the approval of their own
: conscience."
: -C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)
I love your .sig quote! As a Christian as well as a
hard-core libertarian, and a hard-core sf fan, I
love C. S. Lewis. (In fact, I delivered a paper at
the 1996 International Conference on the Fantastic
in the Arts on Lewis and Libertarianism.)
--
Caliban
cal...@gate.net
"Whoever dies with the most skills wins."
Anton Sherwood
: Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu wrote:
: : "Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of its
: : under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
: : The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity
: : may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for
: : our own good will torment us without end for they do so with
: : the approval of their own conscience."
: : -C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)
Caliban <cal...@seminole.gate.net> writes
: I love your .sig quote! As a Christian as well as a
: hard-core libertarian, and a hard-core sf fan, I
: love C. S. Lewis.
Here's more from the same passage (ac.to my quotables file;
no idea where I got it):
... To be `cured' against one's will and cured of states which
we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those
who have not yet reached the age of reason ... You start being
`kind' to people before you have considered their rights, and
then force upon them supposed kindnesses which they in fact had
a right to refuse, and finally kindnesses which no one but you
will recognize as kindnesses and which the recipient will feel
as abominable cruelties.
--
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DASher at netcom point com
"How'd ya like to climb this high WITHOUT no mountain?" --Porky Pine 70.6.19
Charles Cawley
Les wrote in message ...
>łFor one thing, one of the frequent contemporary uses [of the word
>democracy] appears to have been very close to the original meaning of the
>Greek word, i.e., rule of the poor or lower classes
Etc:.
Deletions.
Excellent post, thank you very much, I have printed it out.
May be slaves were not considered as persons, and women were put in the same
category. The definition of who is a person is a moral matter, and a job of
a Democratic assembly is to ensure all people are included as electors.
"Person" and "citizen" may have had a closer meaning then. In my opinion
they should mean the same with "citizen" becoming a redundant word.
Regards,
Charles Cawley. Gatewa...@BTInternet.com
Charles Cawley
>Justin Flude wrote:
>>
>> >I'll probably say this poorly but it's interesting that
>the the more closely connected and meshed economic relations
>and interactions get the greater the risk of a big crash. Why?
>As everything comse into close sync one mistake anywhere causes
>a pretty strong backlash thorugh out the economic system.
>
>The decentralized system might not guite get to its full potential
>but in its failing tends to create some circuit breakers.
>
I don't know who wrote what and the chaos theories etc look very
interesting, but as a business extends its interests across the globe, so it
has more to lose if a war happens.
Multinationals sometimes do very well from a war, but they can stand to lose
a packet if their foreign investments go up in a puff of smoke due to war.
The British lost an economic empire with ww2 and the Americans took it over.
The US even obliged the Brits to sell at knock down prices their overseas
investments in America to lubricate business interests into backing war
measures assisting the fight against Hitler.
Look at a back copy of the Times of London, then the most respected paper in
the World. "Bang goes Viscose". Yes, viscose was once a British product
which had to be sold cheap to placate US business interests. The UK of
course benefited greatly from US aid, but such damage to business interests
does happen.
If your economy does not own factories etc in a target nation, then the
thought of laying their factories to waste is a lot more attractive.
The more we invest in each other the better it seems, as the less motivated
we may come to level each others industry to the ground.
Regards,
Charles Cawley. Gatewa...@BTInternet.com
Justin Flude
Charles Cawley wrote in message <663dm2$3...@neon.btinternet.com>...
>
>Les wrote in message ...
>>democracy] appears to have been very close to the original meaning of the
>>Greek word, i.e., rule of the poor or lower classes
>Etc:.
>
>Deletions.
>
>Excellent post, thank you very much, I have printed it out.
>
>May be slaves were not considered as persons, and women were put in the
same
>category.
That was exactly the case. The idea of social equality is very much a
modern one, and would have been considered quite perverse by all social
orders in the past. The Romans, for example, made explicit in law their
idea that slaves were "talking tools", not human beings. In feudal times it
was considered natural that everyone had their position in society due to
the will of God, or thanks to differences in people's personal abilities and
characteristics. The serf no more thought himself the equal of his lord
that the lord did of his serf. The same was true of the position and status
of women.
It's with the development of capitalism, a system of production based upon
the free exchange of commodities owned by private individuals, that the real
basis for social equality is laid. But just as the sphere of perfect
equality, ie. free exchange, is premisd upon social relations of domination,
ie. capitalist production in the workplace, so the social equality of
nascent capitalism relied upon social institutions from the feudal past with
no egalitarian or democratic content, such as the family, the state, and
religious and class oppression.
Justin
Harold
On Tue, 02 Dec 1997 11:14:32 -0500, Lepore <lep...@mhvx.net> wrote:
>Harold
>
> > In a free capitalist economy, I am at liberty to examine a market
> > or economic sector, determine what I think will be sufficiently
> > useful to others, and then supply it. Examples would be purchase
> > of an injection molding machine because I thought widgets were in
> > short supply. Real world examples would be opening a clothes
> > cleaners, a used car lot or starting Nike or Hewlett-Packard.
>
>I'm glad you said "I" rather than "anyone." We are still left
>with the fact that the wealthiest one percent of the population
>has as much in assets as the bottom ninety percent of the
>population (New York Times, 4/21/92).
Do you think that proves something besides the possibility that they
earned it?
You complaint would make more sense if it were not for the fact that
economic class in the US is characterized by a fairly high mobility.
Few people actually originated in the economic class they find
themselves in now.
Besides, if I remember correctly, that antique quote was incorrect.
> > In a communalistic society, this freedom would not exist. I
> > would have to convince a consensus of the public that such an
> > activity was desirable.
>
>Not necessarily. The communalistic society might have a standing
>policy that many new proposals (that aren't on the health hazard
>list) can be implemented as small prototype projects,
Now you are writing or rewriting the definition of socialist? Do I
need to repeat it for you?
And if it is "many" new proposals, not "all" new proposals, then you
are still not free.
>and then
>allow the subsequent consumer choice of the product to be the
>thing that signals the allocation of additional resources
>for expansion.
>
> > This is a lot harder than it would be to just save money, or get
> > your friends to capitalize you or even persuade a banker.
>
>Saving: Here's a math problem: If you need $1,000,000, and you
>can save $15 per month, how many years do you have to save?
I am not responsible that you are so improvident you can only save
$15. It appears you are willing to punish others, justifying it by
saying they can do what you cannot. Do you think that is reasonable?
Here is a math answer. There is a woman in Hattiesburg, MS, who has
taken in laundry all her life. She never had any other source of
income. She retired several years ago, and has now given the local
university $150,000.
You think an injection molding machine costs $1,000,000? Her $150,000
would easily buy her 5 or 6 used machines, some capital left over for
a tin roof and some starting materials. Go to Sunbeam and ask for
their leftover work.
>Getting it from your friends: Well, that's what I said.
>The system that is supposedly a "meritocracy" in reality
>makes financial success largely a matter of dumb luck.
Frankly, it occurs to me that you are simply saying you have no
friends. A very old and time honored method of starting a business is
a small circle of people with capital difficulties, called a lending
circle. It is like a coop, in that they pool resources and acquire
the necessary start up capital that way.
>Convincing a banker to lend it: Unless you intend to
>charge the construction of your new factory to your Visa
>or Mastercard, bankers usually ask to see something called
>"your collateral."
You ever heard of the S&L crises? That resulted in part from loans
lent to people who could not afford to pay them back. You missed your
chance, I guess.
It is very true that the preferred customer for most bankers is the
guy who does not need to borrow the money. But bankers are pretty
much people too. If bankers did not make loans to people who do need
the money, they would shortly be doing business no longer. You need
to convince them you will pay them back. A good credit record is
often the primary requirement.
>And even then, the bank owns the business, you don't. Some of
>the so-called "worker owned companies" have been financed
>with 100 year mortgages.
In general, they are probably 100 year bonds. I am not sure what you
mean to imply by your statement. If "the bank owns the business" just
because they loan them money, I guess you think my car is owned by the
bank? Try to foist that one off on the tax accessor or the highway
patrol if you get stopped!
Maybe you are having conceptual problems with the concept of
ownership. If you mean that the bank assumes an interest in the
business because they made the loan, you are certainly correct. Did
you think it should be some other way? Why?
The bank has a fiduciary duty to protect the assets of the depositors.
Insuring sound management on the part of the borrower is a part of
that. A part generally well accepted and even appreciated the more
prudent owners, who are aware that they often need that help.
> > But why would I do that? There is no personal reward (profit).
> > The resources I would gather would belong to the community.
>
>You are saying that no one has ever started a nonprofit
>organization, becuase in the absense of profit there was no
>reason to do so? But nonprofit organizations do exist.
A few points. First, the biggest single chunk of nonprofits are
really for profit. These are grower or consumer coops, and the people
have formed them to provide themselves with advantages they do not
have as individuals. Of the some 22,000 nonprofits in the US (1994),
nearly 4900 are of this type.
This does not count credit unions, by the way. There are some 11,000
of the alone. If you honestly think that people do not form these
associations for their personal profit (benefit), then you and I have
a different idea of what constitutes profit.
The rest are educational, cultural, religious, etc., and form no
significant part of the economy.
>
> > History has shown that a communalist economy works, when it does,
> > only in small communities and in the absence of high technology.
>
>Becuase people have to try little islands of cooperation in the
>middle of a competitive system in which one percent of the
>population owns the vast majority of the capital. No wonder
>financial failure is typical. They're lighting a match in a
>hurricane.
True enough picture, and accurate. Capitalism, being more efficient,
more humane, and more moral than a communal economy, is sweeping away
that old manure to the "dust bins of history". Thank heavens.
Regards, Harold
-------
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the
decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling
which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. . . . "
---John Stuart Mill, (1859)
Just Wondering
In <660s7q$p9i$1...@gaul.lattis.xara.net> "Justin Flude"
<jus...@xara.com> writes:
>
>Alvin Sylvain wrote in message <3483B7...@NO.JUNK>...
>>In chaos there are patterns. In the uncontrolled, uncomprehended
>>morass of free, mutual interactions, you see the creation of
>>prosperity.
>
>No you don't: it is undeniable
... to Justin Flude ...
>that the uncontrolled, uncomprehended
>interaction periodically breaks down, leading to the economic
recession and
>slump that the world
... of Justin Flude...
>is in today.
The world economy is not in a recession or
a slump. It is growing at a brisk pace.
There are at the moment regional monetary
crises, but that is quite another matter.
Also, monetary problems are government-made.
They argue *against*, not *for* attempts to
control what one cannot comprehend.
There are no observable signs of periodicity
in the world economy as it is now.
As for the quasi-periodic business cycle of the past,
it can't be reasonably said that an engine that works
in cycles does not work. It can't be reasonably
said that an organism that periodically sleeps must
be sick. Periods of fast economic growth alternated
with periods of adjustment and technical innovation.
Overall, there was self-regulating growth.
Attempts to control the cycle (e.g., by Hoover and FDR)
have never helped.
We *may* have outgrown the business cycle by now,
with adjustments occurring on a different time
scale and in different forms. There is a lot
of restructuring, downsizing in the midst of
overall growth, and technical innovation.
The new long-term patterns (if any) remain to be seen.
Loren Petrich
In article <348893a8...@nntp.st.usm.edu>,
Harold <Harold.B...@removethis.usm.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Dec 1997 11:14:32 -0500, Lepore <lep...@mhvx.net> wrote:
>>I'm glad you said "I" rather than "anyone." We are still left
>>with the fact that the wealthiest one percent of the population
>>has as much in assets as the bottom ninety percent of the
>>population (New York Times, 4/21/92).
>Do you think that proves something besides the possibility that they
>earned it?
What counts as "earning" something? Is it anything like a certain
William Jefferson Blythe Clinton "earning" the Presidency?
>You complaint would make more sense if it were not for the fact that
>economic class in the US is characterized by a fairly high mobility.
>Few people actually originated in the economic class they find
>themselves in now.
Only by an *extremely* naive sort of accounting, in which
everybody's income at birth is $0. However, when you compare people to
their parents at the same age, this "mobility" becomes much reduced. How
many business magnates and financiers are the offspring of deadbeat dads
and crackhead welfare moms, and had grown up in urban war zones?
I just hope Mr. Brashears does not teach statistics or data analysis,
because if he does and his students
I may note that political class is *much* less inherited than
economic class in the US. Political dynasties are much rarer than
economic ones.
>>Saving: Here's a math problem: If you need $1,000,000, and you
>>can save $15 per month, how many years do you have to save?
>I am not responsible that you are so improvident you can only save
>$15. It appears you are willing to punish others, justifying it by
>saying they can do what you cannot. Do you think that is reasonable?
Whine, whine, whine. If one has a low income, that may be all one
can spare.
>Here is a math answer. There is a woman in Hattiesburg, MS, who has
>taken in laundry all her life. She never had any other source of
>income. She retired several years ago, and has now given the local
>university $150,000.
Saved over several decades. Work out the math for yourself. It's
an *incredibly* inefficient process compared to raising one's income.
And, Mr. Brashears, why aren't you living like a bum just so that
you can accumulate a giant nest egg? If you live in the streets like some
bum, you don't need to purchase housing, get it?
Caesar
In article <AE07C63A394CCDD5.3E1A4ABFAB213B46.7BD
chu...@airmail.net "Les" writes:
> 蚶or one thing, one of the frequent contemporary uses [of the word
> democracy] appears to have been very close to the original meaning of the
> Greek word, i.e., rule of the poor or lower classes.
But ATM in Britain, 2/3 or so of the population are considered "middle-class"
and just 1/3 are considered "working-class".
Democracy, using the same logic as is used in the paragraph above mine,
could now be said to be "rule by the middle-classes".
IMO the growth in the number of people persieving themselves as
middle-class is one of the reasons why Labour moved so far to
the right in the 1985-95 period.
[snip]
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Email address: Cae...@augur.demon.co.uk
"A full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty
stomach" - Franklin D. Roosevelt
*Attn: A thread with 'APWP' in its subject line has been
posted to *both* talk.politics.libertarian and
alt.politics.white-power
-
I wonder if these spammers, who infest my email inbox, will
object to their email addresses being posted to Usenet:
mutt...@swbell.com, comput...@hotmail.com
tm...@truinc.com, ste...@coal.com, kr...@savoynet.com
mm...@hotmail.com, fr...@ultramax.net, musi...@infopax.com
er...@aj2000.com, dsta...@savoynet.com, mega...@goplay.com
resp...@worldgaming.net, kelly...@radiolink.net
dav...@nevwest.com, bigb...@mlmail.com,cherri...@tokyo.jp
ron...@iamerica.net, duod...@juno.com, fr...@flash.net
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Calvert
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
>....If the communalistic society extends beyond
>personal acquaintance, there is no systemic
>method by which consumer choice is
>communcated back to the resource-allocation
>process. The somewhat stiff and unpleasant
>person will find his project given fewer
>resources, while the open and friendly person
>gets more. Unfortunately, successful
>innovators tend to be hard to get along with:
>they don't accept the way things are. Thus, the
>system will tend to channel resources away
>from good innovations.
I have always suspected that this is the real reason capitalism has
always worked better than socialism, myself. Intelligent people, for
what ever reason, do tend to be MUCH less popular than the average joe.
The nice thing about capitalism is that it can usually override the
inherently inti-intellectual sentiment of the majority. I can think of
many things that would never have been invented if the majority had
their say over the matter.
HOWEVER, I can also think of many scenarios in which the capitalist can
become even more anti-intellectual than the average joe. If a company
can monopolize a particular market, by eliminating anti trust laws, they
no longer have the need to create better merchandise or to continue
providing decent service. If they can succeed in making the worker so
desperate that he is willing to work under any conditions and for any
pay - best accomplished by eliminating all worker protection laws and
throwing all those who steal to survive into prison, so as to eliminate
all avenues of recourse for the worker - they can eliminate the need to
invest in better equipment. In this way, the capitalist becomes little
more than a slave driving parasite who needs no exceptional talents of
his own. Under this scenario, the capitalist no longer finds innovators
to be an asset. The typical capitalist starts to become lazy and stupid
and, before you know it, the lazy and stupid capitalist starts using his
money to support anti-intellectual causes and policies. This way, he
doesn't have to worry as much about those who would be most likely to
out compete him in the business world. Would it be too much of a
speculation to say that almost all republicans fall into this category?
Personally, I don't think intelligent people are necessarily "stiff and
unpleasant". I think that the real problem has to do with the fact that
intelligent people attract a lot of envy. Intelligent people also reject
a lot of the religious and social hangups that are popular among the
majority. This, in itself, tends to arouse a lot of hatred. And, as I
said in the last paragragh, intelligent people tend arouse a certain
amount of fear by out competing their contemporaries.
As strange as it may sound, most contemporary people don't even consider
the highly intelligent to be intelligent.
Robert
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Robert Calvert wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>HOWEVER, I can also think of many scenarios in which the capitalist
"The" capitalist? The only one?
That is the essential reason why free-market capitalism wins in the
long run (against anything except government regulation): if a
complete idiot lucks into a position of significant economic power,
the economy interprets him as damage and routes around him.
McQ
>On Thu, 4 Dec 1997 Robert Calvert wrote:
>>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
>
>>personal acquaintance, there is no systemic
>>method by which consumer choice is
>>person will find his project given fewer
>>resources, while the open and friendly person
>>gets more. Unfortunately, successful
>>innovators tend to be hard to get along with:
>>they don't accept the way things are. Thus, the
>>system will tend to channel resources away
>>from good innovations.
I'm not sure I'd agree here. I'd suspect that the weakness would be
in having unqualified/underqualified persons/groups at the central
level attempting to evaluate the worth of projects to the consumer (be
he a military department or a buyer of refrigerators). This sort of
centralized planning can only be right a certain percentage of the
time (what that percentage is, I couldn't say, but statistically, I'm
sure it could be shown). Essentially what this group does is attempt
to replace the mechanism of the market. However it suffers from a
very distinct disadvantage by doing so. It has no input nor does it
usually solicit any input from the final users (consumer) as to what
they "demand". In essence, then, they are shooting in the dark and
are most likely to miss whatever target they've established for
themselves. Simply a function of incomplete information that is
endemic to that sort of system (a design flaw).
>I have always suspected that this is the real reason capitalism has
>always worked better than socialism, myself. Intelligent people, for
>what ever reason, do tend to be MUCH less popular than the average joe.
>The nice thing about capitalism is that it can usually override the
>inherently anti-intellectual sentiment of the majority. I can think of
>many things that would never have been invented if the majority had
>their say over the matter.
>
>HOWEVER, I can also think of many scenarios in which the capitalist can
>become even more anti-intellectual than the average joe. If a company
>can monopolize a particular market, by eliminating anti trust laws, they
>no longer have the need to create better merchandise or to continue
>providing decent service.
How would eliminating anti-trust laws allow a company to monopolize
a particular market? Are you saying that without those laws, no one
else could or would enter the market? Are you saying that without
those laws alternatives wouldn't be available?
>If they can succeed in making the worker so
>desperate that he is willing to work under any conditions and for any
>pay - best accomplished by eliminating all worker protection laws and
>throwing all those who steal to survive into prison, so as to eliminate
>all avenues of recourse for the worker - they can eliminate the need to
>invest in better equipment. In this way, the capitalist becomes little
>more than a slave driving parasite who needs no exceptional talents of
>his own.
I would assume, under this rather bizarre bit of conjecture, that
the "worker" would have no recourse but to work for the capitalist or
steal? Hmmm...I guess there's no competition in this particular
vision of yours, or other markets? I would assume that workers cannot
opt for starting their own businesses? Or moving to where jobs are
plentiful?
>Under this scenario, the capitalist no longer finds innovators
>to be an asset. The typical capitalist starts to become lazy and stupid
>and, before you know it, the lazy and stupid capitalist starts using his
>money to support anti-intellectual causes and policies. This way, he
>doesn't have to worry as much about those who would be most likely to
>out compete him in the business world.
This, of course, eliminates the essence of capitalism, which is
competition and innovation. The reason capitalism is so successful is
because it doesn't ALLOW the above to happen...it pushes those sorts
of folks OUT of the market. Do you know of anyone making buggy
whips today?
> Would it be too much of a
>speculation to say that almost all republicans fall into this category?
Uh, yes, in my humble opinion, it would be. In fact, it would be a
singularly silly thing to speculate.
>Personally, I don't think intelligent people are necessarily "stiff and
>unpleasant". I think that the real problem has to do with the fact that
>intelligent people attract a lot of envy. Intelligent people also reject
>a lot of the religious and social hangups that are popular among the
>majority. This, in itself, tends to arouse a lot of hatred. And, as I
>said in the last paragragh, intelligent people tend arouse a certain
>amount of fear by out competing their contemporaries.
Success, for whatever reason, seems to breed resentment. Everyone
thinks of themselves as deserving of success and cannot fathom why
this or that person has succeeded beyond anything they can likely
expect.
People with a modicum of intelligence usually understand that it is
comparatively easy to succeed today. Get an education, develop a
work ethic, apply the work ethic, go the extra mile when necessary,
and most likely you'll live a happy and prosperous life regardless of
the field of endeavor you choose.
Personally I feel the reason many resent others is because they
allow others to define success for them. But that's another subject
for another day.
>As strange as it may sound, most contemporary people don't even consider
>the highly intelligent to be intelligent.
Really?
Why is that?
_________________________
McQ
J Ganaposki
Interesting how the "intellectuals" can take an idea and lose it in
bafflegab.
Why can't Socialists see that they're pirates in disguise?
The problem is easy to recognize.
If you were a farmer, and you owned your farmland, the "tool of your
production", to whom does that crop belong?
You.
If you were a sharecropper, who didn't own the farmland, the "tool of
your production," to whom does that crop belong?
The Owner and you, as divided by your contract.
What do you think would profit you the most?
Land ownership or sharecropping?
[Your answer here...]
Now what happens when the "State" owns all the tools of production?
Everybody is a sharecropper.
Socialist / Communists espoused the transfer of private property rights
to the State in exchange for "Security" and "insurance."
But if we can see through the charade, the bottom line is that
Socialist/Communists want the benefit of somebody else's labor without
paying for it with their own labor.
Otherwise, they wouldn't want to redistribute YOUR labor/production,
they'd be busy donating their services.
That's the dividing line - true humanitarians and saints don't charge
for their services. Socialists demand payment for the "services" of
taking from one and giving to another. And it's not "Robin Hood" we're
talking about. It's plain thievery, by legislative fiat.
If you think that piracy deserves a subsidy, welcome to the New World
Order.
--
===========================================================
<> Rt.Rev.Dr.Jeff Ganaposki
<_>mailto:jgm...@bellsouth.net [attachments & HTML]
<__>mailto:livin...@freeyellow.com
<___>mailto:living...@juno.com [ASCII Text only]
<____>http://www.freeyellow.com/members/living-word
<______>Warning: Socialists may be offended by contents
Lepore
> Socialist/Communists want the benefit of somebody else's labor without
> paying for it with their own labor.
Do you have a library card? Use it.
Much of the body of socialist literature consists of
argument that is it the working class which produces all
social wealth in the first place.
Lepore
> Why can't Socialists see that they're pirates in disguise?
> The problem is easy to recognize.
> If you were a farmer, and you owned your farmland, the "tool of your
> production", to whom does that crop belong?
> You.
That sort of argument is why I say that defense of capitalism
is nothing more than an argument that legality and morality
are synonymous. Their argument goes like this: there is a
legal document in the town hall that says this is your
land, therefore you are the rightful owner of the land.
They make no attempt to analyze the fact that there was no
original ownership of the land, and therefore any apparent
ownership is merely a legal sanctification of stolen
property. Therefore we socialists are guilty of the following
"crime": we want stolen property to be returned to the
community who used to share it before someone confiscated
it and staked their claim in the government records office.
DEE
Charles Cawley wrote:
> ...May be slaves were not considered as persons, and women were put in the same
> category. The definition of who is a person is a moral matter, and a job of
> a Democratic assembly is to ensure all people are included as electors.
>
> "Person" and "citizen" may have had a closer meaning then. In my opinion
> they should mean the same with "citizen" becoming a redundant word.
> Charles Cawley. Gatewa...@BTInternet.com
This is where the educational system has broken down and taught us
nonsense.
By keeping legal meanings obscure and hidden, we were tricked into
stinkin' thinkin' using
terminology that is presumed to mean one thing, but in actuality, is
another.
The terms in question: slaves (slavery), person, and citizen, are
generally confused in the
minds of the people.
Slaves are people, who are deprived of their property rights, either
voluntarily or involuntarily.
Slaves have no access to law, being subject to their master/owner.
Persons, as defined by most statutes, includes non-living,
non-corporeal entities such as corporations,
partnerships, trusts, and any such organization. Often, these "persons"
exist because governments
granted them the legal power to buy, sell, own and seek redress in the
courts.
Citizen is one in the full exercise of political and civil liberties,
i.e.,
the prerogatives of membership in the political system. This also
establishes to whom the citizen owes allegiance, that duty that is
accepted in exchange for the protection received from a sovereign.
It is obvious that a minor child cannot vote, nor hold office.
Therefore, by the legal definition, citizenship can't be granted by
birth within the boundaries of a nation. That's the definition of
nationality.
A national has the right and power to "join" the government, by
registering as a citizen, and accept the duties in exchange for the
privileges and immunities received.
A free American, who is not registered with government, isn't a citizen.
He's an American (nationality) with
unalienable rights. But he's entirely free to join the government, and
subject himself to the rules and
regulations of government, in exchange for his franchise (to vote).
There is no reason for universal franchise, as if that would prevent the
abrogation of rights.
As long as government doesn't intrude upon the unalienable rights of the
free peoples,
it is a good servant worthy of praise.
When government, even "authorized" by majority vote, violates the rights
of the free peoples, it becomes
a menace.
But many would use the argument that "if the opinion polls say..." or
"the majority has mandated ..." then
whatever is enacted by legislatures is legal law. But this is the worst
feature of the fraud of democracies.
As long as people are persuaded to believe that non-law is law, they
will surrender their unalienable rights.
Until every human being wakes up to the fact that they have been
swindled by parasites, pirates, and plunderers, the system will continue
to "skin us alive." The lawyers, judges, politicians, poltroons, and
their supporters will steal everything they can take, and then despoil
that which they can't have.
My friend once observed a Federal judge, who was a witness in the trial
of Charles Gray, admit, under oath,
that he couldn't define what "justice" was. And poor Mr. Gray was
convicted of obstruction of this thing
called American justice, of which judges are ignorant.
The truth is easy to see. One maxim states that "Justice is giving every
man his due."
Why aren't judges willing to admit this?
Because they're dealing with voluntary slaves, who think they are
citizens, when in fact, they are dispossessed and propertyless paupers,
reduced to sucking at the public teat.
And the government is granted sweeping powers over paupers, and those
who love power are loathe to admit
their source.
In summation, freedom and liberty are not the prerogatives of socialist
democracy.
They are the birthrights of the people. But people have to realize that
responsibility is the consequence of freedom.
But many surrender their freedom to escape the consequences of their
actions. They demand "security" and "insurance" and "safety net." But
they want someone else to pay the costs for that security.
And as history shows, such people will be trampled into the dust.
McQ
>Lepore <lep...@mxhv.net> wrote:
Perhaps you'll be kind enough to give us a short
answer as to what a "socialist" considers to be
"social wealth"?
_________________________
McQ
McQ
>Lepore <lep...@mxhv.net> wrote:
>> Why can't Socialists see that they're pirates in disguise?
>> The problem is easy to recognize.
>> If you were a farmer, and you owned your farmland, the "tool of your
>> production", to whom does that crop belong?
>> You.
>
>That sort of argument is why I say that defense of capitalism
>is nothing more than an argument that legality and morality
>are synonymous. Their argument goes like this: there is a
>legal document in the town hall that says this is your
>land...
So societal custom and tradition play no role in this, eh?
Custom and tradition are at war at all times and in all eras.
The custom and traditions that have won and become dominant
are those of "private ownership". Why do you suppose that's
so?
>... therefore you are the rightful owner of the land.
>They make no attempt to analyze the fact that there was no
>original ownership of the land, and therefore any apparent
>ownership is merely a legal sanctification of stolen
>property.
From whom? You can't have stolen property without
having had an original owner of that property. Who
owned it?
>Therefore we socialists are guilty of the following
>"crime": we want stolen property to be returned to the
>community who used to share it before someone confiscated
>it and staked their claim in the government records office.
Hold on. First you want to say that those who presently
hold "property rights" have no right to that property and then
you want to hold that those who have a right to that property
are in part the same people you just confiscated it from?
Secondly...who says the "community" used it before
someone "confiscated" it? How about those that have
"reclaimed" unusable land and put it to productive use,
land (such as swamp and desert) which NO ONE used?
_________________________
McQ
Victor Levis
McQ <mcq...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<348cef22....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>...
> Lepore <lep...@mxhv.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Why can't Socialists see that they're pirates in disguise?
> >> The problem is easy to recognize. If you
> >> were a farmer, and you owned your farmland, the "tool of your
> >> production", to whom does that crop belong?
> >> You.
> >
> >That sort of argument is why I say that defense of capitalism
> >is nothing more than an argument that legality and morality
> >are synonymous. Their argument goes like this: there is a
> >legal document in the town hall that says this is your
> >land...... therefore you are the rightful owner of the land.
> >They make no attempt to analyze the fact that there was no
> >original ownership of the land, and therefore any apparent
> >ownership is merely a legal sanctification of stolen
> >property.
>
> From whom? You can't have stolen property without
> having had an original owner of that property. Who
> owned it?
He presumes 'the collective'.
> >Therefore we socialists are guilty of the following
> >"crime": we want stolen property to be returned to the
> >community who used to share it before someone confiscated
> >it and staked their claim in the government records office.
>
> Hold on. First you want to say that those who presently
> hold "property rights" have no right to that property and then
> you want to hold that those who have a right to that property
> are in part the same people you just confiscated it from?
>
> Secondly...who says the "community" used it before
> someone "confiscated" it? How about those that have
> "reclaimed" unusable land and put it to productive use,
> land (such as swamp and desert) which NO ONE used?
One cannot say that property is theft and then claim a right to property.
Perhaps Mike is claiming that people have NON-Exclusive rights to use land.
I would certainly agree that people have the ABILITY to use land, by their
very nature. Now, how does a RIGHT get created? That's something I'd like
to see BOTH Mike and Warrl answer.
Assume, as Mike does, and even as many anarcho-capitalists do, that usage
creates a right. Then it indeed could be possible that some people were
using land non-exclusively or in common, for example, AmerIndians grazing
and hunting, creating a non-exclusive right. Then it would indeed be
possible for someone else to come along and ALSO use the land, for say
farming. What would be wrong would be for the late-comers to forcibly kick
the original grazers and hunters off the land, without some voluntary
agreement..
Even as a voluntarist and libertarian, I will grant that such actions as
above which have occured were WRONG and unlibertarian. It does not follow
from that, however, that the particular factory at 27 Bridge Street in
Brooklyn must be given over to the employees as a result. :-(
--
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
Lepore
> Perhaps you'll be kind enough to give us a short
> answer as to what a "socialist" considers to be
> "social wealth"?
Marxism has a practice of saying that "labor creates
all social wealth" instead of saying "labor creates all
wealth", because nature has provided the materials,
which are also wealth. Those materials are modified,
transported, etc., by means of collective social
activity, so wealth is made available and increased by
labor. That increment is "social wealth", and is
created by labor.
This has been an area for vocabulary caution since
K. H. Marx's 1865 "Critique of the Gotha Programme,"
in which he pointed out:
"Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just
as much the source of use values (and it is surely of
such that material wealth consists) as labor, which
itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature,
human labor power."
The text of that pamphlet and many others is available
at our Marx-Engels internet archive,
http://www.marx.org
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Victor Levis wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>I would certainly agree that people have the ABILITY to use land, by their
>very nature. Now, how does a RIGHT get created? That's something I'd like
>to see BOTH Mike and Warrl answer.
A right exists when (a) you have the ability, and you can exercise
that ability (b) without infringing on anyone else's rights.
This is an imperfect formulation, in that (without further
embellishment) if a piece of land is discovered which NOBODY is using,
everyone has an equal right to use that land and none can use it
without infringing with everyone else's right to use it. Ideally,
this is resolved by giving the discoverer a reasonable priority
period, and then if the discoverer does not use it opening it up to
the first comer. This ideal, unfortunately, is met about as often as
most other ideals in human relations.
DEE
Lepore wrote:
>
> > Perhaps you'll be kind enough to give us a short
> > answer as to what a "socialist" considers to be
> > "social wealth"?
>
> Marxism has a practice of saying that "labor creates
> all social wealth" instead of saying "labor creates all
> wealth", because nature has provided the materials,
> which are also wealth. Those materials are modified,
> transported, etc., by means of collective social
> activity, so wealth is made available and increased by
> labor. That increment is "social wealth", and is
> created by labor.
>
> This has been an area for vocabulary caution since
> K. H. Marx's 1865 "Critique of the Gotha Programme,"
> in which he pointed out:
>
> "Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just
> as much the source of use values (and it is surely of
> such that material wealth consists) as labor, which
> itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature,
> human labor power."
WEALTH IS AN ABSTRACTION REPRESENTING SURPLUS, USABLE SURPLUS!
IF ONE HAS NO SURPLUS, I.E., A SUBSISTENCE FARMER, HE HAS NO WEALTH.
POOR LABOR AND/OR POOR MATERIALS CAN BE USED TO MAKE WORTHLESS PRODUCTS
THAT ARE NOT DESIRABLE, HENCE USELESS AND A WASTE OF LABOR AND
MATERIALS.
NOT ONLY THAT, BUT INTELLIGENCE IS OF GREAT VALUE. FOR ONE ENGINEER CAN
SAVE THE WASTED USE OF MATERIALS AND LABOR IN THE CREATION OF AN OBJECT,
SUCH AS A HOME OR BRIDGE.
MARX IS/WAS A BIG DUMMY, AND PERSONALLY A LAZY SLOB WHO MOOCHED OFF HIS
GIRLFRIENDS AND WIFE.
AS MOST SOCIALISTS ARE PIRATES, HE WAS TRYING TO RATIONALIZE HIS OWN
PIRACY WITH PIOUS WORD TWISTING.
TRUE WEALTH REQUIRES:
A) THE TOOLS OF PRODUCTION, AND THAT INCLUDES THE LAND UPON WHICH THE
LABOR AND MATERIALS ARE COMBINED,
B) A MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE TO ALLOW FOR THE EXCHANGE OF USABLE SURPLUS, AND
C) FREEDOM OF EXCHANGE OF LABOR, PRODUCTS, AND "MONEY".
SOCIALIST / COMMUNISTS WANT PEOPLE TO SURRENDER THEIR TOOLS, THEIR
PROPERTY RIGHTS TO THE "STATE."
TOO BAD THAT THE "SHIP OF STATE" FLIES THE JOLLY ROGER!
Lepore
McQ wrote:
> The custom and traditions that have won and become dominant
> are those of "private ownership". Why do you suppose that's
> so?
A number of factors interwoven. North America was taken by
military conquest from the native people. Private property
was consistent with 18th and 19th century industrialization.
Now that we still have private industry but it no longer serves
us, people are naturally conservative, as Hamlet says in
Act III, Scene 1, we would rather 'bear those ills we have
than to fly to others we know not of.' There is the
illusion that capitalism is advancing technology, although
it is our human tendency to model nature with science that
is really doing do, and it is capitalism which is impeding
that process. There is ideological warfare based on the
fact that profit-making companies publish the school
textbooks and own the news media, thereby controlling what
we consider "normal."
Lepore
> From whom? You can't have stolen property without
> having had an original owner of that property. Who
> owned it?
If you'll check the etymology, "stealing" just means
taking something by surreptitious or stealthy methods.
Privately owned land originally came about by people
being as sneaky as they could be to stake their claims
with the political powers, and get themselves registered
as the legal owners of land which many people had
previously shared communally.
It's not socialism that is theft. It's the delay in
establishing socialism that is theft.
Lepore
> who says the "community" used it before
> someone "confiscated" it? How about those that have
> "reclaimed" unusable land and put it to productive use,
> land (such as swamp and desert) which NO ONE used?
I'll make some concession to you there. In some cases,
the capitalists were the first to make fruitful use of
certain parts of the world. However, being the first to go
somewhere and do some work on it doen't imply that one
and one's descendents must be the owners of it
through eternity. Well, you tell me: does the U.S.
government own the moon?
Lepore
> I would certainly agree that people have the ABILITY to use land, by their
> very nature. Now, how does a RIGHT get created? That's something I'd like
> to see BOTH Mike and Warrl answer.
I'm one of those who was labeled by others a 'consequentialist' in these
newsgroups recently. I believe that rights are created by the
consequences of our actions. For example, if the workers seizing the
means of production would mean a better standard of living for
ninety-five percent of the people, and the other five percent
would not be harmed but merely have to go to work like the rest
of us, then, to me, that makes a socialist revolution morally
justified. Other than the consequences our deeds, the only
other meaning of "rights" is whatever the legislature says
it means, i.e., it is a legal term.
Mike Lepore
"Private property therefore is a creature of society, and is subject
to the calls of that society, whenever its necessities shall require
it, even to its last farthing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
DEE
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
>
>
> >very nature. Now, how does a RIGHT get created? That's something I'd like
> >to see BOTH Mike and Warrl answer.
>
> that ability (b) without infringing on anyone else's rights.
>
> This is an imperfect formulation, in that (without further
> embellishment) if a piece of land is discovered which NOBODY is using,
> everyone has an equal right to use that land and none can use it
> without infringing with everyone else's right to use it. Ideally,
> this is resolved by giving the discoverer a reasonable priority
> period, and then if the discoverer does not use it opening it up to
> the first comer. This ideal, unfortunately, is met about as often as
> most other ideals in human relations.
There is a confusion over terminology that taints the argument. A right
is the ability to do something. It is not created - it is endowed by the
Creator. For example, a human being has the ability to walk, unless
crippled. Therefore a crippled man cannot claim he has the "right" to
walk.
According to the Declaration of Independence, the government recognized
among these unalienable rights were life (& all that goes along with
preserving it), liberty (the freedom to engage in harmless occupations
without permission of a higher authority), and pursuit of happiness
(which was a euphemism for your own property - for how could you pursue
happiness upon another's property?)
So when a man, in pursuit of supporting his life comes upon unclaimed
land, he can use the land to support his life. According to the Law of
Nations, a claim to land must be supported by defense of that land from
pirates, plunderers, and savages who would rob, despoil and kill in
order to support their own lives.
That's the basis in law that "All law is the protection of property
rights, all else is policy."
So called un-civilized peoples, American Indians, and such, did not
recognize private property rights to land and other things. Therefore,
they could not conform to the European's ideas of land, defense, and
possession. Furthermore, organized agriculture supports more people than
hunter/gatherer tribes, and there is a moral in creating the most usable
surplus for the most people.
Now all these productive land owners realized they can't individually
defend themselves against the evil ones, so they organized governments
to help secure these rights to property. And along with hiring mercenary
defenders, good neighbors accepted the duty to look out for their
neighbor's property.
The idea: you watch my back, I'll watch over yours, was the key to
defending property from attack.
Mutual defense of rights is often the anarchist's utopia, where there is
no hired mercenary government to help secure rights.
Does mankind have a "right" to own land, especially when land is more
permanent that the man?
Before I answer it, let's examine the case where people don't own the
land they dwell upon.
In Socialist Russia, did the people care for or about their "rented"
dwellings?
Or did they allow them to fall into disrepair, because it was always
"someone else's duty to repair..."
And even primitive tribes who used slash and burn agriculture, did they
"care" to make the land any better?
No.
The real reason primitive peoples didn't destroy the environment, was
that the environment was killing them off in such numbers as to prevent
the accumulation of disasterous consequences.
Technology, even primitive technology isn't always safe, either.
Look at the sites of many ancient civilizations and you'll find that
they're now deserts.
Coincidentally, they often showed signs of engineering like irrigation
and water management.
The question is why did Egypt not suffer desertification like the
Tigris/Euphrates, Yucatan Peninsula or other ancient sites?
Irrigation allows salts to migrate upwards. Without rain water or
flooding to wash salt into the sea, the land becomes unsuitable for
agriculture.
I'll bet that due to the Aswan dam, Egypt's 4 millenia of irrigation
will soon come to an end and desert will replace the fertile strips
along the Nile - unless they resort to annual flooding to wash away the
salt accumulations. Just look at the Imperial Valley in California -
salt deserts are expanding rapidly.
So to answer the question: does mankind have a "right" to possess?
The answer is "yes" if it results in responsible use of resources for
the man, and his heirs.
The answer is "no" if the net result is consuming of the resources,
without replenishment - a rape of nature.
It might very well be that the rampaging hordes of history were inspired
by lousy farming techniques that drove these people into piracy and
theft as a means to meet their needs. But it's certainly not moral.
What do we call the folks that despoil and destroy property? Vandals.
The ideal property holder always bequeaths a better world, a better
land, a better environment to his heirs.
The "morality" of any philosophy that would deprive the productive
benign users of nature of their rightful rewards is suspect.
Furthermore, if this philosophy would reward the takers and penalize the
givers, it is doubly suspect.
The underlying rationale for any philosophy is based upon one paramount
idea: is the action pro-survival or contra-survival.
If benign use of resources allows for the survival of mankind, and the
abusive consumption of resources is contra-survival, the morality of
land ownership is proved.
The most abusive use of land and resources have been committed by the
very governments that "regulate" the people. For example, the abuses to
Russia's natural resources, watersheds, and dangerous pollution were
done by the government sanctioned industries. And in America, the
government's own installations, military and civilian, are notorious
polluters.
Victor Khomenko
Lepore <lep...@mxhv.net> wrote:
>> I would certainly agree that people have the ABILITY to use land, by their
>> very nature. Now, how does a RIGHT get created? That's something I'd like
>> to see BOTH Mike and Warrl answer.
>
>newsgroups recently. I believe that rights are created by the
>consequences of our actions. For example, if the workers seizing the
>means of production would mean a better standard of living for
>ninety-five percent of the people, and the other five percent
>would not be harmed but merely have to go to work like the rest
>of us,
If "the other five percent" simply went to work like YOU, we would not have
electricity, airplanes, computers, medicine, agriculture, art, music, whiskey,
guns, buildings, etc, etc. The life would be boring and full of nagging. Thank
God, there are those who don't just go to work like you.
Victor.
McQ
Lepore <lep...@mxhv.net> wrote:
>> Perhaps you'll be kind enough to give us a short
>> answer as to what a "socialist" considers to be
>> "social wealth"?
>
>Marxism has a practice of saying that "labor creates
>all social wealth" instead of saying "labor creates all
>wealth", because nature has provided the materials,
>which are also wealth. Those materials are modified,
>transported, etc., by means of collective social
>activity, so wealth is made available and increased by
>labor. That increment is "social wealth", and is
>created by labor.
In most meaningful reactions there is a catylist...a substance
or agent which makes things happen among the combined
elements. It appears to me, admittedly woefully under read
concerning Marx, that he just consistently refuses that role to
anyone but the worker. This has always mystified me because
my simple observations of reality have never hidden that element
from me.
It's the capitalist.
How did Marx miss it so badly?
_________________________
McQ
Lepore
> If "the other five percent" simply went to work like YOU, we would not have
> electricity, airplanes, computers, medicine, agriculture, art, music, whiskey,
> guns, buildings, etc, etc. The life would be boring and full of nagging. Thank
> God, there are those who don't just go to work like you.
Everything you just listed is the product of labor. Seems
you should have made your point by listing some things that
created by the capitalists. You might have said, "If it
weren't for the other five percent, we wouldn't have such
fine examples of war, poverty, pollution, censorship,
and racial discrimination in housing and jobs."
Victor Khomenko
Lepore <lep...@mxhv.net> wrote:
>> If "the other five percent" simply went to work like YOU, we would not have
>> electricity, airplanes, computers, medicine, agriculture, art, music, whiskey,
>> guns, buildings, etc, etc. The life would be boring and full of nagging. Thank
>> God, there are those who don't just go to work like you.
>
>Everything you just listed is the product of labor. Seems
>you should have made your point by listing some things that
>created by the capitalists.
You may not like it, but that list is: electricity, airplanes, computers.....
The point being that capitalists participate in creation of those things just
like the workers do. Neither one can do it without the other.
You might have said, "If it
>weren't for the other five percent, we wouldn't have such
>fine examples of war, poverty, pollution, censorship,
>and racial discrimination in housing and jobs."
And just like in the first part, they all share responsibility for these as well.
My problem with your statements is not that you promote the importance of
workers, which I, as an employer absolutelly agree with. But you simply are
ignoring unignorable (pardon this made-up word) - that fact that it takes them
both to produce anything worth paying money for. Unlike you, I don't see any
wide rift between the two, many people cross it every day back and forth. And
many capitalists work 14 hours a day with the screwdriver in a hand. Maybe it
matters not to you, but id does to many people. Not that there is anything
shamefull about inheriting money.
Victor.
Lepore
> The point being that capitalists participate in creation of those things just
> like the workers do. Neither one can do it without the other.
We all know that capitalist "participates" in the process of
production, but that doesn't measure the necessity of that
form of participation. Workers think up all the idea and
draw up all the plans, and then the capitalist's signature
is required to give the permission to go ahead and do it.
There is an difference between something being
institutionally necessary and being intrinsically necessary.
McQ
Lepore <lep...@mxhv.net> wrote:
>McQ wrote:
>> The custom and traditions that have won and become dominant
>> are those of "private ownership". Why do you suppose that's
>> so?
>
>A number of factors interwoven. North America was taken by
>military conquest from the native people. Private property
>was consistent with 18th and 19th century industrialization.
It was also consistent with 13th and 14th century capitalism.
One also has to understand that "military conquest" in North
America was not solely the instrument of white Europeans.
Conquest was the means of the time...globally, to include
wars between native tribes in North America.
>Now that we still have private industry but it no longer serves
>us,
That's an opinion, or assertion if you prefer, which on the
surface seems to be false. Perhaps you'd care to expand
on your assertion?
> people are naturally conservative, as Hamlet says in
>Act III, Scene 1, we would rather 'bear those ills we have
>than to fly to others we know not of.'
It is also known as being "reactionary", yes, most people
are indeed reactionary, or conservative. But many times it is
just as much being satisfied with the status quo vs. "bearing
an ill".
>There is the
>illusion that capitalism is advancing technology, although
>it is our human tendency to model nature with science that
>is really doing do, and it is capitalism which is impeding
>that process.
This in another interesting but unsupported assertion, Mike.
I would assume you can lend some reasoning to this also?
>There is ideological warfare based on the fact that profit-making
>companies publish the school textbooks and own the news media,
>thereby controlling what we consider "normal."
Which would completely disregard the ability of people to think
critically. But I don't dismiss your point, because in many respects
I agree that the schools have become nothing but ideological
labs. I, however, don't agree with your theory that they ideologically
advance capitalism as a "good".
_________________________
McQ
Lepore
> And many capitalists work 14 hours a day with the
> screwdriver in a hand.
I assume you're talking about small business owners,
becuase Mr. Coss, the CEO of Green Tree Financial, who gets
a salary of $102 million per year (that's $20,000 per
hour, based on 365 days a year, and 14 hours per day)
doesn't need to be skilled in the use of a screwdriver.
I don't deny that it is common for many *SMALL* business
owners to be true contributors to society, producing goods
and services by their own labor. I know several of them.
Lepore
> Not that there is anything shamefull about inheriting money
There's nothing wrong with inheriting it and hoarding it.
It's just not rational for society to organize the
economic system in a way that rewards people for things
they didn't do. If we can use positive reinforcement to
increase the frequency of desirable behavior, and
negative reinforcement to decrease the frequency of
undesirable behavior, then it is logical to do so.
Inheritance is just a a lot of noise which interferes
with such useful forms of feedback.
We could do everything useful in the way of rewarding
hard work by having a scale in which the highest paid
person in the world gets six times the income of the
lowest paid person. Anything gradient steeper than that
is just rewarding and punishing people for the
uncontrollable roll of the dice.
McQ
Lepore <lep...@mxhv.net> wrote:
>> From whom? You can't have stolen property without
>> having had an original owner of that property. Who
>> owned it?
>
>If you'll check the etymology, "stealing" just means
>taking something by surreptitious or stealthy methods.
Taking it from WHOM? The point here is that one cannot
"take something by surreptitious or stealthy methods" that
isn't OWNED and have what is done be considered "stealing".
>Privately owned land originally came about by people
>being as sneaky as they could be to stake their claims
>with the political powers, and get themselves registered
>as the legal owners of land which many people had
>previously shared communally.
Actually, privately owned lands usually came about
in one of two ways...conquest or occupying and improving
land previously not in use (although I'm sure you'll argue
that the land was in use if hunter-gatherer tribes were
in the area).
But here you're saying that what is stolen is
stolen from the "community", correct?
>It's not socialism that is theft. It's the delay in
>establishing socialism that is theft.
Perhaps a different and better way of viewing
the events is to say mankind has consistently
rejected communal property (socialism) in favor
of private property to the point that the institution
(the custom or tradition of) of private has overwhelmed
communal living and sharing of property.
It is also pretty obvious that in comparisons
of capitalist type societies with existing socialist
type societies (there are still existing hunter-gatherer
type societies based in communal living), the
advancements on the capitalist side are far greater
than on the socialist side. This would speak to
a fairly sound reason for the institution of private
property being preeminent.
_________________________
McQ
McQ
Lepore <lep...@mxhv.net> wrote:
>> who says the "community" used it before
>> someone "confiscated" it? How about those that have
>> "reclaimed" unusable land and put it to productive use,
>> land (such as swamp and desert) which NO ONE used?
>
>I'll make some concession to you there. In some cases,
>the capitalists were the first to make fruitful use of
>certain parts of the world.
How then does this work when making blanket statements
saying that all private ownership is stealing? Obviously,
by your own admission, that isn't always the case.
That would logically imply then that there IS a place for
rightful private ownership, wouldn't it? And perhaps your
only legitimate gripe is that there's a whole lot out there
you don't consider "rightful" or "legitimate".
>However, being the first to go somewhere and do some work
>on it doen't imply that one and one's descendents must be the
>owners of it through eternity.
Why not? If it remains productive and in use, why shouldn't
they continue to own it? Should your shoes be given to the
community if you die, or should that be the decision of your
son? Perhaps HE can wear them and use them. Why would
property based in land be viewed any differently?
> Well, you tell me: does the U.S. government own the moon?
Is it able to exercise ownership rights over the moon either
legally or practically?
If not, the answer is an obvious, NO.
_________________________
McQ
dhe...@stone-soup.com
And that type of capitalist is 95% of all capitalist Therefore the
Mr. Cross, Mr. Gates etc have little effect on the worker capitalist
war that you invision as norman life. Normal life is the capitalist
who has 1 to 10 employees.
===========================================================
S. Douglas Heard do...@stone-soup.com
Stone Soup Canine http://www.stone-soup.com
"Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others."
William Allen White
====================================
JMH
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
>
> Victor Levis wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>
> >very nature. Now, how does a RIGHT get created? That's something I'd like
> >to see BOTH Mike and Warrl answer.
>
> that ability (b) without infringing on anyone else's rights.
It would seem by your reasoning here no one has a right to use
land. I don't think that's where you intended to go, so what are
is the rest of the argument?
JMH
Victor Khomenko
Shit, Douglas, you stole my line. This is what happens when you relax for few
hours. Screwdriver, you know.
Victor.
Victor Khomenko
I think you don't have a clear idea of how small business operates. My workers
don't think up the ideas, I do. They don't draw all the plans, I do. I do design
the product and build the prototypes. They take over at this point and start
producing. We work together, they respect me because I design the product that
feeds us all. I respect them because they build the product that feeds us all.
We need each other and neither of us would survive alone.
I have been on both sides of this relationship and feel equaly comfortable with
both. I could go back to producing if nesessary without much regret.
Victor.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Lepore wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>> If "the other five percent" simply went to work like YOU, we would not have
>> electricity, airplanes, computers, medicine, agriculture, art, music, whiskey,
>> guns, buildings, etc, etc. The life would be boring and full of nagging. Thank
>> God, there are those who don't just go to work like you.
>
>Everything you just listed is the product of labor. Seems
>you should have made your point by listing some things that
>created by the capitalists.
Airplanes were created by capitalists. They are now mass replicated
by labor, using a great deal of capital in the process. Remove the
capitalists and neither the basic knowledge necessary to create an
airplane, nor the capital base to support their manufacture, would
exist.
The same is true of computers, whiskey, agriculture, guns, and
everything else on your list (although the amount of capital required
in the mass replication varies).
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Lepore wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>> Not that there is anything shamefull about inheriting money
>
>There's nothing wrong with inheriting it and hoarding it.
>It's just not rational for society to organize the
>economic system in a way that rewards people for things
>they didn't do.
You are saying that we shouldn't pay people to not work.
No problem, I can agree with that.
J Ganaposki
This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 from Salina, KS.
It was taken from the original document on file at the
Smoky Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina, KS and
reprinted by the Salina Journal.
http://www.dailynews.net/salina/news/HNS-SJ_Saline_County.html
If you dispute the claims that we, the sheeple, were dumbed down by all
those
Federal Education dollars and Teacher Unions and Socialist programs to
help
the underprivileged, this is proof that we're more uneducated than our
great great grandparents.
Take the test and see for yourself if you qualify to graduate the eighth
grade!
From the Salina Journal
Content-Length: 3745
Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no
modifications.
3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give Principal Parts of
do, lie, lay and run.
5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of
Punctuation.
7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you
understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.
Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How
many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50 cts.
per bu., deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the
necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and
have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7
percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at
$20 per m?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance
around which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.
U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln,
Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620,
1800, 1849, and 1865?
Orthography (Time, one hour)
1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic orthography,
etymology, syllabication?
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph,
subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e'. Name two
exceptions
under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word:
Bi, dis, mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, super.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and
name the sign that indicates the sound: Card, ball, mercy, sir, odd,
cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences, Cite, site, sight,
fane, fain, feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate
pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.
Geography (Time, one hour)
1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of N.A.
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver,
Manitoba, Hecla, Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fermandez, Aspinwall and
Orinoco.
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S.
7. Name all the republics of Europe and give capital of each.
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same
latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to
the sources of rivers.
10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give inclination of the
earth.
--
===========================================================
<> Rt.Rev.Dr.Jeff Ganaposki
<_>mailto:jgm...@bellsouth.net [attachments & HTML]
<__>mailto:livin...@freeyellow.com
<___>mailto:living...@juno.com [ASCII Text only]
<____>http://www.freeyellow.com/members/living-word
<______>Warning: Socialists may be offended by contents
Damien Falgoust
J Ganaposki <jgmail...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Take the test and see for yourself if you qualify to graduate the eighth
>grade!
Just thought I'd point out that a couple of these questions aren't
really good ones to ask....
(snip grammar)
>Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
>1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
I frankly don't know this. But I find it difficult to see where its
practical relevance is unless I'm a mathematician: for most people,
the ability to *perform* arithmetic is more important than its
theoretical base. (Kind of like how auto designers need to understand
the theories underlying the combustion engine, but drivers really only
need to know how to operate & make basic repairs to their cars)
>2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How
>many bushels of wheat will it hold?
Can't answer this unless you know how large a bushel of wheat is
(perhaps this was common knowledge in the 1800s -- perhaps it still is
today in rural areas of the country; a fellow law student of mine is
from Lubbock and used to work as a grain buyer -- I bet it'd be
second-nature to him)
>3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50 cts.
>per bu., deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
Had to look up "tare" -- it's the weight of the container. Presumably
this was in more common usage in the 1800s. ;-)
Again, this can't be answered unless you know how many pounds of wheat
are in a bushel.
(snip)
>7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at
>$20 per m?
What is "m"? It certainly isn't meters -- not in 1800s America,
anyway.
(snip)
>10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.
How is this a test of your arithmetic skills?
>U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
>1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
This would be a fairly arbitrary line drawn by historians. I'd hazard
to guess Agricultural and Industrial Ages (Information having not been
around until this century). The answer to this question really
depends on your teacher (or, more likely, your textbook)
(snip)
>Orthography (Time, one hour)
(snip)
>Geography (Time, one hour)
(snip)
Since this test came from 1895 Kansas, its safe to say that most of
the students came from farm backgrounds. I'd be willing to bet that a
similar exam from a New York school of the same time period wouldn't
ask many questions that require knowledge of farm measurments.
Along similar lines, it's pretty unfair to ask the questions about
Kansas history and Kansas weather. I could tell you quite a bit about
Texas history, but know nothing about Kansas history -- and I'd hazard
that Kansas students in 1895 wouldn't know much about Texas history as
well.
----------------------------------------
Damien Falgoust
University of Texas School of Law -- 2L
dfal...@mail.utexas.edu
http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/3578/
If replying, remove the spam filter from my e-mail address!
Harold
On Sat, 06 Dec 1997 13:00:20 -0500, Lepore <lep...@mxhv.net> wrote:
>> Why can't Socialists see that they're pirates in disguise?
>> The problem is easy to recognize.
>> If you were a farmer, and you owned your farmland, the "tool of your
>> production", to whom does that crop belong?
>> You.
>
>That sort of argument is why I say that defense of capitalism
>is nothing more than an argument that legality and morality
>are synonymous. Their argument goes like this: there is a
>legal document in the town hall that says this is your
>land, therefore you are the rightful owner of the land.
>They make no attempt to analyze the fact that there was no
>original ownership of the land, and therefore any apparent
>ownership is merely a legal sanctification of stolen
>property.
You are contradicting yourself. If there cannot be ownership of
property, then property cannot be stolen. Unless you want to change
the definition midway through:
steal (stêl) verb
stole (stol) stolen (sto´len) stealing, steals verb, transitive
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 1991 by
Columbia University Press.
>Therefore we socialists are guilty of the following
>"crime": we want stolen property to be returned to the
>community who used to share it before someone confiscated
>it and staked their claim in the government records office.
Conclusion follows from an illogical premise is worth how much class?
Regards, Harold
----
"The guiding principle of any attempt to create a world of free men is
this: A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly
progressive policy."
--F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom , 1944
Simon Hewitt
"To steal" in the context of large-scale private property is a highly
pejorative term. Are property rights absolute? Since morality is your
term-of-reference; is it, for example, morally right to take somebody
else's loaf of bread, without asking, in order to feed a starving child?
(Thomas Aquinas, writing in the 13th century, certainly held that to do
so was in accordance with the "natural law") Conversely, is it not wrong
to fail to feed that child? The socialist/capitalist debate is, I
suggest, simply this situation writ large. We live in a world where some
people live in extreme hardship and where some enjoy plenty.
Robert O'Connor
On Wed, 10 Dec 1997 09:55:55 GMT, J Ganaposki
>those
>Federal Education dollars and Teacher Unions and Socialist programs to
>help
>the underprivileged, this is proof that we're more uneducated than our
>great great grandparents.
>
>Take the test and see for yourself if you qualify to graduate the eighth
>grade!
It's always startling when the voice of ignorance holds forth about
the process of learning.
"Take the test and see for yourself if you qualify to graduate the
eighth grade!" Never mind the test. If you think that this is the
way to write correctly the YOU, never should HAVE BEEN GRADUATED from
the seventh grade.
Robert E. O'Connor
Rob...@worldnet.att.net
New York, NY
Paul Tenison
Uncle Sam's Favorite Nephew, Damien Falgoust wrote:
>
> J Ganaposki <jgmail...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Take the test and see for yourself if you qualify to graduate the
> > eighth grade!
>
> really good ones to ask....
>
>
> > 2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How
> > many bushels of wheat will it hold?
>
> (perhaps this was common knowledge in the 1800s -- perhaps it still is
> today in rural areas of the country; a fellow law student of mine is
> from Lubbock and used to work as a grain buyer -- I bet it'd be
> second-nature to him)
>
> ----------------------------------------
> Damien Falgoust
> University of Texas School of Law -- 2L
Although your comments regarding a couple of the other questions may be
valid, this question is entirely appropriate. It requires no special
knowledge of wheat. A bushel is a measure of volume. A bushel of wheat
is as "large" as a bushel of rocks or a bushel of feathers. The
conversion factor is actually quite easy to remember. There are exactly
8 gallons per bushel, but since this problem is stated in terms of a
cart measured in feet, there are approximately 0.80 bushels per cubic
foot. The volume the cart can hold is 2 x 10 x 3 = 60 cu. ft. So, the
number of bushels the cart can hold = 60 x 0.8 = 48 bushels.
Only in the practice of law does 10 minutes of work = 1 billable hour.
Stick to law and leave the math to eighth graders in Salina, Kansas.
--
Your Obedient Servant,
Paul Tenison
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In ancient Greece..., law, | Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for
liberty, and refining science, | ye lade men with burdens grievous
made their benign progress in | to be borne, and ye yourselves
strict and graceful union: | touch not the burdens with one of
The rude and degrading league | your fingers... Woe unto you,
between the bar and feudal | lawyers! for ye have taken away
barbarism was not yet formed. | the key of knowledge: ye entered
| not in yourselves, and them that
Justice Wilson | were entering in ye hindered.
Chisholm vs. Georgia |
2 Dall. 440 (1793) | Jesus Christ -- Luke 11:46,52
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew Cromer
In article <348CBC...@mxhv.net> Lepore, lep...@mxhv.net writes:
>A number of factors interwoven. North America was taken by
>military conquest from the native people. Private property
>was consistent with 18th and 19th century industrialization.
>Act III, Scene 1, we would rather 'bear those ills we have
>illusion that capitalism is advancing technology, although
>it is our human tendency to model nature with science that
>is really doing do, and it is capitalism which is impeding
>that process.
Which is why we see all the tremendous advance in computers, medicine,
industry, software development in the more socialist countries Cuba,
North Korea, India, etc.
More capitalist countries like the US, Switzerland, Japan, Hong Kong,
etc. have become backwaters and no advances in technology occur there.
And the earth is flat in your world, too.
There is ideological warfare based on the
>fact that profit-making companies publish the school
>textbooks and own the news media, thereby controlling what
>we consider "normal."
As opposed to socialist countries which have wonderful reputable organs
of truth such as Pravda and the ITAR-TAS news agency (before before
Glasnost and Perestroika). And lets not forget that Broadcast media
frequencies in this country are owned by the government and leased to a
few favored lapdogs.
Matthew Cromer
Matthew Cromer
In article <348CBF...@mxhv.net> Lepore, lep...@mxhv.net writes:
>If you'll check the etymology, "stealing" just means
>taking something by surreptitious or stealthy methods.
>being as sneaky as they could be to stake their claims
>with the political powers, and get themselves registered
>as the legal owners of land which many people had
>previously shared communally.
Is that the dream you had last night?
Property in humans is directly analogous to territories in animals.
Surely you are not going to tell me that wild cats have governments that
they register deeds of property with.
Human property claims have the same sort of genesis--they are a
biophysical fact of our kind of existance.
>
>It's not socialism that is theft. It's the delay in
>establishing socialism that is theft.
I'd recommend you not try to "establish socialism" with any of my
property unless you want 135 grains of lead greeting you at 1450 feet per
second.
Matthew Cromer
Lepore
To mcq...@ix.netcom.com
me:
> There is the illusion that capitalism is advancing technology,
> although it is our human tendency to model nature with science
> that is really doing do, and it is capitalism which is impeding
> that process.
you:
> This in another interesting but unsupported assertion, Mike. I
> would assume you can lend some reasoning to this also?
If society were to eliminate industry's cash flow deductions which are
pure waste, such as dividends, advertising, litigation, trade secrets,
etc., there would be more resources available for research and
development.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Lepore wrote in talk.politics.theory:
But there would be no reason for any individual to use any resources
for research and development.
Or for capital construction.
Matthew Cromer
In article <348D67...@mxhv.net> Lepore, lep...@mxhv.net writes:
>There's nothing wrong with inheriting it and hoarding it.
>It's just not rational for society to organize the
>economic system in a way that rewards people for things
>increase the frequency of desirable behavior, and
>negative reinforcement to decrease the frequency of
>undesirable behavior, then it is logical to do so.
>Inheritance is just a a lot of noise which interferes
>with such useful forms of feedback.
Here Lepore displays his true desire: Humanity as a bunch of rats in a
cage, Lepore and his socialist cronies the scientists weilding the
truncheons and bullwhips and controlling access to food. There are no
other beings to such as him--we do not have our own purposes, desires,
meanings. We are only human putty to be molded into whatever shape
Lepore deems best. Our desires to help children are nothing but
"noise"-- our attempts to better ourselves are "negative behavior" to be
dealt with via "negative reinforcement". Tell us what your favorite tool
of negative reinforcement is, Lepore.
>We could do everything useful in the way of rewarding
>hard work by having a scale in which the highest paid
>person in the world gets six times the income of the
>lowest paid person. Anything gradient steeper than that
>is just rewarding and punishing people for the
>uncontrollable roll of the dice.
Lepore has his grand scheme all figured out. He knows how to organize
society in a truly wonderous manner. We shall all turn our lives over to
you, Lepore.
Matthew Cromer
Lepore
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
> But there would be no reason for any individual to use any resources
> for research and development.
What is the meaning of "no reason"?
You mean, if we had socialism, that there wouldn't be any
segments of society which come forward with proposals to
develop anything? How's that? If someone suggests,
for example, digital television or something, are all
the people and their representatives going to shake their
heads and say, "Nah, what would be the point? We have
production for social use instead of for profit, so
we might as well skip the whole thing...."? How does
making the board of directors consist of workers' or
public representatives instead of stockholder
representatives lead to such an outcome? I know
socialism won't be perfect and will encounter probems,
but this is one criticism of socialism that is full of
holes.
Just Wondering
In <66uvtq$p...@camel19.mindspring.com> Matthew Cromer
<matthew...@iname.com> writes:
>
>In article <348D67...@mxhv.net> Lepore, lep...@mxhv.net writes:
>>There's nothing wrong with inheriting it and hoarding it.
>>It's just not rational for society to organize the
>>economic system in a way that rewards people for things
>>they didn't do. If we can use positive reinforcement to
>>increase the frequency of desirable behavior, and
>>negative reinforcement to decrease the frequency of
>>undesirable behavior, then it is logical to do so.
>>Inheritance is just a a lot of noise which interferes
>>with such useful forms of feedback.
>Here Lepore displays his true desire: Humanity as a bunch of rats in
a
>cage, Lepore and his socialist cronies the scientists weilding the
>truncheons and bullwhips and controlling access to food. There are no
>other beings to such as him--we do not have our own purposes, desires,
>meanings. We are only human putty to be molded into whatever shape
>Lepore deems best. Our desires to help children are nothing but
>"noise"-- our attempts to better ourselves are "negative behavior" to
be
>dealt with via "negative reinforcement". Tell us what your favorite
tool
>of negative reinforcement is, Lepore.
[...]
Note the different sense in which Lepore and Matthew Cromer
use the little word "we". The whole controversy (and I
agree with Matthew) boils down to this one difference.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Lepore wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
>
>> But there would be no reason for any individual to use any resources
>> for research and development.
>
>What is the meaning of "no reason"?
Inventing is hard work. You're promising that everyone can have what
they want without hard work. (I don't believe this is a promise you
can fulfil.) You're guaranteeing that those who succeed at hard work
WON'T profit from it. (I do believe you can fulfil this.) So why not
just take the easy route?
Matthew Cromer
In article <34935A...@mxhv.net> Lepore, lep...@mxhv.net writes:
>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
>
>> But there would be no reason for any individual to use any resources
>> for research and development.
>
>What is the meaning of "no reason"?
>
>segments of society which come forward with proposals to
>develop anything?
Your own language betrays you. Segments of society don't do anything.
They don't think, they don't have ideas, they don't propose things.
Individuals do, when they have some hope of benefit from their blood,
sweat, and tears, which they don't under socialism. Which is why all
socialist economies are so utterly lacking in initiative.
How's that? If someone suggests,
>for example, digital television or something, are all
>the people and their representatives going to shake their
>heads and say, "Nah, what would be the point?
Ideas are cheap. Who will invest their blood, sweat, and tears when it
will cost them dearly and gain them nothing?
We have
>production for social use instead of for profit, so
>we might as well skip the whole thing...."?
That does seem to be the case in every single one of the dozens of
countries initially organized as socialist states.
How does
>making the board of directors consist of workers' or
>public representatives instead of stockholder
>representatives lead to such an outcome?
Because the Board won't personally benefit a whit from doing a good job
versus a poor job.
I know
>socialism won't be perfect and will encounter probems,
>but this is one criticism of socialism that is full of
>holes.
The biggest problem you will face is people like me who will fight to the
death to prevent our property from being socialized. You don't have a
prayer of succeeding in this country.
Matthew Cromer
Victor Levis
Lepore <lep...@mxhv.net> wrote in article <34935A...@mxhv.net>...
> Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
>
> > But there would be no reason for any individual to use any resources
> > for research and development.
>
> What is the meaning of "no reason"?
>
> You mean, if we had socialism, that there wouldn't be any
> segments of society which come forward with proposals to
> develop anything? How's that? If someone suggests,
> for example, digital television or something, are all
> the people and their representatives going to shake their
> heads and say, "Nah, what would be the point? We have
> production for social use instead of for profit, so
> we might as well skip the whole thing...."? How does
> making the board of directors consist of workers' or
> public representatives instead of stockholder
> representatives lead to such an outcome? I know
> socialism won't be perfect and will encounter probems,
> but this is one criticism of socialism that is full of
> holes.
I agree with Mike here and disagree with Warrl.
There definitely ARE reasons to do stuff in communism. If the group
that must necessarily run things says that something is to be done,
it might indeed get done. Mind you, not because of economic incentives,
which would lead to terribly wrong inequality as some people are more
capable of achieving certain goals than others. Other methods of, ahem
.......'persuasion' tend to be required.
Perhaps Warrl was erroneously thinking of something like 'voluntary
personal initiative', which is kind of rare under communism.
But research and development is certainly possible. IIRC, military
research was commonplace under communism.
--
Victor Levis
Freedom of Choice......Responsibility for Actions......Respect for Others
Victor Khomenko
If it *is* possible, you have certainly not shown any way how. But you did show
something else, and this is the "requirement for , ahem....persuasion". This is
how typical socialist disguises the repression, murder, Cheka, Gulag, etc. The
fact that you still see nothing wrong with those "tools" shows how low you have
become. Socialist is, indeed, gutter philosophy.
Such scumbags tried to "persuade" me before. They succeded in making me strong.
Victor.
Victor Levis
Victor Khomenko <bala...@dca.net> wrote in article
<3493f...@news.dca.net>...
> "Victor Levis" <vicl...@ican.net> wrote:
> >Lepore <lep...@mxhv.net> wrote in article <34935A...@mxhv.net>...
> >
> >> Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
> >>
> >> > But there would be no reason for any individual to use any resources
> >> > for research and development.
> >>
> >> What is the meaning of "no reason"?
> >>
> >> You mean, if we had socialism, that there wouldn't be any
> >> segments of society which come forward with proposals to
> >> develop anything? How's that? ..... I know
> >> socialism won't be perfect and will encounter probems,
> >> but this is one criticism of socialism that is full of
> >> holes.
> >
> >I agree with Mike here and disagree with Warrl.
> >
> >There definitely ARE reasons to do stuff in communism.....
> >Mind you, not because of economic incentives.... Other methods of,
> >ahem.......'persuasion' tend to be required.
> >
> >Perhaps Warrl was erroneously thinking of something like 'voluntary
> >personal initiative', which is kind of rare under communism.
> >
> >But research and development is certainly possible.
>
>
> If it *is* possible, you have certainly not shown any way how. But you
did show
> something else, and this is the "requirement for , ahem....persuasion".
This is
> how typical socialist disguises the repression, murder, Cheka, Gulag, etc.
I thought so, too.
> The fact that you still see nothing wrong with those "tools" shows how low
you
> have become.
Where did I say there was nothing wrong with those tools? I merely
observed that Mike was right and that communist societies do indeed
do **some** research, for example military research as I pointed out,
and that INVOLUNTARY methods of getting people to do stuff are
normally needed due to the non-existence of economic incentives.
>Socialist is, indeed, gutter philosophy.
That is your conclusion, but it is merely the conclusion of those who do
not like the methods of communism. Mike and Justin Flude seem not
to have any trouble with those methods, and perhaps it would be
appropriate for them to live among those who agree with them, and for
you to live among those who agree with you.
> Such scumbags tried to "persuade" me before. They succeded in making me
> strong.
Good to hear.
Cheers,
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin
Victor Khomenko wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>"Victor Levis" <vicl...@ican.net> wrote:
>>Perhaps Warrl was erroneously thinking of something like 'voluntary
>>personal initiative', which is kind of rare under communism.
>>
>>But research and development is certainly possible.
The question is not whether it is possible.
The question is why would anyone ever bother to produce results.
Results are definitive. They can be right or wrong. Anyone who ever
delivers results has made a decision, and made that decision visible,
and potentially can be held responsible for that decision.
We have seen socialist systems where there is no profit in making a
good decision.
We have seen socialist systems where there is no penalty for failing
to decide.
We have never seen socialist systems where there is no penalty for
being visibly responsible for a bad decision.
We have seen the rules suddenly change in socialist systems, so that
what was a good decision yesterday is now officially a bad decision,
even as the "benefits to society" continue to flow (because in real,
non-political terms, it WAS a good decision).
So under socialism, if you make a decision, the best you can expect is
that nothing will change for you, and the worst -- regardless of how
*minor* the decision -- is that you will be harshly punished. You
have no way to predict the likelihood of each outcome or how harsh the
punishment will be. Whereas if you refuse to make a decision, by far
the most likely outcome is that nothing will change for you.
Why would you ever make a decision you can avoid making?
But if you never make an avoidable decision, you will not produce.
And if nobody ever makes an avoidable decision, then things change for
everyone -- they will be hungry and shivering in the dark. It's only
a matter of time.
Under capitalism, if one person makes a decision, and it's a good
decision, everyone benefits -- and the person who made the decision,
benefits a LOT. So there is a real, personal incentive to make that
decision.
Victor Khomenko
Now, now, careful here. Not EVERYONE. Lepore doesn't, Zeppppp doesn't. It makes
it harder and harder for them to complain. Fewer and fewer ears to pay attention to
them.
and the person who made the decision,
>benefits a LOT.
And this is totaly unfair. I know quite a few who would like to share those
benefits. Any day. Many do it successfully day in and day out. They could use
another producer.
So there is a real, personal incentive to make that
>decision.
Ditto.
Victor.
Victor Khomenko
Lepore <lep...@mxhv.net> wrote:
>To mcq...@ix.netcom.com
>
>me:
> > There is the illusion that capitalism is advancing technology,
> > although it is our human tendency to model nature with science
> > that is really doing do, and it is capitalism which is impeding
> > that process.
>you:
> > This in another interesting but unsupported assertion, Mike. I
> > would assume you can lend some reasoning to this also?
>
>If society were to eliminate industry's cash flow deductions which are
>pure waste, such as dividends, advertising, litigation, trade secrets,
>etc., there would be more resources available for research and
>development.
You still seem to insist that even without any profit motive the research and
development will continue. Yes, some will. But what percentage of the total
research done by the mankind was actually "profit driven" vs. "curiosity driven"?
Do you think it was a minor part? I don't think so. You keep talking about killing
the monetary incentive to produce without providing any evidence of any other strong
moving force that whould keep the society moving forward. You simply brush off the
misearable experiences of those countries that have succeeded in killing the
incentive, but offer nothing in return, just demagogy. How many people would
continue sucrificing their family lives, comfort and rest trying to establsh new
businesses if the monetary incentive was removed? Would the "proletarian
consiousness" propell them to the new hights? So far, that "proletarian" stuff
produced nothing but destruction and stugnation. The first thing the proletarians
did after taking the Winter palace was to take huge, "proletarian size" dumps into
every Sevre' vases that they could find. Oh, yes, and gang-rape the female batalion
members. That kind of consiousness is nothing but the mob mentality and will never
produce anything constructive. Should I remind you how suspicious the "proletariat"
was of whose who continued working, doing research and studies? Masses don't
tolerate the "smart" ones, "professors", as they call them.
But I suspect that whenever the history goes against your philosophy, it should be
simply declared "an incorrectly performed experiment".
Victor.
Victor Khomenko
Lepore <lep...@mxhv.net> wrote:
>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
>
>> But there would be no reason for any individual to use any resources
>> for research and development.
>
>What is the meaning of "no reason"?
>
>You mean, if we had socialism, that there wouldn't be any
>segments of society which come forward with proposals to
>for example, digital television or something, are all
>the people and their representatives going to shake their
>heads and say, "Nah, what would be the point? We have
>production for social use instead of for profit, so
>we might as well skip the whole thing...."? How does
>making the board of directors consist of workers' or
>public representatives instead of stockholder
>representatives lead to such an outcome?
Simple. There would not be money to be made. Therefore, the huge investment (and
the digital TV is VERY expensive to develop) would not be justified. Companies do
it because there is a potential for good profits in it. You would probably call
those "good" profits exploitive. As profit margins keep shrinking, according to
your proposal (reducing the salaries spread, for example), the motiviation
will shrink too.
Victor.
Victor Khomenko
"Victor Levis" <vicl...@ican.net> wrote:
>Victor Khomenko <bala...@dca.net> wrote in article
><3493f...@news.dca.net>...
>
>> "Victor Levis" <vicl...@ican.net> wrote:
>> >Lepore <lep...@mxhv.net> wrote in article <34935A...@mxhv.net>...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > But there would be no reason for any individual to use any resources
>> >> > for research and development.
>> >>
>> >> What is the meaning of "no reason"?
>> >>
>> >> You mean, if we had socialism, that there wouldn't be any
>> >> segments of society which come forward with proposals to
>> >> socialism won't be perfect and will encounter probems,
>> >> but this is one criticism of socialism that is full of
>> >> holes.
>> >
>> >I agree with Mike here and disagree with Warrl.
>> >
>> >There definitely ARE reasons to do stuff in communism.....
>> >Mind you, not because of economic incentives.... Other methods of,
>> >ahem.......'persuasion' tend to be required.
>> >
>> >personal initiative', which is kind of rare under communism.
>> >
>> >But research and development is certainly possible.
>>
>>
>did show
>> something else, and this is the "requirement for , ahem....persuasion".
>This is
>> how typical socialist disguises the repression, murder, Cheka, Gulag, etc.
>
>
>I thought so, too.
>
>
>> The fact that you still see nothing wrong with those "tools" shows how low
>you
>> have become.
>
>Where did I say there was nothing wrong with those tools? I merely
>observed that Mike was right and that communist societies do indeed
>do **some** research, for example military research as I pointed out,
>and that INVOLUNTARY methods of getting people to do stuff are
>normally needed due to the non-existence of economic incentives.
OK, agreed. Although the subject of military research under communism deserves special
treatment. Of course, Mike's point was a broader one, that research will continue, not
just some narrow field. I don't think he said *some*. My point was that most such
development will start going down with no obvious limit.
>
>>Socialist is, indeed, gutter philosophy.
>
>That is your conclusion, but it is merely the conclusion of those who do
>not like the methods of communism. Mike and Justin Flude seem not
>to have any trouble with those methods, and perhaps it would be
>appropriate for them to live among those who agree with them, and for
>you to live among those who agree with you.
I will generally agree to that. What bothers me in your statement, however, is the
hint that *any* philosophy has right to exist, because someone always find some
followers. Sounds a bit like "anything goes" philosophy to me. In my view some of
them do not have right to exist.
Victor.
Michael Jubb
Victor Khomenko wrote:
> You still seem to insist that even without any profit motive the research and
> development will continue. Yes, some will. But what percentage of the total
> research done by the mankind was actually "profit driven" vs. "curiosity driven"?
> Do you think it was a minor part? I don't think so. You keep talking about killing
> the monetary incentive to produce without providing any evidence of any other strong
> moving force that whould keep the society moving forward. You simply brush off the
> misearable experiences of those countries that have succeeded in killing the
> incentive, but offer nothing in return, just demagogy. How many people would
> continue sucrificing their family lives, comfort and rest trying to establsh new
> businesses if the monetary incentive was removed? Would the "proletarian
> consiousness" propell them to the new hights? So far, that "proletarian" stuff
> produced nothing but destruction and stugnation. The first thing the proletarians
> did after taking the Winter palace was to take huge, "proletarian size" dumps into
> every Sevre' vases that they could find. Oh, yes, and gang-rape the female batalion
> members. That kind of consiousness is nothing but the mob mentality and will never
> produce anything constructive. Should I remind you how suspicious the "proletariat"
> was of whose who continued working, doing research and studies? Masses don't
> tolerate the "smart" ones, "professors", as they call them.
>
> But I suspect that whenever the history goes against your philosophy, it should be
> simply declared "an incorrectly performed experiment".
>
> Victor.
I can give you one example where I think that socialism would be preferable when it
comes to research and development.
The use of fossil fuels which cause pollution is undoubtedly a problem in our society.
The companies which produce these fuels have often acted to ensure that new products
that could be cleaner or more efficient do not go into production. The methods
range from buying the patents for these products to intimidating those who develop them.
In a socialist economy where the profit motive that drives these companies is removed
then these products would have a greater chance of being used.
Now the question of whether research would occur without the monetary reward is rather
speculative. But I think that people LIKE to work, people LIKE to learn, people LIKE to
push themsleves to the limit. It is what makes life worth living.
Justin Flude
On Sun, 14 Dec 1997 05:08:52 GMT, postm...@127.0.0.1 (Warrl kyree
Tale'sedrin) wrote:
>Lepore wrote in talk.politics.theory:
>
>>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
>>
>>> But there would be no reason for any individual to use any resources
>>> for research and development.
>>
>>What is the meaning of "no reason"?
>
>Inventing is hard work. You're promising that everyone can have what
>they want without hard work. (I don't believe this is a promise you
>can fulfil.) You're guaranteeing that those who succeed at hard work
>WON'T profit from it. (I do believe you can fulfil this.) So why not
>just take the easy route?
Actually, the idea is that everyone benefits from new inventions. The
aim of technical innovation is to reduce the necessary labour-time
that society needs for its reproduction, thus increasing the leisure
time for everyone. That's the strongest incentive to innovate I can
think of.
Justin
Justin Flude
On 14 Dec 1997 15:38:28 GMT, "Victor Levis" <vicl...@ican.net> wrote:
>Victor Khomenko <bala...@dca.net> wrote in article
>
>
>That is your conclusion, but it is merely the conclusion of those who do
>not like the methods of communism. Mike and Justin Flude seem not
>to have any trouble with those methods, and perhaps it would be
>appropriate for them to live among those who agree with them, and for
>you to live among those who agree with you.
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking to the stars."
Oscar Wilde, famous socialist.
Justin :)
Justin Flude
On 14 Dec 97 16:11:22 GMT, Victor Khomenko <bala...@dca.net> wrote:
>
>I will generally agree to that. What bothers me in your statement, however, is the
>hint that *any* philosophy has right to exist, because someone always find some
>followers. Sounds a bit like "anything goes" philosophy to me. In my view some of
>them do not have right to exist.
Denying socialists the right to exist was capitalism's "final
solution", I seem to recall.
Justin
dhe...@stone-soup.com
The most powerful thing fighting against R & D in that area is that
the government supports big business by making it almost imposable for
people to compete. The methods you listed exist but what about the
government setting standards that make only the products of a certian
business acceptable. This is a more powerful method than any of the
ones you listed. If the government didn't have the power to do this
then we would perhaps have 75-100 auto makers instead of three.
Some would be makeing atomic cars, some would be making paper cars
with the lights mounted on a thirty foot stalk, some would be makeing
cars powered w/ hydrogen, etc. The reason this isn't happening is
government.
History has taught us: Government is evil.
===========================================================
S. Douglas Heard do...@stone-soup.com
Stone Soup Canine http://www.stone-soup.com
"Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others."
William Allen White
====================================
Victor Khomenko
I did not mentioned socialism in the context.
Victor.
Victor Khomenko
I wish this was true. Unfortunately, the net result of socialism is that NOBODY gives
a damn about anything. This is why they produced the worst environmental contamination
in history, not the countries like US.
>Now the question of whether research would occur without the monetary reward is rather
>speculative. But I think that people LIKE to work, people LIKE to learn, people LIKE to
>push themsleves to the limit. It is what makes life worth living.
True of some of us. But with a proper incentive in place under the capitalism that
moving mass grows up quckly and steadily. Socialism by definition relies on enthusiazm
and that sourse can be quickly exhausted, as had happened in the USSR, for example. It
gets you that far and then there is no more steam left. Stagnation follows. Now you
need prisoners to continue what you started. Millions of them.
Victor.
McQ
>Lepore <lep...@mxhv.net> wrote:
>>To McQ
>me:
> > There is the illusion that capitalism is advancing technology,
> > although it is our human tendency to model nature with science
> > that is really doing do, and it is capitalism which is impeding
> > that process.
>you:
> > This in another interesting but unsupported assertion, Mike. I
> > would assume you can lend some reasoning to this also?
>
>If society were to eliminate industry's cash flow deductions which are
>pure waste, such as dividends, advertising, litigation, trade secrets,
>etc., there would be more resources available for research and
>development.
This shows a basic misunderstanding of how an economy, at least
a fairly free one, works. And again, it is nothing but assertion.
Dividends are NOT waste because they spawn more investment (amazing,
isn't it...people have a tendency to reward success). Litigation is
simply a mechanism of whatever "justice" system is in place (surely
you're not contending that consumers should have no recourse against
corporations?). Trade secrets are also a method of funding future
innovation and of course, advertising is an informational tool used in
the sales effort which ALSO leads to further monies being available
for R&D (see below).
Industry leaders who wish to remain industry leaders, spend whatever
is necessary on R&D. Consider Pfizer Inc, a large pharmaceutical
company and an industry leader. The normal rule of thumb in that
industry is 1 new drug is developed out of 100 possibilities. But all
of the losers have to be funded by research dollars also. So they
have to take huge monetary risks in this process. Pfizer spends 14%
of its sales on R&D which is a very large percentage. They'd spend
more but THEY DON'T NEED TOO. This is the percentage they've
discovered which allows them to remain preeminent in their industry,
provide the market with the drug remedies it demands and also reward
the risk taking of their stock holders.
3M, OTOH, has found that only 3% of every sales dollar is necessary
to accomplish the same results (in a different market, of course).
It isn't the AMOUNT of R&D money you spend, it's the results, and
demands for results in each market are different. My guess is you'll
see MORE R&D money spent as a percentage of sales by those in lesser
positions in a market, unless they are content to only capture a
portion of that market with "me too" products.
Are you assuming a socialist system would better anticipate the need
for R&D than this one?
If so, by what mechanism would it do so?
_________________________
McQ
Alvin Sylvain
If you have a brillient inventor, who *will* *not* *invent* for
you unless you line his pockets with gold ...
How are you going to get him to invent?
You see, sure, everybody knows that everybody benefits from
innovations. Unfortunately, everybody benefits from everybody
*else*'s innovations without having to *do* anything. So, why
bother *doing* anything?
On the other hand, busting your butt and inventing something
yourself *also* benefits everybody, but benefits *yourself*
only marginally more than everybody else. So, why bust your
butt?
You can simply coast along and do just as well as if you were
busting your butt.
That's the problem with egalitarian-social-motivation. It
doesn't account for the fact that innovations are created
by the *few* who are willing to put in that *extra* *effort*,
which are enjoyed by the *many* who don't need to put in
*any* effort at all.
It doesn't matter if you offer these few people a "little
something extra" in their paycheck. If they have the smarts,
they'll figure out a way to get a BIG extra in their paycheck
for their efforts. And if you make this BIG extra in their
paycheck impossible by whatever means, then they'll simply
stop putting forth the extra effort. (Old saying; "They
pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work.")
Sure, there may be exceptions to the rule; people who will
bust their butt for *no* extra income or rewards or incentive.
But, it *is* the *rule.* Innovators invent primarily for
their own selfish gain; the rest of society simply benefits
as a side-effect.
A.
Alvin Sylvain
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world
doesn't owe you a thing. It was here first."
Mark Twain, famous capitalist.
Alvin Sylvain
Lepore wrote:
>
> > The point being that capitalists participate in creation of those things just
> > like the workers do. Neither one can do it without the other.
>
> We all know that capitalist "participates" in the process of
> production, but that doesn't measure the necessity of that
> form of participation. Workers think up all the idea and
> draw up all the plans, and then the capitalist's signature
> is required to give the permission to go ahead and do it.
Well, that sort of makes sense, doesn't it?
I mean, after all, it's the CAPITALIST who's spending the
CAPITAL (duh) to buy the new equipment that very well be
necessary to implement the idea!
Or, were the workers planning to part with *their* income?
> There is an difference between something being
> institutionally necessary and being intrinsically necessary.
Three things are *intrinsically* necessary for any
major project to succeed: capital, labor, and management.
You remove any one of those ingredients, and you will
end up with zilch.
A.
JMH
Justin Flude wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Dec 1997 05:08:52 GMT, postm...@127.0.0.1 (Warrl kyree
> Tale'sedrin) wrote:
>
> >Lepore wrote in talk.politics.theory:
> >
> >>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
> >>
> >>> But there would be no reason for any individual to use any resources
> >>> for research and development.
> >>
> >>What is the meaning of "no reason"?
> >
> >Inventing is hard work. You're promising that everyone can have what
> >they want without hard work. (I don't believe this is a promise you
> >can fulfil.) You're guaranteeing that those who succeed at hard work
> >WON'T profit from it. (I do believe you can fulfil this.) So why not
> >just take the easy route?
>
> Actually, the idea is that everyone benefits from new inventions. The
> aim of technical innovation is to reduce the necessary labour-time
> that society needs for its reproduction, thus increasing the leisure
> time for everyone. That's the strongest incentive to innovate I can
> think of.
That's all true, but the point being made was that--in this context--
such efforts to innovate are public goods and will be under provided.
In the scenario you suggest I will benefit by some amount by inventing
a labor saving device. The effort I put into that will be no more than
the benefit I expect to receive in labor saving. But everyone else also
gains from my inventing and their gains will not necessarily induce me
to spend my time and energies innovating. Since this works for all of
us,
we all end up doing less and so are all much more miserable than we
needed
to be.
I suppose the socialist counter argument might be that since we all
benefit from the efforts of everyone else and are not being constrained
in our share of the aggregate pie to the competitive minimum we won't
care
as much so will be willing to engage in such innovative activities.
Moreover
perhaps, as we won't have to work as long to provide our necesseities we
will have the time to actually attempt such innovative actions.
I don't really think it would work that way, but perhaps that's not
the way you conceive of it anyhow.
JMH
Andrew Rogers
In article <3490EA...@alaska.net> law...@alaska.net writes:
>> > 2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How
>> > many bushels of wheat will it hold?
>Although your comments regarding a couple of the other questions may be
>valid, this question is entirely appropriate. It requires no special
>knowledge of wheat.
Only of archaic units of measurement.
Andrew
Robert Gonzalez
Justin Flude (jfl...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: On Sun, 14 Dec 1997 05:08:52 GMT, postm...@127.0.0.1 (Warrl kyree
: Tale'sedrin) wrote:
:
: >Lepore wrote in talk.politics.theory:
: >
: >>Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
: >>
: >>> But there would be no reason for any individual to use any resources
: >>> for research and development.
: >>
: >>What is the meaning of "no reason"?
: >
: >Inventing is hard work. You're promising that everyone can have what
: >they want without hard work. (I don't believe this is a promise you
: >can fulfil.) You're guaranteeing that those who succeed at hard work
: >WON'T profit from it. (I do believe you can fulfil this.) So why not
: >just take the easy route?
:
: Actually, the idea is that everyone benefits from new inventions. The
: aim of technical innovation is to reduce the necessary labour-time
: that society needs for its reproduction, thus increasing the leisure
: time for everyone. That's the strongest incentive to innovate I can
: think of.
: Justin
:
If you mean that new (useful) inventions benifit everyone by their
existance, fine.
If you mean that the everyone benifits by taking the fruits of the
inventor's labors and redistributing them, NOT FINE