Re: [CTRL] Understanding Republicans ///
-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 1/14/99 9:38:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It is an effort to CONTROL behaviors based NOT upon freedom and liberty. [ALL non-property 'crimes' are revenue generators :) ] I really don't understand. The illegality of murder is a revenue generator? Is not ALL crime an OPPORTUNITY for revenue generation? Do you mean to say that the only legitimate illegality is that pertaining to belongings and that those with real victims of violence are illegitemate? DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Understanding Republicans ///
-Caveat Lector- Michael: MJ: It is an effort to CONTROL behaviors based NOT upon freedom and liberty. [ALL non-property 'crimes' are revenue generators :) ] Agreed, but never contested. We were discussing ways, APART from the punishment of/for criminals that Republicans support social intervention. You are committing a myriad of logical fallacy here not limited to strawman. Another matter open to the individual interpretation of the reader. The operative term used in my previous statement was "imply": Because those who proffer such an argument IMPLY (by the use of emotives like "theft" and "plunder") that there is no need for a collection of just revenues for the maintenance of a society in which "a few (to be arbitrarily determined :-))" benefit disproportionately. There is nothing in my statement above which relates no need to fund 'society'. You are not the only one who propagates this argument, and scarcely few persons have your gift for discerning a difference. The phrase "social Darwinism" may not refer to you directly, but does to the argument as it is used at large. The 'theft and plunder' relate to unconstitutional efforts of our government which is operating beyond their mandate (to the tune of at least 85% of what they do fitting this category). Interesting! Please elaborate on this 85 per cent in terms of social programs. I also believe in charity -- the REAL kind. You are one of the few who profess such ideologies who does believe in charity. Here's hoping there are more of you. I would prefer that the government did not have to involve itself in social programs, but, unfortunately, there are not enough charitable souls to take care of an otherwise overwhelming need. Now, with this additional information, how are my comments in the gendre you associate them? Only your argument has come under my "scrutiny" as being of social Darwinist bent. To render a personal opinion regarding your ethics--concerning charity, government or anything else--would be the hight of arrogance on my part. Do you have an example of where I have made such an egregious error by directly referring to your ethics? Libertarians oppose criminalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling, censorship ... the Republicans favor these. I have read the enclosed treatise twice now, and I still insist that there is a chasm of difference between theory/ideology and practice: most Libertarian speakers I have heard on the subject of controlled substances (including prostitutes :-))--save marijuana--tout the Republican party line regarding its continued illegality and the punishment for the use and sale thereof. MJ: Then Ron Paul's recent PRIVACY legislation will pass both the Senate AND the House since they hold the majority? I would be interested in the BASIS for this conclusion you hold. As noble as Paul's proposed legislation is (remarkable given the current legislative climate), it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. But how did you infer the negative of this opinion from what I wrote?? MJ: At the turn of the Century, ALL Government consumed 1% +/- of an individual's earnings ... in the 1950s it was less than 10 percent. Currently the Government STEALS 50% +/- of an individual's earnings and utilizes these 'just collections' for unconstitutional programs. NOLO CONTENDRE!! You'll get no argument from me regarding the inefficiencies of government revenue generation and/or spending in any category. The only way in which we differ are what constitutes necessary spending. How much of these 'just collections' are just? Again, nolo contendre. The current system of taxation IS UNJUST, but, so far, our discussion has been limited to what is "necessary for social function/maintenance. Were we to discuss a flat tax or national sales tax, perhaps we would find ourselves in agreement. Edward "From the rage of today's downtrodden comes the revenge of tomorrow's revolutionary force." Edward Britton http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5285/connector1.html Talk to the planet: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/Reality_Pump2 DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
Re: [CTRL] Understanding Republicans ///
-Caveat Lector- MJ: It is an effort to CONTROL behaviors based NOT upon freedom and liberty. [ALL non-property 'crimes' are revenue generators :) ] Edward Britton wrote: Agreed, but never contested. We were discussing ways, APART from the punishment of/for criminals that Republicans support social intervention. MJ: The Republican effort is NOT to create criminals but to affect behavior by appealing to the 'law abiding' NOT to participate in the 'illicit' behaviors which make up their social engineering. It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. -- Thomas Jefferson Notes on the State of Virginia -- Query XVII The Rs believe those items previously listed to NOT be within their social design ... how else does one ensure others are not participating in them? Make it economically non-feasible? MJ: The 'theft and plunder' relate to unconstitutional efforts of our government which is operating beyond their mandate (to the tune of at least 85% of what they do fitting this category). Edward Britton wrote: Interesting! Please elaborate on this 85 per cent in terms of social programs. MJ: Anything which does NOT serve to protect ALL citizens from force and fraud provides one or more a legislated advantage. Recent budget allocation ... where the money is distributed: .50 Payments to Individuals .15 National Defense .15 Grants to States Localities .14 Net Interest .05 Other Federal Operations .01 Reserve Pending Social Security Reform MJ: I also believe in charity -- the REAL kind. Edward Britton wrote: You are one of the few who profess such ideologies who does believe in charity. Here's hoping there are more of you. I would prefer that the government did not have to involve itself in social programs, but, unfortunately, there are not enough charitable souls to take care of an otherwise overwhelming need. MJ: It is BECAUSE of this 'help' that the problem is as widespread, other facilitators have dropped the ball and the problem will NEVER be rectified. ONLY private charity has he incentive to truly 'help'. MJ: Libertarians oppose criminalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling, censorship ... the Republicans favor these. Edward Britton wrote: I have read the enclosed treatise twice now, and I still insist that there is a chasm of difference between theory/ideology and practice: most Libertarian speakers I have heard on the subject of controlled substances (including prostitutes :-))--save marijuana--tout the Republican party line regarding its continued illegality and the punishment for the use and sale thereof. MJ: I would say your sample/study is flawed. :) MJ: Then Ron Paul's recent PRIVACY legislation will pass both the Senate AND the House since they hold the majority? I would be interested in the BASIS for this conclusion you hold. Edward Britton wrote: As noble as Paul's proposed legislation is (remarkable given the current legislative climate), it has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. But how did you infer the negative of this opinion from what I wrote?? MJ: I am simply citing the STARK difference between Republicans and Libertarians ... Republicans have little resemblence of the latter choosing instead the Statist tendencies of their cohorts (D) ONLY in a slightly different path. Regard$, --MJ We find two great gangs of political speculators, who alternately take possession of the state power and exploit it by the most corrupt ends -- the nation is powerless against these two great cartels of politicians who are ostensibly its servants, but in reality dominate and plunder it. -- Friedrich Engels DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
