Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: why worry?)
At 08:02 PM 3/4/00 -0500, Petro wrote: ? wrote: People on this list think they've proven communism wrong, but they've always avoided any real confrontation with it. No ones strives to understand if communism might have something valuable to say-- that's what passes for an open mind here. Maybe we strove to understand it before we came here. At least one frequent poster has admitted to having socialist leanings before he saw the light. Maybe it's been tried, and not only found wanting, but found utterly useless, founded on lies and misconceptions, and just generally a *really* *dangerous* idea. It was tried in the US - before it was the US. Read "Of Plymouth Plantation" by Wm. Bradford. It didn't work. Reese
Re: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, Duncan Frissell wrote: At 12:29 PM 3/1/00 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: Capitalism is not equivalent to freedom in any manner. If anything the pursuit of capitalist goals has driven more abuse than help by many orders of magnitude. There is a reason the Constitution doesn't mention business rights or commerce in general except in two sections (i.e. inter-state commerce and the pursuit of happiness (it's implied)). You (like the Supremes) forgot: Section. 10. Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. Which is completely and utterly off topic. One of the sorriest strawman attempts I've seen from you in a long time. Nowhere in there does it mention 'business' only generating money that is independant of the federal system. Capitalism is not the answer to anything, it's the mechanism that funds the society not defines it. Nothing more, most especialy it is not the final goal of human effort. Capitalism is an attack formation created by that great Classical Economist Karl Marx. Classical Economics has been obsolete since the middle of the last century and the development of Neo-Classical Economics and the Theory of Marginal Utility. Bullshit, 'classical' smassical. You're playing word games and saying nothing. "Capitalism" isn't the answer to anything but liberalism is. These days we liberals use the term market liberalism in the US to distinguish ourselves from the followers of Karl who use that term liberalism here because they're too chicken to call themselves socialists. Liberalism isn't the answer to anything either. Respect and toleration are. Liberalisms are people who are smart enough to know that anyone calling themselves a socialist in a democratic system is going to get exactly what they deserve. The future is downloading. Can you hear the impact? O[rphan] D[rift] Cyber Positive The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
At 12:29 PM 3/1/00 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: Capitalism is not equivalent to freedom in any manner. If anything the pursuit of capitalist goals has driven more abuse than help by many orders of magnitude. There is a reason the Constitution doesn't mention business rights or commerce in general except in two sections (i.e. inter-state commerce and the pursuit of happiness (it's implied)). You (like the Supremes) forgot: Section. 10. Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. Capitalism is not the answer to anything, it's the mechanism that funds the society not defines it. Nothing more, most especialy it is not the final goal of human effort. Capitalism is an attack formation created by that great Classical Economist Karl Marx. Classical Economics has been obsolete since the middle of the last century and the development of Neo-Classical Economics and the Theory of Marginal Utility. "Capitalism" isn't the answer to anything but liberalism is. These days we liberals use the term market liberalism in the US to distinguish ourselves from the followers of Karl who use that term liberalism here because they're too chicken to call themselves socialists. DCF Republican politicians are better than Democrat politicians because they don't support gun control so if you don't like them you can just shoot them. -- P. J. O'Rourke
Re: Re: why worry?
At 12:10 AM 3/1/00 -0500, Bill Stewart wrote:
At 11:27 PM 02/26/2000 -0500, Petro wrote:
Theft of property *is* the initiation of force.
Theft of property is initiation of bad behavior, but not necessarily force.
Robbery of property is initiation of force ("yer money or yer life",
or even armed burglary of an occupied residence.)
Using force to keep stolen property is initiation of force.
But sneak thievery of property isn't force, it's just theft.
It's obviously wrong, but when my fellow Libertarians claim
it's force, they're weaselwording to evade the problem that the
Non-Aggression Principle doesn't let them initiate force in response.
Bill,
The Common Law judges had to deal with this one and did a reasonable
job. Let's drift back to Law One almost the first day of Criminal Law
getting on 30 years ago...
Theft - "The taking and asportation of the personal property of another
with intent to permanently deprive him of same."
Asportation=carrying off.
Robbery - "Theft from the person accomplished by threat of force"
You can use deadly force in the case of Robbery and also in that subspecies
of theft covered by Burglary (in those jurisdictions that let you use it at
all).
Burglary - "The breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another in
the night time with intent to commit a felony therein." [The original CL
definition limited burglary to "dwelling house" and "night".] Since a
burglary was considered an inherently dangerous act in itself, you could
use deadly force.
DCF
"They believe that the Government is the problem and that what everyone
needs is to be told, 'You're on your own; go out there into the tender
mercies of the global economy; have a great time in cyberspace, and we'll
get out of your way.'" -- William Jefferson Blythe Clinton in a speech to
the AFSCME in Chicago June 21, 1996.
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
X-Loop: openpgp.net From: Sunder [EMAIL PROTECTED] It might not even be the "standard of living" making for the disparity, but rather the value of the dollar versus the value of the local currency. Sure, these guys make $20 a month, but that $20 a month would buy them as much as our $2000 would (sans some things that they don't have in their economy, but I'm talking about staple necessities such as food, clothing, housing.) This is a common misconception, even in my country (Romania, Eastern Europe). I argued with someone claiming that "$1,000 in Romania is equivalent to $4,000 in the US". I told him that it's the other way around: you need at least $4,000 (and I doubt even this will solve much) to buy the same services as $1,000 will buy in the US. Do you realize that I live in an area where we have hot water once every three days? And even the cold water can be stopped for a day? Do you know the level of medical services here? [Well, I understand you come from a communist country too, so you might know what I'm talking about.] Have you ever seen a Romanian road? [They look like someone tested explosives there. No, this is not a joke.] Conclusion: the $20 a month (or $50, or $100) usually buys survival. A good bread (I understand from my American friends that our bread is better than yours g), some meat, some vegetables. I am fortunate to work for an US company at $6.50 / hour, so I'm in the "rich" class in my town, and I don't yet own a car, or even an apartment. But there's no comparison between this and "what $2,000 would buy in the US". Mark
Re: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any government needs appropriate leadership, that is an assumption, as yet unproven. I agree that it DOES sound good, but it is still an assumption. since the rest of your argument rests on it, you should give it a little more support. especially in its infancy.. and those leaders need to be dedicated to that government deep in their bones. one could argue (playing devils advocate here) that a GOOD government system is good enough to survive a couple crooks. I don't think that the United States has done so well because representative democracy and capitalism are so great and clearly superior. I think we have done well because the Founder's, for all their faults, truly believed in the ideals of the government they were creating.. and so they got us off on a good start. We have since fucked it up but good. from what I can see from over here - yepp. but it isn't much different here, only that our foundations are a bit younger (1945) and thus there's still a bit of it left. :-/
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
Come on out of the basement boys. Try North Korea and Cuba for a commie view, for all you socialist, take a look at European friends, yeah that works well, or maybe take a look at what the bitch wanted to do with health care, thank-you freaks who put that pair in office. Lets take a look over to the sandy shore and and see what nerve gas they are testing on their people today. People and the right, yeah, I think the USA is good enough for me. Yeah we have Waco, Ruby ridge and all the crap. But we are able to have all the crap and play a role in it if we want. Try that somewhere else in the world and see what happens. Freedom baby, sing it loud and proud, some people don't get to pick, but I do, and I pick freedom baby, sweet freedom. P.S. and to all those that bitch about having a choice, LEAVE... take care and protect that freedom... And if you get a chance to travel abroad and experience some of other people's freedom in the world, do it and lets see you bitch about something you know nothing about. Oh yeah, what ever go god you believe in loves you, try that somewhere else, I know, I know, don't mix the pol relg, sorry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jim Burnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?) Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 23:20:35 -0500 (EST) -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: February 29, 2000 11:20:35 PM To: Jim Burnes Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?) Auto forwarded by a Rule Sorry for the delay in response -- my provider has had some problems as of late. On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Jim Burnes wrote: Well, OK...thats a null statement. Most people have no idea what conditions are in other nations. Why should they care? (unless they dont like where they are living and want to move). Thats fine -- but then be fair and don't condemn a system that one knows nothing about. Anything less is bullshit propaganda. Talk about your broad brushes. I know a lot of Americans who have read the "Manifesto" long enough to be revolted by it.But Joe Sixpack also lives by its tenets without realizing that what they are. ... Most Americans are so dependent, so hopelessly inurred with the current lifestyle that they wouldn't recognize communism if it bit them in the ass. Agreed. That is precisely my point -- and yet they condemn it with all of the passion that the state says a good citizen should. 10 minute hate sound familiar? Lets be real up front here. Unless you have been out to lunch recently Communism is an experiment that failed so miserably it exterminated almost 100 million human beings last century. If that were a disease we would have government funded programs to wipe it out. Actively trying to infect people with it would land you in jail. Agreed. And I'm not a communist. I'm not arguing for communism; in fact, I would argue AGAINST it .. but: I would not propose to wipe out a disease without having properly studied it to see whether it was worth wiping out to begin with! Neither should men condemn communism if they know nothing about it. Wow. People making choices and seeing what happens. If you don't think that basket weaving is a good profession, do something else so that you can make more money. Else don't complain. Good idea -- too bad it isn't always so easy to just up and change your profession, or go back to school when you have 3 kids. Sometimes people make bad choices, I agree -- but I don't agree that one should have to pay for the rest of their life because of it. since we all know that companies will work your ass 39 hours a week to keep you from getting benefits, while maximizing their efficiency. Buy your own goddamn benefits. Last time I checked they were $3000/year for a nominal family of 3. Benefits are not free. That are not free to provide. No. Let the companies pay for them. If I am going to give them my sweat, time away from my loved ones and the fruit of my talents and labor the least they can do is make my life a little more cushy .. or give me more green up front.. either is acceptable. But if you are going to scale down the wage, then be prepared to compensate the worker in other ways. Capitalism, with its emphasis on the profit margin can't always afford to give the working poor a decent wage, therefore we need social programs to help the honest, working poor. And communism can give the working poor a decent wage? Strawman. I never said that, and it isn't implied. There is a world of difference between full blown communism and government-sponsored social programs to help the poor. And note, that I said government-sponsored not taxpayer-sponsored .. it is entirely feasible for the government to get t
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not a problem. You get them an emergency, you feed them FUD and scare them, and they'll bend over in every direction you ask. Hell, just scream terrorist and they'll happily put up with all sorts of nonsense to take a plane ride. Wow. You're good at this! You work for the feds? :) Yes, at gunpoint, about 50% of my profits go to them, so in an indirect sense, I'm forced to do so. Yep, but even so, capitalism under a fascist tending government is far better off than communism under a fascist tending government. I agree with that completely. I suspect that in an honest government, communism would work ok .. the problem is that "honest government" is an oxymoron.. and capitalism seems to tend toward chaos at a slower rate than communism. So then, what's the answer? Capitalism or Crapunism under anarchy? :) But unlike you, I'm in favor of doing away with ALL social programs. If they're honest, working folk, they're also going to be honest about saving for a rainy day. I'm not responsible for anyone's downfall except my own. As such, you can bet I'd do everything in my power to prevent it. That is where we fundamentally depart. I recognize that I am not responsible for other's downfall .. but I still make an attempt to help them out. Help them out yes. As long as that's what YOU WANT to do. Being forced to help them out at gun point, isn't the right way. It's theft. That's what social government programs are. Theft. Steal from Joe under the pretense to pay John, while taking 99% of that loot for the government. Depending on how it was run .. private donations into the program by citizens like myself could help with such problems when the family is in such a complete financial hell. On the other end, to stop active abuse, you have criminal penalties. On the other hand, why not have it all be private donations? Why have it be theft? Hey.. cheating a social program out of coin meant to help needy families is a helluvalot more reasonable a crime to throw stiff penalties at than, say, smoking a little weed in the privacy of your own home. I agree with that wholeheartedly. But, the government makes more money taking away everything you own if you do smoke a little weed. I couldn't care less what you do to yourself in your own home. I suspect they don't either, but "for your own good" they'll take away your freedom, your possesions and slam your ass in jail. I'm not in favor of mandatory taxes in general, let alone taking your money for a program you don't believe in. I'd prefer a tax system in which you pay whatever sum you feel is appropriate, and delegate what sorts of programs your money goes to. Then it isn't a tax, it's a voluntary charity. When it becomes forced, it becomes theft. So in reality, you're not for taxes that pay for social programs, you're for charity collections that fund social programs. Well, why didn't you say so in the first place? It's like pulling teeth! With such widespread computerization like we have now, it is feasible to track such allocation of funds. Sure is, and there would be far less "pork". That would sort of be what my vision of taxation would be. In the mean time, I'd rather work toward tax reform than not help those in need. Why not work to just abolish taxes in the first place? In what way does Capitalism suck again? There seems to be no built-in way to stave off large, controlling corporations doing harm. Sure there is. Evolution. The market decides, and the market is ultimately the consumers. The theory, of course, is competition and consumer boycott. Yes. Exactly. But with our institution of intellectual property, it becomes possible to keep competition at bay such that the consumer has no choice but to either live without the product or service completely, or hand over the money to the corporation. Not entirely. Linux and *BSD are kicking Microsoft's ass. You won't see it because Microsoft has more advertising dollars. But it's still reality. And the more Microsoft does to make their OS fascist (forced registration, privacy invasion, security holes), the more they'll lose. Mom and Pop aren't running Linux yet, but that's because they don't know any better. Still, I know a guy whose *grandfather* picked up a Linux CD from a Pee Cee magazine and installed it. He was a lot happier with Linux as it crashed less than 95. Capitalism without intellectual property will have problems too, because if I am a little guy, and I come out with a new type of monitor, the day I open shop and sell them, you can come along with 1000 times the resources that I have, clone my monitors, produce them at a volume that I cannot match, and therefore be able to offer them at a lower price. Intelectual property isn't the problem. Enforcing the rules that grant patents rather than being an rubber stamping open legged whore to anyone who can fill out
Re: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote: :Erm, what, Russia is not good enough an example for you? No, it is definitely not. the USSR (not "Russia" BTW) was no more a genuine communist state than the US is a genuine capitalist state. :If you agree (and I :don't speak for you) that there is no perfect version of capitalism, but the :USA is the closest, Sorry, I do not agree with this statement. It is mere propaganda. See above. So ok, what then is a good version in your eyes of communism and capitalism? No. Prefall USSR was an almost perfect example of Fascism. I'd venture to say that the USA's government is pushing fascism slowly. But that it is a capitalist system. I'd also venture to say that while Russia wasn't fully communist, it was the closest any government got to it. But again, I don't force you to agree. :Ok, well, just go and ask the Average Russian(tm) if he gives a rat's ass about :some Average American(tm) bitching about how his beer and his pack of :cigarettes are too expensive these days, or about any other topic. I'd guess :(remember, I don't speak for the Average Russian either) that he'd say "Fuck :you" in so many words. This argument does not address my point. I have just as much of a problem with the average Russian not giving a rats ass about my beer and cigarettes. I'm fatally flawed in that I believe that a thinking creature (and I am convinced that at least *some* humans fall into this category) must use this ability to serve *everybody*. That may well be best done through serving ones self, but this is not the question under consideration here. I think your argument then is quite moronic. You cannot honestly expect someone to care about something that does not affect them either way. I don't expect you to care either way about how much I liked or disliked my breakfast, or what color my morning shit was. It's irrelevant to your life in the same way that a Russian would find your beer and cigarettes. In a word, not everyone will care about the same things. This isn't up for debate, it's reality. You might or might not like it, but that's irrelevant to reality. :Bottom line - it's human nature to not be interested in what doesn't affect you :directly. I disagree: that is animal nature. If man wants to claim the higher ground, s/he will have to play the part. Whatever. I'm not here to argue your opinions on how humans should be. But I've stated how we are. You might not like it, but again, reality is. Hope isn't. There is a distinct difference between the concepts of "first hand knowledge" and "not giving a rats ass". That you see them as one in the same is the root of the problem here. No I don't. I've had first hand knowledge of something, I can speak for it. I might have had first hand experiences about something and not given a rat's ass either. And I might not have had first hand knowledge of something, nor given a rats ass about it. You are being quite moronic here. Again, you can disagree if you wish, it's your right. But unless your arguments begin to approach logic and reality, I won't retract that opinion. :Doubtful. As long as you can make money, what's the difference? I don't really give a rats ass about the money: don't you *get it*? A LOT of us don't care about he friggin money!!! I work because I find it fulfilling. The day that stops, I look for new work: money has not *once* been the issue. I have taken STEEP pay cuts for jobs I found attractive, as well as big increases. The money just doesn't matter to me. What difference does it make if you have "enough"? Enough is defined here as enough to pay the utilities, medical expenses, and car parts for my aging 1986 piece of American S**T (I *love* learning how to fix it's broken parts!). Food is noce, etc. Just how much does that *take*? Certainly nowhere *near* what I am used to being paid. Would I work for free? Yes. I've done it. A lot. Give away the money I haven't used? Yep. That too. And if you asked whether I gave a rats ass, my answer would be no. Look, do whatever makes you happy. I'm not forcing your hand one way or another. It's your life, you make your choices. But as soon as you force me to do what YOU do, it's not freedom. I think we are seeing here the actual capitalist (actual == native belief) vs the actual communist/socialist/democratrist (I often wonder where I should try to pigeonhole myself. Closest to Libertarianism..). Except for one little thing: you're free to do with your life what you will. Under a communist regime, that wouldn't be the case. While you may be perfectly happy working for nothing and giving your money away, I wouldn't. But again, I wouldn't force you to accept money and keep it, but a communist state would force me to work for free. I'm not stating that you would force me to work for free, but as soon as "you" become a government, that would be the
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Sunder wrote: So then, what's the answer? Capitalism or Crapunism under anarchy? :) Dunno .. but I sort of suspect that if we could pull off a true anarchy that it wouldn't matter much. Individuals could clump together and institute whatever sort of socio-economic system they like that suits their individual tastes and interests. A Hasidic Jew Communist community here, a Muslim Capitalism there .. as long as each group were allowed autonomy and self-government and as long as each individual in the group were afforded the same respect (by definition of anarchy) then, we have at an individual level the same thing we have at a national level now .. and capitalist nations trade freely with communist nations all the time. In the end, evolution decides. That is where we fundamentally depart. I recognize that I am not responsible for other's downfall .. but I still make an attempt to help them out. Help them out yes. As long as that's what YOU WANT to do. Being forced to help them out at gun point, isn't the right way. I agree. We're really talking taxes here. I'm not in favor of mandatory taxes in general, let alone taking your money for a program you don't believe in. I'd prefer a tax system in which you pay whatever sum you feel is appropriate, and delegate what sorts of programs your money goes to. Then it isn't a tax, it's a voluntary charity. When it becomes forced, it becomes theft. So in reality, you're not for taxes that pay for social programs, you're for charity collections that fund social programs. Well, why didn't you say so in the first place? It's like pulling teeth! I didn't want to open up a whole other can of worms and begin a critique of our tax system. Especially on this list, where we are all likely to have .. uhm .. very vibrant opinions about taxes :) And, I not so much for general charity collections because I do like the idea of the government funding social programs -- but I don't like the idea of mandatory taxation. I think it is possible for the government to make money without taxation, and I like the idea of some of that money going to serve the people. That is why I didn't go into it .. I didn't want to get into the hows and whats of government spending, etc. That would sort of be what my vision of taxation would be. In the mean time, I'd rather work toward tax reform than not help those in need. Why not work to just abolish taxes in the first place? Love to! Lets do it today. Damn. Taxes are still here, aren't they? Like I said, in the mean time .. if I'm going to be taxed anyhow, I'd rather it go to social programs. Not entirely. Linux and *BSD are kicking Microsoft's ass. You won't see it because Microsoft has more advertising dollars. But it's still reality. And the more Microsoft does to make their OS fascist (forced registration, privacy invasion, security holes), the more they'll lose. Mom and Pop aren't running Linux yet, but that's because they don't know any better. Still, I know a guy whose *grandfather* picked up a Linux CD from a Pee Cee magazine and installed it. He was a lot happier with Linux as it crashed less than 95. Yeah. I know a few older folks who run Linux with KDE rather than 95, but the only things they do with the computer is run netscape and play simple games. But such users were never locked into MS to begin with .. they don't need MS-centric technology .. things could be different: If public key systems were invented (and patented) five years into the future, Linux would have a big problem on its hands. I'm thinking about e-commerce. The patent holders could enforce their rights in a way that prevents free software usage, and then MS has a huge advantage over Linux because Linux simply can't get an e-commerce solution together in such a scenario .. and MS can afford any licensing it needs. As luck would have it, large scale e-commerce isn't here yet, and the PK patents are expiring. Michael J. Graffam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine." Henry David Thoreau "Civil Disobedience"
Re: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
Amen brother! Sing it again! Ain't nothing sweeter than freedom. And that's as capitalist as you can get. Now if only Uncle Sam would stop fucking it over with bullshit anti-gun, anti-speech, insane taxes, and pro-bureocractic regulation bullshit laws! Curtis Fockler wrote: Come on out of the basement boys. Try North Korea and Cuba for a commie view, for all you socialist, take a look at European friends, yeah that works well, or maybe take a look at what the bitch wanted to do with health care, thank-you freaks who put that pair in office. Lets take a look over to the sandy shore and and see what nerve gas they are testing on their people today. People and the right, yeah, I think the USA is good enough for me. Yeah we have Waco, Ruby ridge and all the crap. But we are able to have all the crap and play a role in it if we want. Try that somewhere else in the world and see what happens. Freedom baby, sing it loud and proud, some people don't get to pick, but I do, and I pick freedom baby, sweet freedom. P.S. and to all those that bitch about having a choice, LEAVE... take care and protect that freedom... And if you get a chance to travel abroad and experience some of other people's freedom in the world, do it and lets see you bitch about something you know nothing about. Oh yeah, what ever go god you believe in loves you, try that somewhere else, I know, I know, don't mix the pol relg, sorry -- Kaos Keraunos Kybernetos + ^ + Sunder "Only someone completely distrustful of /|\ \|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]all government would be opposed to what /\|/\ --*-- we are doing with surveillance cameras" \/|\/ /|\ You're on the air. -- NYC Police Commish H. Safir. \|/ + v + Say 'Hi' to Echelon "Privacy is an 'antisocial act'" - The FedZ. http://www.sunder.net --- I love the smell of Malathion in the morning, it smells like brain cancer.
Re: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Sunder wrote: :Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote: : : (J.A. Terranson donned his extra heavy asbestos underwear, then appended : his thoughts thusly...) : : (1) I would argue that there has yet to *be* an actual *Communist* state : by which we could gauge the Communist existense. : :Erm, what, Russia is not good enough an example for you? No, it is definitely not. the USSR (not "Russia" BTW) was no more a genuine communist state than the US is a genuine capitalist state. :If you agree (and I :don't speak for you) that there is no perfect version of capitalism, but the :USA is the closest, Sorry, I do not agree with this statement. It is mere propaganda. See above. :then would not pre-fall Russia be a perfect example of :Communism/ No. Prefall USSR was an almost perfect example of Fascism. : (2) I have a *big* problem with Americans not caring what conditions are : like in the rest of the world: it allows us to continue to both tolerate : and perpetrate such crimes as we have been committing in Iraq over the : last 10 years or so. And then of course there are the shenanigans in : Honduras, Columbia, and let's not forget our dear "friends" the : Sandinistas... American apathy for all things not *directly* (we don't, : as a people, seem to understand the concept of indirect events) affecting : America^h^h^h^h^h^H The "United" States is our greatest (IMNSHO) fault. : :Ok, well, just go and ask the Average Russian(tm) if he gives a rat's ass about :some Average American(tm) bitching about how his beer and his pack of :cigarettes are too expensive these days, or about any other topic. I'd guess :(remember, I don't speak for the Average Russian either) that he'd say "Fuck :you" in so many words. This argument does not address my point. I have just as much of a problem with the average Russian not giving a rats ass about my beer and cigarettes. I'm fatally flawed in that I believe that a thinking creature (and I am convinced that at least *some* humans fall into this category) must use this ability to serve *everybody*. That may well be best done through serving ones self, but this is not the question under consideration here. : (3) As for the statement (which I choose to take as a "stand alone", e.g., : not requiring the support of McG's other positions) that most Americans : are oblivious to the conditions they themselves live in: I believe it is : true only in the sense that we as a people very much *choose* to *fein* : this lack of insight. : :Bottom line - it's human nature to not be interested in what doesn't affect you :directly. I disagree: that is animal nature. If man wants to claim the higher ground, s/he will have to play the part. :I honestly couldn't give a rats ass at what went on in Bosnia. If you asked me :what I thought of millions of people getting killed, I'd tell you it's a sad :thing, and I do feel it's sad. But it doesn't affect me. It's not "real" to :me the same way that living my own life is. Knowledge as an outsider and first :hander are different. There is a distinct difference between the concepts of "first hand knowledge" and "not giving a rats ass". That you see them as one in the same is the root of the problem here. : Interesting side story here(to prove my assertion that these high-wage, : low physical effort jobs are in fact *forced* on much of the population : as a sort of opiate): Recently (last 6 weeks or so) I have been making : the job rounds (boredom has *definitely * set in). Just for the *fun* of : it, I applied to about a dozen "shitbox" jobs: Jack-in-the-box, MickyD, : etc. One of them went so far as to "permit" me to take their applicant : "test" (How many burritos do you need for an order with 2 burritos? g). : Not a single one of them called me back. I was *serious* about taking : these jobs: the money was unimportant, but not a single one of these : places could be convinced of that. On the other hand, when I finally gave : up and went back to applying for jobs more "in my field g", I managed 4 : immediate offers (of which only 2 look interesting). : :Interesting experiment... :) It wasn't done as an experiment though: I was legit in wanting that job. I just wanted a change of pace, with something *totally* new and different to learn (how to make 4 million french fries in 1 afternoon *is* a new skill for me ;-). I wouldn't have applied if I wasn't serious. : No matter how you slice it, we are forced into the peter principle in this : country. Is this a bad thing? I'm not really sure, although I *am* a : little bit bitter that I won't get to wear a red baseball cap with pins : all over it and ask if you would like that Super-Sized ;-) : :Doubtful. As long as you can make money, what's the difference? I don't really give a rats ass about the money: don't you *get it*? A LOT of us don't care about he friggin money!!! I work because I find it fulfilling. The day that stops, I look for new
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
Sorry for the delay in response -- my provider has had some problems as of late. On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Jim Burnes wrote: Well, OK...thats a null statement. Most people have no idea what conditions are in other nations. Why should they care? (unless they dont like where they are living and want to move). Thats fine -- but then be fair and don't condemn a system that one knows nothing about. Anything less is bullshit propaganda. Talk about your broad brushes. I know a lot of Americans who have read the "Manifesto" long enough to be revolted by it.But Joe Sixpack also lives by its tenets without realizing that what they are. ... Most Americans are so dependent, so hopelessly inurred with the current lifestyle that they wouldn't recognize communism if it bit them in the ass. Agreed. That is precisely my point -- and yet they condemn it with all of the passion that the state says a good citizen should. 10 minute hate sound familiar? Lets be real up front here. Unless you have been out to lunch recently Communism is an experiment that failed so miserably it exterminated almost 100 million human beings last century. If that were a disease we would have government funded programs to wipe it out. Actively trying to infect people with it would land you in jail. Agreed. And I'm not a communist. I'm not arguing for communism; in fact, I would argue AGAINST it .. but: I would not propose to wipe out a disease without having properly studied it to see whether it was worth wiping out to begin with! Neither should men condemn communism if they know nothing about it. Wow. People making choices and seeing what happens. If you don't think that basket weaving is a good profession, do something else so that you can make more money. Else don't complain. Good idea -- too bad it isn't always so easy to just up and change your profession, or go back to school when you have 3 kids. Sometimes people make bad choices, I agree -- but I don't agree that one should have to pay for the rest of their life because of it. since we all know that companies will work your ass 39 hours a week to keep you from getting benefits, while maximizing their efficiency. Buy your own goddamn benefits. Last time I checked they were $3000/year for a nominal family of 3. Benefits are not free. That are not free to provide. No. Let the companies pay for them. If I am going to give them my sweat, time away from my loved ones and the fruit of my talents and labor the least they can do is make my life a little more cushy .. or give me more green up front.. either is acceptable. But if you are going to scale down the wage, then be prepared to compensate the worker in other ways. Capitalism, with its emphasis on the profit margin can't always afford to give the working poor a decent wage, therefore we need social programs to help the honest, working poor. And communism can give the working poor a decent wage? Strawman. I never said that, and it isn't implied. There is a world of difference between full blown communism and government-sponsored social programs to help the poor. And note, that I said government-sponsored not taxpayer-sponsored .. it is entirely feasible for the government to get their money in other ways. "The answer to our question (what do we do about the poor) is simple: nothing. We need an impoverished working class to supply cheap labor to our corporations. They must, after all, turn a profit." These people need low wage jobs because without them you have capital flight to China (home of your beloved socialists) where the average worker makes a hell of a lot less. Of course thats because they are virtual slaves to the "People's Army". And that is the system you would prefer? Never said that, did I? Michael J. Graffam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" "Who watches the watchmen?" - Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347 Indeed. You need to take a course in formal logic (propositional calculus) as you don't see the implications of your own quotes. HAH! I have never once made an argument for Communism. I never once said I wanted to live in China. I simply support a few large, organized social programs for our poor -- most probably government run; but Gates certainly has the resources to start up a wonderful system. Thats all. Charity. You are the one that claims that I am a socialist, which I am not. For a fan of formal logic, you build up a fine army of strawmen. My point is merely that I would rather have people who oppose communism because they understand it, and do not agree, rather than a populace that hates communism because the State tells them too. That latter is what we have now. That was my original claim. That American people should not rally against that which they do not understand in the least. Juvenal is saying "who watches the elites?". In any communist system "those who know best" must be watched.
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote: :Well, OK...thats a null statement. Most people have no idea what conditions :are in other nations. Why should they care? (unless they dont like where :they are living and want to move). (1) I would argue that there has yet to *be* an actual *Communist* state by which we could gauge the Communist existense. Yes, I alluded to this in another recent message, but never came and outright said it because I don't feel it is really important to the points I was trying to make. (3) As for the statement (which I choose to take as a "stand alone", e.g., not requiring the support of McG's other positions) that most Americans are oblivious to the conditions they themselves live in: I believe it is true only in the sense that we as a people very much *choose* to *fein* this lack of insight. I don't really understand the reasoning behind it, but many (I hesitate to say most, although that really is the word which came to mind) of the people I have had "talks" with (where such "talks" required this type of knowledge) seem to be somehow "proud" of this "lack of insight". It's like we- I don't *know* what's it's like: I'm reaching for straws - but it's both very frightening, and sickening at the same time. Agreed. I've been fumbling with how to get this point across too. I know people that work their asses off, and never even get around to questioning, say, taxes .. I know people that don't even BITCH about them! They just sort of say, "death and taxes are certain" .. as if being taxed out the wazoo was as certain a fact as their ultimate passing. They don't question the things going on around them, and they are in a weird way 'proud' of their lack of knowledge. It is not only disturbing to me, but it angers me too .. I get so pissed off sometimes because if just one in every ten of such people would take account of their situation I suspect my country would be very different. : and stupid like "sounds great on paper, but doesn't work in the real : world." Americans condemn Communism without knowing shit about Marxist : tenents, and without knowing (or even reading about) the realities of : life under a Stalinist/Maoist rule. You are sounding a lot like the "average" person you are condemning here... Additionally, again I refer to point 1: Stalinism/Maoism is not necessarily Communism. You're right .. having re-read that, I see that it didn't come out the way I intended. I specifically seperated Marxist ideals and Stalinist/Maoist reality in order to draw a distinction, but failed to do so. My error. Unfortunately, the "Communism" Jim is referring to here is actually Stalinism, and in many (*not* all - please don't try to impale me on that particular stake :-) ways , the US is travelling down a similar road politically. You're right. The only thing that keeps me going some days is the knowledge that if history is any indicator, a few hundred years hence people will look back in disgust at the barbarism we engage in and find it unthinkable that people could live this way.. and specifically take all of the lofty ideals that I hold so dear and consider them profane -- rejecting them in favor of some heavenly goal that I cannot even conceive of. Then other days I think I'm kidding myself :) :Wow. People making choices and seeing what happens. If you don't think :that basket weaving is a good profession, do something else so that you :can make more money. Else don't complain. Sometimes the money doesn't matter though. Then what? What about art for art's sake (assuming no complaining about $$)? That is an excellant point. : since we all know that companies will work your ass 39 hours a week to : keep you from getting benefits, while maximizing their efficiency. That's the JOB of a corporate entity: it *exists* to make money. The union is no better. Sam is the same... You need to rely *on yourself*. If a company isn't offering what you need, *DON'T SETTLE*, look elsewhere. If everyone did that, the "shitbox job[s]" would come up to the minimum standard which the worker required. I understand corporates have to make money .. but they can exercise enlightened self-interest just like people can. Yeah, but sometimes you need money so damn bad, and you need it NOW! Like I said in another message, I come from a working-class home .. and we hit the skids a couple of times. I had to take a job as a teen to help pay for my basic clothes and food.. It wasn't like my parents told me "Look, Mike .. 3 months from now you're gonna need to kick in money for groceries and buy your own clothes." They resisted doing that as long as they could .. LONGER than they reasonably could, really .. and then one day my Dad pulled me aside and told me. So, I had to go out and get a job -- and I didn't exactly have time to look around; every teen in the universe looks for a job here or there to
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Tom Vogt wrote: Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote: (1) I would argue that there has yet to *be* an actual *Communist* state by which we could gauge the Communist existense. now, I've heard THAT argument until I grew sick of it. say, isn't the fact that there hasn't been a communist state despite several attempts to create one a good proof that the concept is not implementable? Any government needs appropriate leadership, especially in its infancy.. and those leaders need to be dedicated to that government deep in their bones. Stalin was not a particularly suitable leader, nor am I convinced of his dedication to the true liberation of the common worker. Give Gandhi a shot, and I suspect he would have done a good bit better. I don't think that the United States has done so well because representative democracy and capitalism are so great and clearly superior. I think we have done well because the Founder's, for all their faults, truly believed in the ideals of the government they were creating.. and so they got us off on a good start. We have since fucked it up but good. Michael J. Graffam ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
Missouri FreeNet Administration wrote: (1) I would argue that there has yet to *be* an actual *Communist* state by which we could gauge the Communist existense. now, I've heard THAT argument until I grew sick of it. say, isn't the fact that there hasn't been a communist state despite several attempts to create one a good proof that the concept is not implementable? of course, another approach would be to reply with: "hey, there also hasn't been a true national socialism (nazi) state so far, only hitlerism. let's give it another try, shall we?".
Re: Damn french ;-) (Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?))
To correct myself: My Canon does 5 fps. The Nikon D-1, which came out last October, can do 4.5 photos/second. This is comparable to all but the speediest analog cameras. My analog Canon can only do 8 photos/sec.
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem is the herd mentality. When I get Joe Average alone, sit down and reason with him I find that most times we share a good deal of insights and we both go away from the discussion better off .. its when you get people in a group that things go astray. That just proves that Joe Average is entertaining you, but believes otherwise. Or is entertaining the mob. Pulling one over on an individual can be tricky sometimes .. pulling one over on a mass of people seems easier in certain cases. Thats the problem, in a nutshell as I see it. Not a problem. You get them an emergency, you feed them FUD and scare them, and they'll bend over in every direction you ask. Hell, just scream terrorist and they'll happily put up with all sorts of nonsense to take a plane ride. Uncle Sam, or any other regime, steals money because it can. Even if the reasons were honest, (they are not), you accurately define what is going on. It's theft. Some of us are unwilling to exploit the unfortunate to justify thievery. Come now. It is not theft if you agree to give the money away, which you implicitly do by living in America and being an American citizen. If you really feel that strongly about it, you are free to find a country that better suits you. Or, like me, accept your fringe status, bow to the majority rule of democracy, accept your burden, and in your spare time work to try and change some of the laws. Yeah, whatever, but it's still theft. Just becase I tolerate it doesn't make me like it. Or, of course, you could get a shit load of anthrax and march on capitol hill. No thanks, when you do that, you just allow a fresh batch of scum to rise to the top pointing to you as the reason why they must declare a state of emergency and put armed troops on every corner. Not effective. I've read Smith and Friedman.. and, since you are familar with Marx, you realize that his dream degraded in practice .. just like the dream of pure capitalism has. Yep, but even so, capitalism under a fascist tending government is far better off than communism under a fascist tending government. The ideal of self determination gave way to the '80 "greed is good" as easily as the "worker's paradise" gave way to a bullshit puppet show with the privledged party members pulling the strings. I'm critical of communism because it failed, and I'm critical of the men who put it into practice for allowing it to fail. Same holds true for American democracy and capitalism. I'm not a believer of two wolves and a sheep voting for dinner. The vast bulk of your beloved social programs I'll just cut you off there .. I never said I loved any of our social programs, I was just giving the reasoning behind it all. As I said in another message, I'd LOVE to cut taxes (give people more of their money to make them less dependant on social programs), and take just a bit to run the government (preferrably with voluntary taxes, like we SHOULD have), and put into social programs for honest, working folks who simply just hit bad times. But unlike you, I'm in favor of doing away with ALL social programs. If they're honest, working folk, they're also going to be honest about saving for a rainy day. I'm not responsible for anyone's downfall except my own. As such, you can bet I'd do everything in my power to prevent it. Hell, it could even be in the form of a zero-interest loan. Give the family some money until the hard times pass, and let them pay it off little-by-little, the money goes back into the system to help more people. That small percentage of our taxes picks up the slack for inflation. That would be appropriate. But what happens when they can't pay off the loan? Yes, our social programs are messed up .. and yes, they do more harm than good, but that is because the machinery of our government is inefficient, not because giving money to the unfortunate is less-than-desirable. If every sanctimonious asshole who would steal my money for the sake of the "less fortunate" would simply find one person, just one, and do something to improve that persons life, the so called problem of poverty would be eliminated. But that's too hard. Better to hire a group of mercenary terrorists to steal other peoples money and then dole it out... On behalf of everyone how has done volunteer work: go fuck yourself. No, I agree with that the above paragraph. If you do volunteer work, it's because you chose to. Because you get some value out of it. But put a gun to my head and demand I hand over 50% of my money so that some insignifican amount of that (or even if it were a significant portion) can go to feed the hungry, and it becomes theft. I've tutored kids in math and computer programming. I've helped build machines for those kids. Me too. I've taught them how to sysadmin and build boxes. But, I never did it for free, and never will. The teacher also has
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
(J.A. Terranson donned his extra heavy asbestos underwear, then appended his thoughts thusly...) On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Jim Burnes wrote: :[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : : Irrelevent. No one is arguing that existence under communist rule is : a holiday -- or even better than existence in the U.S. The statement is : simply that the average american knows dick about the conditions that : exist in other nations, and as an aside, is oblivious to the conditions : he himself lives in. : :Well, OK...thats a null statement. Most people have no idea what conditions :are in other nations. Why should they care? (unless they dont like where :they are living and want to move). (1) I would argue that there has yet to *be* an actual *Communist* state by which we could gauge the Communist existense. (2) I have a *big* problem with Americans not caring what conditions are like in the rest of the world: it allows us to continue to both tolerate and perpetrate such crimes as we have been committing in Iraq over the last 10 years or so. And then of course there are the shenanigans in Honduras, Columbia, and let's not forget our dear "friends" the Sandinistas... American apathy for all things not *directly* (we don't, as a people, seem to understand the concept of indirect events) affecting America^h^h^h^h^h^H The "United" States is our greatest (IMNSHO) fault. (3) As for the statement (which I choose to take as a "stand alone", e.g., not requiring the support of McG's other positions) that most Americans are oblivious to the conditions they themselves live in: I believe it is true only in the sense that we as a people very much *choose* to *fein* this lack of insight. I don't really understand the reasoning behind it, but many (I hesitate to say most, although that really is the word which came to mind) of the people I have had "talks" with (where such "talks" required this type of knowledge) seem to be somehow "proud" of this "lack of insight". It's like we- I don't *know* what's it's like: I'm reaching for straws - but it's both very frightening, and sickening at the same time. : Americans condemn Communism usually without even having read the Communist : Manifesto; and if they HAVE read the Manifesto, they say something good : :Talk about your broad brushes. I know a lot of Americans who have read :the "Manifesto" long enough to be revolted by it.But Joe Sixpack :also lives by its tenets without realizing that what they are. Reinforcing point (1) above, albeit tangentially. :Many :strictures by which Americans now live were originally tenets of the :US Communist platform including progessive income taxation. Most Americans :are so dependent, so hopelessly inurred with the current lifestyle that :they wouldn't recognize communism if it bit them in the ass. H. "Inurred with the current lifestyle." Very interesting choice of words. "Dependent", also an interesting choice. I submit that both of these statements are rooted in the "lifestyle" of high per capita income to low exertion for these wages. (Yes, I am having a hard time choosing words that don't make me sound, ahhh...,er..., "thick"?). I think that many (if not most to almost all) of these "inurred" and "dependent" people (a position with which I agree BTW) would state categorically and emphatically that they are in fact quite (totally?) *independent*, and that this is *because* of their wages. How many would see the dependency these wages bring? Is there a point to this commentary: not that I can readily identify, other than it "feels necessary" to expound upon it... : and stupid like "sounds great on paper, but doesn't work in the real : world." Americans condemn Communism without knowing shit about Marxist : tenents, and without knowing (or even reading about) the realities of : life under a Stalinist/Maoist rule. You are sounding a lot like the "average" person you are condemning here... Additionally, again I refer to point 1: Stalinism/Maoism is not necessarily Communism. Rather, they are the conditions which we *associate* with Communism. If you *really * want to look at Communism in a more purified incarnation, maybe you should examine the Oneida communities of New York (which fell apart only in the last 2-3 years of its existence). :Lets be real up front here. Unless you have been out to lunch recently :Communism is an experiment that failed so miserably it exterminated :almost 100 million human beings last century. If that were a disease :we would have government funded programs to wipe it out. Actively :trying to infect people with it would land you in jail. Unfortunately, the "Communism" Jim is referring to here is actually Stalinism, and in many (*not* all - please don't try to impale me on that particular stake :-) ways , the US is travelling down a similar road politically. :I would love to see a Memetic analysis of Communism. I would expect :that it would be substantially similar to the barbaric
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Irrelevent. No one is arguing that existence under communist rule is a holiday -- or even better than existence in the U.S. The statement is simply that the average american knows dick about the conditions that exist in other nations, and as an aside, is oblivious to the conditions he himself lives in. Well, OK...thats a null statement. Most people have no idea what conditions are in other nations. Why should they care? (unless they dont like where they are living and want to move). Americans condemn Communism usually without even having read the Communist Manifesto; and if they HAVE read the Manifesto, they say something good Talk about your broad brushes. I know a lot of Americans who have read the "Manifesto" long enough to be revolted by it.But Joe Sixpack also lives by its tenets without realizing that what they are. Many strictures by which Americans now live were originally tenets of the US Communist platform including progessive income taxation. Most Americans are so dependent, so hopelessly inurred with the current lifestyle that they wouldn't recognize communism if it bit them in the ass. and stupid like "sounds great on paper, but doesn't work in the real world." Americans condemn Communism without knowing shit about Marxist tenents, and without knowing (or even reading about) the realities of life under a Stalinist/Maoist rule. Lets be real up front here. Unless you have been out to lunch recently Communism is an experiment that failed so miserably it exterminated almost 100 million human beings last century. If that were a disease we would have government funded programs to wipe it out. Actively trying to infect people with it would land you in jail. I would love to see a Memetic analysis of Communism. I would expect that it would be substantially similar to the barbaric crusades of early and middle Christianity. Killing en masse to loot, pillage and convert the heathens for the greater glory of god^h^h^hstate. I'd take issue with that, in a round-about way. Uncle Sam steals your coin because there are a shit-load of Americans out there with less-than-dick for resources. These unfortunate souls might have taken up, say, basket weaving as a hobby rather than computer programming (unlike the majority of people who are likely to read this list) and as such (since hand-made baskets aren't in particularly high demand these days) are doomed to taking shitbox minimum wage jobs, probably part-time with no benefits; Wow. People making choices and seeing what happens. If you don't think that basket weaving is a good profession, do something else so that you can make more money. Else don't complain. since we all know that companies will work your ass 39 hours a week to keep you from getting benefits, while maximizing their efficiency. Buy your own goddamn benefits. Last time I checked they were $3000/year for a nominal family of 3. Benefits are not free. That are not free to provide. Capitalism, with its emphasis on the profit margin can't always afford to give the working poor a decent wage, therefore we need social programs to help the honest, working poor. And communism can give the working poor a decent wage? Of course the downside to your fantasy is that you would have to live in China or the old Soviet Union. No thanks. I've seen desparately poor people in Anguilla and they seemed happy enough. At least their government doesn't kill one in four. The name escapes me at the moment, but some Capitalist asshole/theorist once said something along the lines of: "The answer to our question (what do we do about the poor) is simple: nothing. We need an impoverished working class to supply cheap labor to our corporations. They must, after all, turn a profit." These people need low wage jobs because without them you have capital flight to China (home of your beloved socialists) where the average worker makes a hell of a lot less. Of course thats because they are virtual slaves to the "People's Army". And that is the system you would prefer? Michael J. Graffam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" "Who watches the watchmen?" - Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347 Indeed. You need to take a course in formal logic (propositional calculus) as you don't see the implications of your own quotes. Juvenal is saying "who watches the elites?". In any communist system "those who know best" must be watched. Of course as soon as you watch them you start your vacation in beautiful sunny Siberia. And that is a one-way ticket.
Thanks from the IBUC Bearer Boat (was Re: Damn french ;-) (Re:damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)))
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 At 9:10 PM -0400 on 2/26/00, R. A. Hettinga postscripted on cypherpunks, vamping on his famous french lefty-philosophy kvetch there a little while back: [Who's had enough of things *french* for a while, especially heavy low-bridgedeck *french* catamarans, with goofy *french* power plugs, chartered from the *french* side of otherwise nice Carribbean islands with *french* phone systems, which don't have information operators, not even ones which speak *french*... The *french* skipper was nice, though. Except that she spoke *french* all the damn time...] :-). Oh, okay, okay, so, in the (cold!) light of day back here in Roslindale, I hereby relent, viz.: [Who also had a *great* time with -- and not necessarily in spite of -- same, once we finally got to Anguilla, Road Harbor, and Sandy Ground. It turns out that even though we were a day late, and not completely because of the above, we *still* got there before everyone we were supposed to pick up in Anguilla, so life did not, actually, suck after all. I'd even charter from the same company, and, in a pinch, even the same *french* :-) boat, and certainly with the same skipper again, now that I know what to expect.] All that said, thanks so much to everyone who came out during the week for a sail, snorkel, banana daiquiri, WaveLan hack, etc., on what became, in classic Hettinga neologism, the IBUC Bearer Boat. In particular, thanks to Kuatro's skipper Caroline; to Steve, Fearghas, Paul, and, of course, my wife Carol, for helping make the boat go; to Jason and Kevin for the almost-all-night combination e$/IBUC-rant-and-WaveLan-hacking binge; to Amy for her scintillating repartee; to Vince and Samantha for demonstrating the proper form for riding an anchor bridle in a mild current; to Fearghas again for taking a really great picture of Carol actually sailing Kauatro (which can actually sail, sometimes) at a whopping 7kts, a picture which is now my Mac G3's desktop, (and for the perfectly ghastly one of me floating in Little Bay grinning my ass off, proving that there's more diet to come); to Jane for keeping all of us in line; to Duncan for swimming to the beach in Mead's Bay so we could be there just in time for me to accost poor Dr. Rivest coming out for his constitutional; to Griffin for proving that you really *can* get TCP/IP on a boat at Prickly Pear key; to *another* Kevin for helping us repeat that performance on Sandy Ground *much* later that night; to Dr. Syverson for once again providing the necessary professional courtesy so that the SEALs didn't sink yet another catamaran full of financial crypto people; to Gwen Hastings for coming aboard to take the Anguilla rheumatiz cure; to Declan and Christen(?) for testing my new snorkeling equipment; and, once again, many many times again, to my wonderful wife Carol, who was a saint through all of the above, at personal risk to life, limb, and, occasionally, sanity. Finally, to the people across the harbor in the very large monohull, with their *own* center-console *tender*, who saw fit to, um, borrow, our own dingy, stranding 5 folks on the beach at midnight in the process, I say many, many, dirty words. In french. :-). See you next year at FC00, Anguilla or not, and, hopefully, with another IBUC Bearer Boat, which was pretty damn cool, french or not, and even though it was a lot of work to do at times. Cheers, RAH -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.1 iQA/AwUBOLkZH8PxH8jf3ohaEQIrSgCgiYA3xBHpMfT0QBLhVv/8EIM01DYAoKSj tTAS8serNvULzGa53rpbW/Tg =R8wX -END PGP SIGNATURE- - R. A. Hettinga mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/ 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: why worry?)
At 04:41 PM 2/26/00 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Xenophon wrote: Bowing to the majority rule of democracy is not something we should have to do in a republic. 51% should not be able to successfully implement a campaign of theft. Of course, but far more than 51% of the American people in every state Who cares? The point of a constitution is that a 99.999% majority has no more right than one person. Else its mob rule. Which, of course, is what we have now.
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: why worry?)
At 10:15 AM 2/26/00 -0500, Aaron wrote: Capitalism digs its grave because ultimately it's exploitive to the workers. Then why don't they quit? What your type fails to realize is that, despite the poor (by american standards) conditions others may live in (whether foraging, farming, factories, or bitdiddling), its better than what they left. Capitalism = investment. The purest investment is when one educates onesself.
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Aaron wrote: On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:48:11 -0500, Sunder wrote: FYI: corporations don't own my ass. I'd say the reverse is true though. Ever hear of stock? When you buy it, you own a piece of their asses. Yeah, and you're Ted Turner? Don't equate yourself to the bourgeoisie. You only make me laugh at such foolishness. Bitch please, the basic premise that all men are created equal still holds true. To each his own. I don't strive to be Ted Turner, nor does he strive to be me. That's the thing about freedom. The "worker" is not a synonim for "drone." Laugh all you want, but that's reality. When I buy even a single share of a company, I own a slice of that company. When it does good, I make money, when it doesn't I lose. If I decide the company sucks ass, I can sell it, and it will lose money. Capitalism doesn't dig its own grave. Capitalism provides a very important feedback mechanism. To succeede at it you have to do something right. You can't be lazy and rely on others to provide for you. Speculation is a form of laziness our capitalism has plenty of. Speculation in what form? Speculating what precisely? But that's not the main flaw of capitalism. Capitalism digs its grave because ultimately it's exploitive to the workers. The government has had to protect workers from the corporations for the sake of corporations. But as the protections are removed... we'll see. And who forces you to work for a particular company? If the place sucks, quit and work elsewhere. IF you can't find work, it's because you're incompetent, or your skills are outdated. You can only blame *YOURSELF* for that. You have no one else to blame. Is that why you turn to communism? Because you're too lazy to learn new skills that are in demand? Protections my ass. No one puts a gun to your head and says you must work here for X amount of dollars doing Y hours a week in Z conditions. It's a free market Mr. Commie. Like auctions, a thing's value is what people are willing to pay for it. Same for your skills. They're worth exactly what the market is willing to pay for it. Same for products and services, they're worth what people are willing to pay for them. Those that suck go the way of the dodo, those that succede make money. If a company mistreats you, you can always walk away, and you can always tell your friends exactly why it sucks and why they shouldn't work there. Hell, and I didn't even mention anything about lawsuits so far. Anyone who gets exploited by any entity does so because they allowed themselves to get that way. Oh, and please, don't give me a strawman about people getting mugged or raped at gunpoint. Were they allowed to carry in the first place, it wouldn't have been an issue. Sorry, but so far, you've not managed to give a single good arguement for communism or why capitalism is bad. It's moronic that you repeatedly spew the party line about how capitalism becomes communism in the long term, when there's no proof of that whatsoever in real life. If anything, quite the contrary, the breakup of Russia proves that communism will rot from the inside out because of capitalism. If anything the corruption inside its government points to bribes as a way of life. What are bribes if not a form capitalism deemed illegal?
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000 15:48:11 -0500, Sunder wrote: FYI: corporations don't own my ass. I'd say the reverse is true though. Ever hear of stock? When you buy it, you own a piece of their asses. Yeah, and you're Ted Turner? Don't equate yourself to the bourgeoisie. You only make me laugh at such foolishness. Capitalism doesn't dig its own grave. Capitalism provides a very important feedback mechanism. To succeede at it you have to do something right. You can't be lazy and rely on others to provide for you. Speculation is a form of laziness our capitalism has plenty of. But that's not the main flaw of capitalism. Capitalism digs its grave because ultimately it's exploitive to the workers. The government has had to protect workers from the corporations for the sake of corporations. But as the protections are removed... we'll see.
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh puhleeze. Research before you speak. I was born in a satelite of Red Russia. It was a commie state. I remember it all too well. Joe Sixpack might not give a shit about how much it sucks elsewhere. I do, I was there. Irrelevent. No one is arguing that existence under communist rule is a holiday -- or even better than existence in the U.S. The statement is simply that the average american knows dick about the conditions that exist in other nations, and as an aside, is oblivious to the conditions he himself lives in. Irrelevan my ass. I'm offended that you would assume such a thing about anyone. I won't let you escape this arguement by stating "But I said the Average American and you're not average." The average American isnt' knowledgeable about cyphers, or the NSA either for that matter. By talking on this list, you're not talking to the average American, so you can't take that exist hatch. It's irrelevant to this discussion that the Average American(tm) couldn't tell you in 5 seconds where Austra is if you gave him a globe. It's irrelevant to this discussion that the Average American(tm) couldn't tell you how much of his money went to taxes either, or how his car, phone, or computer work. Quite honestly, I know both commie theory and have experienced it on my own back. Remember, I lived in a commie state when I was a kid. I know exactly what the conditions are. Can you say the same? Unlike you, I haven't read Marx in the comfort of my own liberty. I didn't chose to read commie propaganda. It was forced upon me. Repeatedly. I didn't have the luxury of even learning about anything OTHER than communism at the time. Until I escaped the evil clutches of the communist regieme, I had no idea how any other place or how any other system was. I can honestly say that it was brainwashing at its best. No, I didn't believe a word of it because what was said and what was done were at odds with each other. I'm not a blind believer in faith. Just because I've read Marx doesn't mean I'll believe it. Just because I've read the bible, doesn't mean I'll believe it either any more than reading Lovecraft will get me to belive that gigantic intelligent squid and semi-plant/semi-animal elder ones live under the Artic caps either. Bullshit may be entertaining, but it's not reality. Not being able to tell them apart is a bad thing. Americans condemn Communism usually without even having read the Communist Manifesto; and if they HAVE read the Manifesto, they say something good and stupid like "sounds great on paper, but doesn't work in the real world." Americans condemn Communism without knowing shit about Marxist tenents, and without knowing (or even reading about) the realities of life under a Stalinist/Maoist rule. Just because the Average American condems or promotes something doesn't make them wrong either. Why is it do you think that they say "sounds great on paper, but doesn't work in the real world?" How do you know how much the Average American knows or doesn't know? How do you know that lack of firsthand experience or reading it makes them unknowledgeable morons or experts? You're assuming this, no? If not, where's your proof exactly? It is _precisely_ because of this ignorance that makes Anonymous' point so relevent. Look, the Average American will also tell you that getting a hot iron shoved up your ass isn't a good thing either, and I guarantee you that precisely less than 10 Americans have experienced getting a hot iron shoved up their ass. Does that make their point less valid? Do they need to know the medical theories behind why getting a hot iron shoved up your ass is bad for you? Do they need to experience it first hand to know it's bad? No matter how (insert adjective) X is, denouncing it before you know what X actually is, and is not, is rubbish at best .. insanity at worst. My above paragraph proves by counter exaple that your above point is bullshit. I'd take issue with that, in a round-about way. Uncle Sam steals your coin because there are a shit-load of Americans out there with less-than-dick for resources. Any as a side issue, I'll answer that with a question: "Why am I personally responsible for feeding and clothing them?" As a second aside, "why does the money Uncle Sam take from me not reach them?" If it did, we wouldn't have homeless motherfuckers on the streets. The answers to these questions point out just how bad communism/socialism is. To take from the worker as to feed the incompetent is socialism, which is half a step from communism. These unfortunate souls might have taken up, say, basket weaving as a hobby rather than computer programming (unlike the majority of people who are likely to read this list) and as such (since hand-made baskets aren't in particularly high demand these days) are doomed to taking shitbox minimum wage jobs, probably part-time with
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The statement is simply that the average american knows dick about the conditions
that exist in other nations..snip
Americans condemn Communism usually without even having read the Communist
Manifesto;
snip
Americans condemn Communism without knowing shit about Marxist tenents,
snip
It is _precisely_ because of this ignorance that makes Anonymous' point so
relevent.
For every American mouth-breather who calls all Democrats commie bastards, there is
another who laments 'American ignorance'. Both are trite. People the world over, as a
rule, know only what they need to know. For some reason it is more important for
the average German to know where Washington DC is than it is for the average American
to know where Berlin is. People are ignorant all over. Most Euros have warped and
manipulated perceptions of the US, ("it's all LA Law, and black gangs rampaging
through neighborhoods"). If one were to quantify ignorance, one would find that the
U.S. is far from having a corner on its market.
I'd take issue with that, in a round-about way. Uncle Sam steals your coin
because there are a shit-load of Americans out there with less-than-dick
for resources.
Uncle Sam, or any other regime, steals money because it can. Even if the reasons were
honest, (they are not), you accurately define what is going on. It's theft. Some of
us are unwilling to exploit the unfortunate to justify thievery.
Capitalism, with its emphasis on the profit margin can't always afford
to give the working poor a decent wage,
You really believe that, don't you? You've made it clear that you are familiar with
Marx (and, as a result, are also familiar with his idea of the objective nature of
value. Puh.) Have you read any of the Capitalist source texts? The idea isn't about
profit, per se, it's about economic self determination, and about the subjective
nature of value. (Hint: Adam Smith, von Mises, Hayek, Friedman)
therefore we need social programs to help the honest, working poor. And, our caring
Uncle Sammy takes our money to see that this is the case. Fine by me (I'd rather
live here and let Sam have some of my coin than live in say, that Red satellite you
were talking about).
Turn off the BBC long enough to think about the mire into which your logic is sinking
here...
The vast bulk of your beloved social programs have exacerbated poverty, stolen the
souls of the people who are stupid enough to dip their snouts into the trough, cost
the rest of us a great deal of money, and cultivated class warfare. Of course, class
warfare is very *profitable* for those who exploit it as a means to justify their
salaries. If every sanctimonious asshole who would steal my money for the sake of the
"less fortunate" would simply find one person, just one, and do something to improve
that persons life, the so called problem of poverty would be eliminated. But that's
too hard. Better to hire a group of mercenary terrorists to steal other peoples money
and then dole it out...
The name escapes me at the moment, but some Capitalist asshole/theorist
once said something along the lines of:
"The answer to our question (what do we do about the poor) is simple:
nothing. We need an impoverished working class to supply cheap labor to
our corporations. They must, after all, turn a profit."
Therefore Capitalism sucks and Americans are ignorant? Cut the words "cheap labor to
our corporations". Paste "fodder to the bloated government charity rackets" and you
will have an accurate description of the current situation.
With some consideration, it seems obvious to me that in any socio-economic
system that places such high importance on money snip
Here is a truth that you have failed to consider: Money is the measure of a persons
worth to society. It always has been. Complex systems of social and economic
engineering have attempted to deny this, and have killed 100 million people this
century alone in the process.
I don't know what socio-economic system would work best; but I DO know
that I will never like that which places shackles on the souls of men.
People get what they deserve. More often than not, they place the shackles upon
themselves.
Hail Sparta,
Xenophon
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
On Fri, 25 Feb 2000, Sunder wrote: Anonymous Sender wrote: It's amusing how the brainwashing shows its ugly face when the appropriate stimulus is applied. For most US subjects it is the "communism" thingie. Oh puhleeze. Research before you speak. I was born in a satelite of Red Russia. It was a commie state. I remember it all too well. Joe Sixpack might not give a shit about how much it sucks elsewhere. I do, I was there. Irrelevent. No one is arguing that existence under communist rule is a holiday -- or even better than existence in the U.S. The statement is simply that the average american knows dick about the conditions that exist in other nations, and as an aside, is oblivious to the conditions he himself lives in. Americans condemn Communism usually without even having read the Communist Manifesto; and if they HAVE read the Manifesto, they say something good and stupid like "sounds great on paper, but doesn't work in the real world." Americans condemn Communism without knowing shit about Marxist tenents, and without knowing (or even reading about) the realities of life under a Stalinist/Maoist rule. It is _precisely_ because of this ignorance that makes Anonymous' point so relevent. No matter how (insert adjective) X is, denouncing it before you know what X actually is, and is not, is rubbish at best .. insanity at worst. I'm not arguing that Uncle Sam gets a big chunk of what I own. The arguement is communism vs capitalism. In this regard, Uncle Sam is like communism. But it's certainly not the corporations that rape my money. I'd take issue with that, in a round-about way. Uncle Sam steals your coin because there are a shit-load of Americans out there with less-than-dick for resources. These unfortunate souls might have taken up, say, basket weaving as a hobby rather than computer programming (unlike the majority of people who are likely to read this list) and as such (since hand-made baskets aren't in particularly high demand these days) are doomed to taking shitbox minimum wage jobs, probably part-time with no benefits; since we all know that companies will work your ass 39 hours a week to keep you from getting benefits, while maximizing their efficiency. Capitalism, with its emphasis on the profit margin can't always afford to give the working poor a decent wage, therefore we need social programs to help the honest, working poor. And, our caring Uncle Sammy takes our money to see that this is the case. Fine by me (I'd rather live here and let Sam have some of my coin than live in say, that Red satellite you were talking about). The name escapes me at the moment, but some Capitalist asshole/theorist once said something along the lines of: "The answer to our question (what do we do about the poor) is simple: nothing. We need an impoverished working class to supply cheap labor to our corporations. They must, after all, turn a profit." With some consideration, it seems obvious to me that in any socio-economic system that places such high importance on money it is mere causality that pure economic entities, like corporations, will become powerful controlling forces; and that power and control shall be exerted upon their closest subjects: the laborers .. aka, the people. I don't know what socio-economic system would work best; but I DO know that I will never like that which places shackles on the souls of men. Michael J. Graffam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" "Who watches the watchmen?" - Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Sunder wrote: Irrelevan my ass. I'm offended that you would assume such a thing about anyone. I won't let you escape this arguement by stating "But I said the Average American and you're not average." The average American isnt' knowledgeable about cyphers, or the NSA either for that matter. By talking on this list, you're not talking to the average American, so you can't take that exist hatch. Agreed, the Average American is not represented on this list; and I would not try and justify my statement by taking that out -- rather my messages in this thread have never pointed toward individuals on this list in particular, but have always been about average Americans in general. It's irrelevant to this discussion that the Average American(tm) couldn't tell you in 5 seconds where Austra is if you gave him a globe. It is irrelevant only if we agree that we are talking not about the Average American, but about the particular sort of American that would frequent this list. If we are discussing the latter, then I retract any statements that I have made and redirect them toward the average american, as this was always my intent. Quite honestly, I know both commie theory and have experienced it on my own back. Remember, I lived in a commie state when I was a kid. I know exactly what the conditions are. Can you say the same? Nope. Best I can say is that I've done some research and talked with a number of former Chinese citizens who have lived under communist rule. Can't say I like what I've read, nor what I've heard from my friends. Unlike you, I haven't read Marx in the comfort of my own liberty. Unfortunate. Just because I've read Marx doesn't mean I'll believe it. Just because I've read the bible, doesn't mean I'll believe it either any more than reading Lovecraft will get me to belive that gigantic intelligent squid and semi-plant/semi-animal elder ones live under the Artic caps either. Bullshit may be entertaining, but it's not reality. Not being able to tell them apart is a bad thing. Agreed. I'd add that reading a medical journal, or news report doesn't make it real (and therefore deserving of belief) either; and that is my point. I think that the American media and government propaganda machine has shown itself to be unreliable and untrustworthy -- therefore when a collection of statements are made by those authorities, how do we discern that which is worthy of consideration? A bit of first hand experience would be most reliable. A trusted second party with first hand experience second-best. Independant research, etc. After thinking for oneself in such a manner for a time, one will notice what sort of stories are likely to have a spin put on them for some reason or another, and to be able to develop a base of intuition as to just what sort of spin that might be. You said you don't like believing things on blind faith. I agree.. I'm just saying that it seems to me that the Average American takes a lot on blind faith. Sometimes you get lucky "Thou shalt not murder" .. thats a good one. "Communism sucks" .. hey, another good one. But obviously it is not the best method in the world. world." Americans condemn Communism without knowing shit about Marxist tenents, and without knowing (or even reading about) the realities of life under a Stalinist/Maoist rule. Just because the Average American condems or promotes something doesn't make them wrong either. Yep. Why is it do you think that they say "sounds great on paper, but doesn't work in the real world?" How do you know how much the Average American knows or doesn't know? I'm from a working class family, and I live in a working class neighborhood. I talk with lots of average people every day. Most of my neighbors don't have any college, or maybe a two-year technical degree. None have a university education.. but their kids will. I talk with lots of these people every day. I'm friends with them. As has been my custom for several years, after work each day, I go to a bar and put away a pint or two of Guinness after work. While in that bar, sometimes we watch baseball on the TV. Other times we watch the news.. and this often causes me, and other patrons to get into discussions -- a lot of times those discussions are political. So, I am pretty well versed in the average guys opinions.. How do you know that lack of firsthand experience or reading it makes them unknowledgeable morons or experts? What I know is, that during my discussions with people when I ask them "why" the oft-repeated answer is "I saw it on the news." With, "I read it in the paper" being a distant second these days. The mainstream media (almost by definition of mainstream) is the only information source the average guy has. As such, his opinions are just as suspect to me as the statements in the mainstream media. A house built on sand ... On a list like this, I expect out-of-the-way information
Re: Re: why worry?
In South Vietnam, our client regime The US of A did _not_ have a "client regime" in S. Vietnam. You are a complete fucking imbecile. There were several "regimes" in S. Vietnam that served at the whim of the US State department. I think I've made my point. The one on top of your head? Dig deeper, young Jedi, you've only scratched the surface. Whereas you're still sitting there staring at the surface. It's easier (at least for me) to forgive people who *try* to delve beneath the surface and don't quite grasp what they've dug up than to forgive those who never look. Seaver and May are saying essentially the same thing--that individuals should be allowed to determine there own destinies. Harmon comes to this position by way (apparently) of a more "touchy feely" world view while May comes to it from the Techno/Philosophical position. Does it matter how you get there? We all pretty much want the same thing--the ability to live our own lives free from the interference of those who wish to control our lives and our output. They (Seaver and May) both detest the actions of the US government in many areas, they are just focusing on different flaws and violations in the same system. This isn't some hippy bullshit "Can't we just get along", but rather an attempt to point out that both "sides" are saying the same thing, just using different words. -- A quote from Petro's Archives: ** If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.--Ann Coulter
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
On Sat, 26 Feb 2000, Xenophon wrote: Bowing to the majority rule of democracy is not something we should have to do in a republic. 51% should not be able to successfully implement a campaign of theft. Of course, but far more than 51% of the American people in every state of the union, support the existence of social programs (they also support reform of the ones we have). In any democracy, there will always be a fringe element that needs to give in. If every sanctimonious asshole who would steal my money for the sake of the "less fortunate" would simply find one person, just one, and do something to improve that persons life, the so called problem of poverty would be eliminated. But that's too hard. Better to hire a group of mercenary terrorists to steal other peoples money and then dole it out... On behalf of everyone how has done volunteer work: go fuck yourself. You speak well for other people. Had your reading of the post been accurate, it would have led you to conclude that I advocate individual good works, being based as they are, on the idea of consent. What I condemn are people who, rather than doing the work themselves, hire thugs to steal my money to do it for them. Ok, so am I correct in saying that your condemnation for social programs is limited to goverment funded, sponsored programs? If so, do you condemn a standing military? Do you condemn the post office? Do you condemn paying politicians? All of these are paid for by your taxes, and all of them offer a service to the American people.. as do our government-run social programs. The only difference between any of these that I can see is that you and I personally reap the benefits of some of these institutions, and reap no personal benefit from the existence of social programs. People who advocate a welfare state don't really give a shit about the poor. They are more interested in feeling good about themselves. As such, it's never surprising to hear them reciting a litany of their good works... Yes yes, because if we really cared we'd let them starve. Caring is starvation. Freedom is slavery. War is peace. And I mentioned my former volunteer works to illustrate that I have a leg to stand on when speaking of the views about government programs from a volunteer's perspective. I would love to see organized, wide-spread social programs without government involvement. I really would, because I have first-hand experience that local typically church-run groups help people a lot more than government programs. I would like such groups to be interconnected, sharing information, resources, and funds, but each small enough to be able to know the people they are helping by name and face, not by a fucking file folder. I don't think there is a volunteer out there who would disagree. Unfortunately, that is difficult. To get interconnected and maintain that level of organization requires money; and they typically don't have it .. and that is, for better or worse, where the government comes it and fucks it all up. Occasional anomolies don't disprove my submission. A counter-example does well to illustrate that your submission is not global, nor as strong as you made it sound. I said "worth to society". Michael Jordan makes more than a schoolteacher because we place more value on the NBA than reading. A programmer makes more than a shoe shiner because we have deemed that work more important. Maybe I misunderstood you. I would submit that Jordan and programmers make more green because those _abilities_ are more rare than other _abilities_ such as being a good teacher, and shining shoes.. and as such, if we want to benefits those rare abilities give us, we have to pay top dollar for it. Hey.. its supply and demand. It is completely devoid of the individuals involved. If the ability to teach were as rare as a good jump shot, teachers would be making Jordan's salary because they could demand it. But, there are a lot of people who can teach, and a handful of them will be willing to work for just a little less than others. Who are you going to hire? Choice is clear to me.. you hire the one willing to work for less; thereby lessening the number of positions available, making the other teachers need to lower their rates.. and as this happens over and over, we approach a limiting value which is the average teacher salary. Money is simply how we express our desire for a _skill_ says nothing about the people involved. This, though, I would agree with.. years ago, I'm sure that the guy with the biggest muscles, and best ability to hunt was a real prime catch for the ladies. Now, I'm betting Captain Caveman is less desired, instead that banker in the 3 piece is looking nice. Yeah, human desires change as the human condition changes. This has nothing to do with money, as I see it.. other than that in our society money in some form, is needed for survival/ordinary existence.
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
At Thu, 24 Feb 2000 22:06:57 -0600, "Aaron" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:27:13 -0500, Sunder wrote: Aaron wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:58:25 -0500, Sunder wrote: PS: concluding that someone needs to die because their unorthodox ideas cause the theft of your property is the sign of an emotionally unbalanced person. Libertarians don't have the right to initiate force against me, fuckface. Oh you're absolutely right. Theives don't need to die, they need to die slowly and painfully. Especially the commie ones who proclaim, "I may steal from you with the full force of a government, buit you do not have the right to initiate force against me so as to protect your property." Bullshit, that commie "From each according to their abilities, (theft) to each according to their needs" Is initiation of force. Killing the robber at your door is defense. Typical commie bullshit speaking lies and twisting words. You're moronic. I've never done anything to threaten your property. ROTFLMAO! You're a commie, that's enough of a threat to everyone's property. How are you not a threat to my property or my earnings? You're a commie, as a commie, you want everyone to give up their property and share it with you. Stop smoking crack. I've never threatened your property in any way. Your bullshit doesn't have a leg to stand on. Commie is steal from the have's and give to the -don't want to work's- and the commie elite leaders. That is what communism is. Period. Theft with the iron fist of tyranny to support it. IMPORTANT NOTICE: If you are not using HushMail, this message could have been read easily by the many people who have access to your open personal email messages. Get your FREE, totally secure email address at http://www.hushmail.com.
Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: why worry?)
Aaron wrote: Blah, blah, blah, keep repeating your party line commie mantra. Otherwise, how else would you, yourself believe it. Obviously, if you didn't give a shit about my property, you wouldn't bother making such a big deal about it. You just go ahead and believe your bullshit all you like, just don't bother me with it if you don't want me to bring down your pie in the sky theories to reality. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your mantra, the party line just don't fly. Like they say, no matter how hard you try, you can't polish shit. So feel free to spew your bullshit, by all means, I believe in freedom of speech, but you can sure the fuck expect me to debunk your shit every time I see it. And if you had any points, you would have made them. You can't just spew out "because the corporations are going to own your ass" without a single bit of proof. No one will believe your shit regardless. If you have an arguement to make, back it up with reason. Otherwise, it's just party bullshit. FYI: corporations don't own my ass. I'd say the reverse is true though. Ever hear of stock? When you buy it, you own a piece of their asses. Capitalism doesn't dig its own grave. Capitalism provides a very important feedback mechanism. To succeede at it you have to do something right. You can't be lazy and rely on others to provide for you. You're responsible for yourself and family. Communism, is idiotic. The workers work so that the lazy may benefit. Communism? Nyet! Stop smoking crack. I've never threatened your property in any way. Your bullshit doesn't have a leg to stand on. I don't care about your money or your stuff. Then go start a commie commune and leave us cypherpunks alone. We like money and stuff. Please. You're just another petty-bourgeois wanna-be. I don't care about your money because the corporations are going to own your ass long before communists take control. Capitalism digs its own grave. But fortunately, communism is evolution's reply. -- Kaos Keraunos Kybernetos + ^ + Sunder "Only someone completely distrustful of /|\ \|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]all government would be opposed to what /\|/\ --*-- we are doing with surveillance cameras" \/|\/ /|\ You're on the air. -- NYC Police Commish H. Safir. \|/ + v + Say 'Hi' to Echelon "Privacy is an 'antisocial act'" - The FedZ. http://www.sunder.net --- I love the smell of Malathion in the morning, it smells like brain cancer.
Re: Re: Re: why worry?
On Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:58:25 -0500, Sunder wrote: PS: concluding that someone needs to die because their unorthodox ideas cause the theft of your property is the sign of an emotionally unbalanced person. Libertarians don't have the right to initiate force against me, fuckface. Oh you're absolutely right. Theives don't need to die, they need to die slowly and painfully. Especially the commie ones who proclaim, "I may steal from you with the full force of a government, buit you do not have the right to initiate force against me so as to protect your property." Yes, those commie fuckhead morons need to have their nuts roasted slowly over a lighter. You're moronic. I've never done anything to threaten your property. I don't care about your money or your stuff. You're just another thin-necked geek with a fat wallet and a soft dick. The only wealth I care about is capital used by the bourgeoisie for oppressing the workers. That's the only thing I care about destroying.
Re: Re: why worry?
At 02:19 AM 17/02/00 , Reese wrote: In South Vietnam, our client regime The US of A did _not_ have a "client regime" in S. Vietnam. Vietnam was split into N. and S. and the FRENCH were to look after S. Vietnam at the end of WWII - we had a similar setup in KOREA. Outside of some college radicals in the modern day, the South Koreans didn't and don't want to be annexed by the agressive North that seeks re-unification, just as the S. Vietnamese didn't particularly wish to be subjugated by the communists to their north. For whatever reason, we entered into Vietnam, the French withdrew, and we eventually withdrew also - mostly due to incompetent micromanagement directly from the whitehouse, and discontent fomented by college radicals in the US circa 1960s/early 70s. Such is the nature of Police Actions. Sorry, I guess they are called "Peacekeeping Actions" now - funny how they mean the same thing, but one doesn't carry a negative connotation. I don't think that this is the only 'interpretation' of the facts. The French withdrew, and the Americans did go in. However, the intent of the US Gov was to subvert the Geneva agreement of 1954, which allowed the Vietnamese some self-determination: to vote on unification -- thus a political agreement. By 1956, with US support, the GVN was installed in South Vietnam, and was thus considered (admittedly, by some) to be a 'client state' of the US. I'd say that since 1973, North Vietnam has done a better job of suppressing, repressing and subjugating S. Vietnam than anyone else, ever. But this flies in the face directly, your model of US Gov't as the ultimate evil that represses the third world. Do I really need to finish researching Suharto or the Chile / Pinochet connection? Nice construction of an argument. Even better 'research'. I quote a reporter for the Economist and London Times, "[The Diem regime] has crushed all opposition of every kind, however anti-Communist it might be. He has been able to do this, simply and solely because of the massive dollar aid he has had from across the Pacific, which kept in power a man who, by all the laws of human and political affairs, would long ago have fallen. Diem's main supporters are to be found in North America, not in Free Vietnam." In case you don't know your history, the Diem regime was installed by the US Government, and the above quotation was written in 1959. The war came, and left... with the Paris Agreement (which, you are correct, the White House) poorly managed)... and the resolution was that, ok, the US would essentially agree to the basic tenets of the Geneva Agreement of 1956. Twenty years later, and a country bombed to pieces, because the US couldn't accept the 'political settlement', and required Indochina to go through a military struggle. Even during the Paris Agreement, the US continued to send arms to South Vietnam, in contravention of the principles. But oh well, you may say, that doesn't prove that SV was a 'client state'. I think I've made my point. Nice try. Bonus points for effort. My knowledge of history may have gaps, but yours has errors, which in my opinion, is much, much worse. You didn't learn from the factual events of history, you were taught what to think about the bits and segments you were exposed to. Indoctrinated. By Liberals and Socialists, with an agenda. Be wary of making accusations that can be turned upon yourself. Read chapter five of Herman and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent in order to question your 'knowledge', i.e. where you received it from. I am not saying that they speak the gospel, rather, they at least ask the right questions. This whole thread on communism, socialism, libertarianism is tiring. Calling names, and espousing 'facts' is not going to help this situation at all. Admittedly, I like to consider myself a libertarian, but my context is within the society that I grew up in: I can't imagine the withering of the state followed by libertarian utopia, because institutions built up with the state (not necessarily _by_ the state, but perhaps through regulation) will not necessarily wither at the same time. So, I ask, if the state withers, will power then be decentralised, or will the old institutions, cartels, etc., merely assume the power that exists within the gaps? And then we would be stuck with the same situation we had before: old wine, new bottles. I would not say that companies/corps are 'evil', but they can assume the role if reserve power is made available, perhaps. I don't like the state, I don't like the 'corporate state'. What then? gus.
Re: Re: Re: why worry?
Aaron wrote: I keep telling you suckers that I'm a communist, not a socialist. Get a clue. Marx said they're the same thing. -FreeTotoMonger
Re: Re: Re: why worry?
At 11:47 AM 2/17/00 +, you wrote: At 02:19 AM 17/02/00 , Reese wrote: In South Vietnam, our client regime The US of A did _not_ have a "client regime" in S. Vietnam. Vietnam was split into N. and S. and the FRENCH were to look after S. Vietnam at the end of WWII - we had a similar setup in KOREA. Outside of some college radicals in the modern day, the South Koreans didn't and don't want to be annexed by the agressive North that seeks re-unification, just as the S. Vietnamese didn't particularly wish to be subjugated by the communists to their north. For whatever reason, we entered into Vietnam, the French withdrew, and we eventually withdrew also - mostly due to incompetent micromanagement directly from the whitehouse, and discontent fomented by college radicals in the US circa 1960s/early 70s. Such is the nature of Police Actions. Sorry, I guess they are called "Peacekeeping Actions" now - funny how they mean the same thing, but one doesn't carry a negative connotation. I don't think that this is the only 'interpretation' of the facts. The French withdrew, and the Americans did go in. However, the intent of the US Gov was to subvert the Geneva agreement of 1954, which allowed the Vietnamese some self-determination: to vote on unification -- thus a political agreement. By 1956, with US support, the GVN was installed in South Vietnam, and was thus considered (admittedly, by some) to be a 'client state' of the US. Yep, both the French-Indochina war and the Vietnam war were to a large degree a result of low presidential U.S. integrity. However, it really worse then your assertions. During WWII both France and the U.S. had an agreement with Ho that if his faction supported the Allies then the Vietnamese would be granted autonomy. The war was barely over when the French generals and their military-industrial complex went looking for new action (the French people were totally disinterested, preferring to party and rebuild their nation). The U.S. stood idly by and said little if anything publicly to dissuade France as we were now in a cold war and Ho was an avowed Communist. Within two years the French military, fighting to a bloody and embarrassing stalemate with Ho, pleaded with Truman for military assistance. Ignoring our country's agreements we sent in aid and immediately made a mortal enemy of Ho. The rest as they say is history --Steve
Re: why worry?
X-Loop: openpgp.net From: "Tim May" [EMAIL PROTECTED] You're quite right...that 35 cents an hour is exploiting them. :) Actually, that's a good salary even here (Romania, Eastern Europe), and we believe we're in the 2nd world... Mark
Re: why worry?
I am extremely cognizant on the similarities/differences of fascism communism. And the differences between Nazism and generic fascism. Adolph Hitler stated, for instance: "Those of you who think of National Socialism as a political movement know nothing about it. National Socialism is a new religion, and the SS are it's high priests." Fascism is the melding of evil governments and evil corporations. The US government today is clearly fascist. Tim, with his preference of fascist regimes over anything even smacking of social justice, coupled with his racism and anti-semeticism, is clearly a Nazi. My understanding of libertarianism is "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" -- at least that's how the Libertarian Party calls it. Supporting fascist regimes in Guatemala, for instance, for the profit of multinational corporations and against the poor is the antithesis of libertarianism. The peasantry of Latin America has been driven into the cities by the "anti-guerilla" actions of the local military (which wouldn't be possible without US support), have had their ancestral lands stolen by the large corporate agri-business, timber companies, etc., and turned into wage-slaves for corporate profit. We see the exact same pattern occurring in the US, and this pattern is escalating as our local industry moves their operations to the Third World, leaving US factory folk, who were making a living, sometimes a "good" living, scrambling; and US farmers being kicked off the farm in droves by the machinations of corporate agri-business and banks/Federal Reserve. They just have a bigger cliff to fall off of, but they'll soon be in the same boat as the peasants of Latin America. Tim thinks this outlook is communist? I think it has to do with basic justice and freedom -- and you ain't free if you can't make a decent, living wage -- not socialism. I hate government, and the more socialism you have, the more government you need to make it work, so that isn't the solution. The solution for Guatemala, as far as I'm concerned, is cutting off all US aid to the government, and supplying massive amounts of small arms and rocket launchers to the peasants, and let them sort it out. Has anyone heard Bruce Coburn's song "If I Had A Rocket Launcher" ? I can upload the mp3 file somewhere if anyone wants it. It's rather uplifting. 8-) "William H. Geiger III" wrote: You mean instead of staying on what you would like to be the Nazipunks list? If you had any grasp of history political science you would know there is no significant difference between communism fascism. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS Systems Librarian Arrowhead Library SystemVirginia, MN (218) 741-3840 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://harmon.arrowhead.lib.mn.us
Re: why worry?
At 10:52 AM 2/16/00 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote: The peasantry of Latin America has been driven into the cities by the "anti-guerilla" actions of the local military (which wouldn't be possible without US support), have had their ancestral lands stolen by the large corporate agri-business, timber companies, etc., and turned into wage-slaves for corporate profit. We see the exact same pattern occurring in the US, and this pattern is escalating as our local industry moves their operations to the Third World, leaving US factory folk, who were making a living, sometimes a "good" living, scrambling; and US farmers being kicked off the farm in droves by the machinations of corporate agri-business and banks/Federal Reserve. They just have a bigger cliff to fall off of, but they'll soon be in the same boat as the peasants of Latin America. Harmon, you might want to do some checking. The biggest migrations in the US now, are away from the cities, not into them. This tends to invalidate the model you present above. Also, being driven into the city |= moving to the city to find a better paying job. I'll let Tim respond to your other trolls, ;) Reese
Re: why worry?
Harmon Seaver writes: [snip] Fascism is the melding of evil governments and evil corporations. The US government today is clearly fascist. Tim, with his preference of fascist regimes over anything even smacking of social justice, coupled with his racism and anti-semeticism, is clearly a Nazi. Tim has never (that I've seen) expressed any preference for fascist or Nazi regimes. In every case, he has instead called for the abolition of governments (and most particularly our current government). OTOH, your message with its whining about how US multinational corporations are enslaving workers in banana republics clearly implied a call for government to fix the problem. By his commiepunk comment, Tim basically just labeled that position as socialist. I'm not sure that follows directly, but in the context of your other comments on this list which constantly seem to be calling for government fixes for what you believe to be social injustices, I'd say Tim's right on target. My understanding of libertarianism is "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" -- at least that's how the Libertarian Party calls it. Not sure where you saw that. I rather doubt you actually got such a simplistic view from the LP. It would be more accurate to say that libertarians are "fiscally non-confiscatory and socially agnostic". Libertarians do not believe in mandatory taxation. And they don't believe in regulating peaceful voluntary social interactions at all. Supporting fascist regimes in Guatemala, for instance, for the profit of multinational corporations and against the poor is the antithesis of libertarianism. Yes, and neither Tim nor the LP are in favor of supporting fascist regimes in Guatemala, or any other fascist regimes, or even any other regimes at all. The peasantry of Latin America has been driven into the cities by the "anti-guerilla" actions of the local military (which wouldn't be possible without US support), have had their ancestral lands stolen by the large corporate agri-business, timber companies, etc., and turned into wage-slaves for corporate profit. This is not and should not be a problem for our government. We see the exact same pattern occurring in the US, and this pattern is escalating as our local industry moves their operations to the Third World, leaving US factory folk, who were making a living, sometimes a "good" living, scrambling; and US farmers being kicked off the farm in droves by the machinations of corporate agri-business and banks/Federal Reserve. They just have a bigger cliff to fall off of, but they'll soon be in the same boat as the peasants of Latin America. The LP (and -- from what I've read over the years -- Tim) favor no taxes and indeed no laws that do not have to do with prohibiting one person from causing specific harm to another. So if libertarianism as envisioned by the LP were actually in effect, the fate of farmers here and elsewhere would be in their own hands. Don't want to be under the thumb of banks and "agri-business"? Simple. Then don't borrow money from them. Don't buy through them. Don't sell through them. They'll have no power over you. Problem solved. Tim thinks this outlook is communist? I think it has to do with basic justice and freedom -- and you ain't free if you can't make a decent, living wage -- not socialism. This statement is typical "socialist" foolishness. If you "can't make a decent, living wage" this makes you un-free? And so, presumably you would remedy this by having the government or other groups of "men with guns" steal money from those who ARE able to make a "decent living wage" and give it to those who can't or wont? And somehow robbing one person at gunpoint to give to another person makes both of them "free"? (Let's not even visit your use of the word "justice" here.) Though it may be somewhat different than the original dictionary definition, your position is a clear example of what has come to be known as socialism. I hate government, and the more socialism you have, the more government you need to make it work, so that isn't the solution. The solution for Guatemala, as far as I'm concerned, is cutting off all US aid to the government, I'm 100% sure Tim and the LP won't disagree with this but... and supplying massive amounts of small arms and rocket launchers to the peasants, and let them sort it out. ...let the peasants also buy their own damn arms. If you "hate government" as you claim, who is it that you think ought to be sending "small arms and rocket launchers to the peasants". If you really believed the peasants ought to have them and if you really hated government, you would be donating your own money and/or arms to the peasants. You're clearly just another closet-socialist liar. You don't hate government; you just hate some of the
Re: why worry?
Has anyone heard Bruce Coburn's song "If I Had A Rocket Launcher" ? I can upload the mp3 file somewhere if anyone wants it. It's rather uplifting. 8-) If you're in a giving mood why not join the community at Napster.com where thousands of music buffs are sharing their MP3 libraries with one another (over 1000 MB is regularly accessible). Let us know when its up. --Steve
Re: why worry?
Anonymous remailer wrote: OTOH, your message with its whining about how US multinational corporations are enslaving workers in banana republics clearly implied a call for government to fix the problem. I think you need to learn how to read, oh dyslexic one. What is causing the problem is what US gov is doing with it's money at present -- propping up fascist regimes in the 3rdworld. What I said was that they should stop doing that -- or, if they had to do something, then giving those guns to joe citizen would be a better plan. By his commiepunk comment, Tim basically just labeled that position as socialist. I'm not sure that follows directly, but in the context of your other comments on this list which constantly seem to be calling for government fixes for what you believe to be social injustices, I'd say Tim's right on target. You most definitely are confusing me with someone else, but that's not surprising since you clearly can't read well. "Constantly"??? I hardly ever post, for one thing. Perhaps you could help my failing memory by enumerating these "constant" calls for government fixes. My understanding of libertarianism is "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" -- at least that's how the Libertarian Party calls it. Not sure where you saw that. I rather doubt you actually got such a simplistic view from the LP. I'm sure it was, straight from the party mailings. You might recall their neat little "test card" and whatnot? OTOH, I heard the comment on a radio show the other night that libertarians were just republicans who didn't believe in god, which may well be the case for most. It would be more accurate to say that libertarians are "fiscally non-confiscatory and socially agnostic". Libertarians do not believe in mandatory taxation. And they don't believe in regulating peaceful voluntary social interactions at all. snip The peasantry of Latin America has been driven into the cities by the "anti-guerilla" actions of the local military (which wouldn't be possible without US support), have had their ancestral lands stolen by the large corporate agri-business, timber companies, etc., and turned into wage-slaves for corporate profit. This is not and should not be a problem for our government. Once again, you prove your inability to read -- "our" -- yours, not mine -- government causes the problem, in fact, institgated the whole fucking thing from the getgo, and without US money it would never have occured. snip uns" steal money from those who ARE able to make a "decent living wage" and give it to those who can't or wont? And somehow robbing one person at gunpoint to give to another person makes both of them "free"? (Let's not even visit your use of the word "justice" here.) Steal? Rob? Once again, purely dyslexic thought process. How does being armed, even well-armed, translate into becoming an armed robber? Gasp! Have we uncovered a closet gun-grabber here? Have you ever considered that joe citizen in some countries might -- if armed -- then be empowered to do simple labor organization? Labor? Gasp! No doubt you consider voluntary labor unions and community organizations to be commies, right? and supplying massive amounts of small arms and rocket launchers to the peasants, and let them sort it out. ...let the peasants also buy their own damn arms. Again, back to the orginal premise -- who is the US gov supplying arms to right now? And has been for the last 50 years, at least. Seems to me they ought to stop -- or, at least even the odds. Gee -- so I'm a commie, huh? Hmm -- I guess I never knew that before. How enlightening - maybe I should go get in touch with my inner commie and see what it's all about. Actually I do want to be a komi, but that's a bit different. God -- what a fucking pack of morons. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS Systems Librarian Arrowhead Library SystemVirginia, MN (218) 741-3840 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://harmon.arrowhead.lib.mn.us
Re: Re: why worry?
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 02/16/00 at 05:37 PM, "Aaron" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Libertarians think socialists are taking over the world, but they'll wake up to a world owned totally by corporations. I still can't figure out what's libertarian about that. It is very simple, libertarians don't care *who* owns what. If the small farmer can't compete in the open market, the so be it. I woun't shed one more tear than I would over the demise of the buggy whip industry. What signifies you as a socialist is that you see no problem with having the government *steal* my property to "fix" whatever problem is bothering you at the time. Not only is this morally bankrupt but is an act of cowardice. The socialist is too gutless to steal the property himself but does so by proxy using government forces. You do not have a right to my property regardless how worthy noble you think the cause is. If your cause is educating the unwashed masses, or midnight basketball for the inner city youths, or saving the family farms, the pull out your check book and write a check. In the world as I perceive it, socialists control very little; corporations control most. Perhaps if you got out of that university and became a productive member of society you would perceive the world a little different. :) -- --- William H. Geiger IIIhttp://www.openpgp.net Geiger Consulting Data Security Cryptology Consulting Programming, Networking, Analysis PGP for OS/2: http://www.openpgp.net/pgp.html --- Fight Censorship! Stop the MPAA! http://www.openpgp.net/censorship.html -BEGIN PGP MESSAGE, PART 24/36- B4imeAWa5UQifWNllgcuYIIvKiM5xrLgIkgRXibpc/kKPv9xohTKZRhIhJdZrIu7 io6w2Kfzc0XTlISvMCZqfhKN0vBgifAyzRDfpFEkT6IRh+7aSukzIbnaXJ4ohVr4 njfY2Ei6ozrmjYEfprrpdfPLPundhKR83lckVeCzUGHv1uer3/+TQGp8IA2+zHSL c2zHc5wJJ8IxnkH7f/EEcds0Suf8PO8+b+/0zV6y3KR8NlfvN07dHMMcdqA79kbj p8n957tpp4wsNsG2aYAn9r/iMNnrflu5eF9a35HxsoVfQm/sT69rmHbycH9dq7Z/ y83cCQ6XUpUj6YIfnjgLwoVxjIQNCOf4hs/OyNqYZ31EITaMA5uHmWP5HCUhfIQL 3em3u2T9fPGi9yM9hBP8PqnbvQaMgkl/NBw8wT+4HI6GN4NR74uXcyH+CtrlCbwS 5BtOKZUYIsDrtF9MUK9Jr2nrNuRF7y4y77IvCnwKHftvO1pNyCk9mgy1s//N/RdQ SwMEFAACAAgAGZlJKJrfhsMdAQAAzgIAAAgAEQBNYWtlZmlsZVVUDQAHog+iOAIT ojiiD6I4bVLBToQwED0zyf7DHDiACXDHmLhRNBtFjTcTE9Nti6DdJaGV77ddO3bL =cULw -END PGP MESSAGE, PART 24/36-
Re: Re: why worry?
At 4:25 PM -0800 2/16/00, William H. Geiger III wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], on 02/16/00
at 05:37 PM, "Aaron" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Libertarians think socialists are taking over the world, but they'll wake
up to a world owned totally by corporations. I still can't figure out
what's libertarian about that.
It is very simple, libertarians don't care *who* owns what. If the small
farmer can't compete in the open market, the so be it. I woun't shed one
more tear than I would over the demise of the buggy whip industry.
I live in the richest agricultural region in the country (*). No other area
is more productive. (* The Salinas Valley, made famous by John Steinbeck.
And the Pajaro Valley, my particular local region. Apples, artichokes,
strawberries, garlic, and every high value crop imaginable. Fertile soil,
from the glacial winds, adequate water, plentiful sunshine.)
So, is it all "corporate farms"?
Nope. A mix of family farms, small corporation farms, and even a few very
large corporations (Dole, Libby, etc.). Corporations sometimes buy, but
often would prefer to distance themselves, to buy from suppliers.
Aaron and Harmon and the other simp-wimps seem to be mighty inclined to
letting government steal property to do what they think is "good."
Such people, who steal my property, need killing. Millions in America need
killing.
--Tim May
print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0J]dsJxp"|dc`
-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: Re: why worry?
Tim May wrote: Millions in America need killing. This is taken out of the property is theft context, still it rings true as if eternal oracle. Some want more customers, some want fewer social leeches, some want more slaves for their life style, some want fewer vote thieves and more dead elected officials, some even swear more is less, but that it's impossible to have too much sex except with lawful partners for whom quickly filled bean jars cannot be emptied except with the assistance of uncountable covert liaisons, a few unpaid but most heavily paid for in courts of deadbeat law and nattering head shows frantically aiming to direct attention away from present bedmates around the table. Killing all the people who deserve it is an agenda perfectly in synchrony with the march of progress and civilization in which the means of doing that is number one in dreamworks, assuming that all the supreme beings don't hear themselves whimpering each alone in space and time, stare at infinity for sec, then say to nobody, "ah, what the fuck, this is pointless," then maxiplonk to end it all.
Re: why worry?
At 10:24 PM 2/16/00 -0500, Tim May wrote: At 6:40 PM -0800 2/16/00, Reese wrote: Have you seen the source, for this proggie? I haven't, and I don't trust What the fuck is a "proggie"? Something that runs on a "puter"? My bad. Lates, --Tim May, who is not suprised to learn that "Reese" is a fucking GenX illiterate *LOL* --Reese, who is not suprised to learn that "Tim May" is still an English Teacher on ster...netroids,,, *grin*
Re: Re: why worry?
At 09:44 PM 2/13/00 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote: Megacorp are every bit as evil as governments are. The destruction of the state and multinational corps go hand-in-hand. In fact, they probably are even more evil -- and certainly more efficient in their evil. Governments derive all their revenue by threatening to kill people. Corporations only derive a small part of their revenue from other institutions (governments) that derive their revenue by threatening to kill people. No contest. DCF
Re: Re: why worry?
At 10:20 AM -0800 2/15/00, Duncan Frissell wrote:
At 09:44 PM 2/13/00 -0500, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Megacorp are every bit as evil as governments are. The destruction
of the state and multinational corps go hand-in-hand. In fact, they
probably are even more evil -- and certainly more efficient in their evil.
Governments derive all their revenue by threatening to kill
people. Corporations only derive a small part of their revenue from other
institutions (governments) that derive their revenue by threatening to kill
people. No contest.
This whole "megacorps" meme is getting tiresome. (It was tiresome in the
1960s, and earlier. It's even more tiresome today.)
Consider that Cisco is just about to become the largest industrial
corporation in the world, based on market value. It didn't exist until
about 15 years ago. So much for the power of "megacorps."
--Tim May
print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0J]dsJxp"|dc`
-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: Re: why worry?
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:20:40 -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote: Governments derive all their revenue by threatening to kill people. Corporations only derive a small part of their revenue from other institutions (governments) that derive their revenue by threatening to kill people. No contest. 1. Adam Smith said some negative things about corporations. He claimed they would rob the working men of their independence. Hmm... does that prediction stand the test of time? 2. Corporations don't have to kill people for profit... that's the government's job. Doesn't the government wage wars and oppress the third world to create a "favorable" climate for US investment? I
Re: why worry?
Shit -- that's not the half of it. US corps (okay, multinationals) essentially enslave workers in places like Guatemala, Saipan, etc. The factory sites look exactly like concentration camps. Try any subversive organization and you're dead meat. You work for 35 cents an hour and love it. Even tho that isn't enough to feed yourself on, let alone your family. Aaron Evans wrote: On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:20:40 -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote: Governments derive all their revenue by threatening to kill people. Corporations only derive a small part of their revenue from other institutions (governments) that derive their revenue by threatening to kill people. No contest. 1. Adam Smith said some negative things about corporations. He claimed they would rob the working men of their independence. Hmm... does that prediction stand the test of time? 2. Corporations don't have to kill people for profit... that's the government's job. Doesn't the government wage wars and oppress the third world to create a "favorable" climate for US investment? I -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS Systems Librarian Arrowhead Library SystemVirginia, MN (218) 741-3840 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://harmon.arrowhead.lib.mn.us
Re: why worry?
At 2:12 PM -0800 2/15/00, Harmon Seaver wrote:
Shit -- that's not the half of it. US corps (okay, multinationals)
essentially enslave workers in places like
Guatemala, Saipan, etc. The factory sites look exactly like concentration
camps. Try any subversive organization and you're
dead meat. You work for 35 cents an hour and love it. Even tho that isn't
enough to feed yourself on, let alone your family.
You're quite right...that 35 cents an hour is exploiting them.
U.S. companies should stop this exploitation and thus let them take those
higher-paying local employer jobs.
And if there are no local higher-paying employers, their starvation and the
starvation of their children will decrease the surplus population.
On another matter, Harmon, are you sure you wouldn't be happier over on
Commiepunks?
--Tim May
print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0J]dsJxp"|dc`
-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
Re: Re: why worry?
On Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:26:25 -0800, Tim May wrote: You're quite right...that 35 cents an hour is exploiting them. U.S. companies should stop this exploitation and thus let them take those higher-paying local employer jobs. And if there are no local higher-paying employers, their starvation and the starvation of their children will decrease the surplus population. On another matter, Harmon, are you sure you wouldn't be happier over on Commiepunks? Don't be insolent. Everyone knows that the US government represses growth in the third world in order to have a source of cheap labor and natural resources. This relationship has been going on between the industrial world and the non-industrial world for hundreds of years, so it's amazing that some clueless wonder like you doesn't realize it by now. Are you even paying attention?
Re: why worry?
You mean instead of staying on what you would like to be the Nazipunks list? On another matter, Harmon, are you sure you wouldn't be happier over on Commiepunks? --Tim May
Re: Commiepunks: Re: why worry?
At 06:03 PM 02/15/2000 -1000, Reese wrote: At 08:03 PM 2/15/00 -0800, Aaron Evans wrote: Don't be insolent. Everyone knows that the US government represses growth in the third world in order to have a Precisely what steps has the US gov't taken to actively repress all the worlds "third world" countries? Be specific please,,, and give me a breakdown of at least two such nations with specific actions taken which serve only to repress them,,, First of all, according to Libertarian ideology, governments are bad for economic growth, so anything that encourages bigger governments is bad, and anything that encourages governments that would otherwise be taken out by Darwin is bad (e.g. revolutions, voting out, collapse, though outside aggression may not count.) In this case, Libertarian ideology probably sides with the liberals, though of course not with Real Commies :-) Very few things are done for single motives - there's usually a mixture of agendas. For instance, the US embargo on Cuba for the past ~40 years has been partly to weaken Castro, and partly to punish Cuba for letting the Russians put missiles there, and partly to keep Miami Cubans voting Republican, but it's basically designed to interfere with Cuba's economy - it hurts Castro's power and destabilizes him, but it also keeps Cuban sugar and tobacco out of the US market. If the US seriously wanted to take down Castro's regime, they could open the borders and let the rest of the Cubans move to Miami the way the East Germans moved out and collapsed their regime. Is the blockade partly because nobody wants to be the first Congresscritter to declare anti-Communism obsolete? Sure. But it's an economic attack. Why is the US (er, excuse me, UN) still blockading Iraq? It's not to topple Saddam Hussein - that'd be easy if they wanted to, whether by assassinating him or helping one of his competitors to. It's not to bring democracy to Iraq, or prevent another invasion. It's to cripple their economy - largely to let everybody know that the New World Order is still in charge and you'd better not cross them. It was also nice for Bush's friends in the oil business. The US government has propped up right-wing dictators around the world since at least WW2, and has been intervening in Central America longer. Was it FDR or Truman who said the elder Somoza "might be a son of a bitch, but he's *our* son of a bitch"? Not only were the Somozas brutal dictators and kleptocrats by themselves, but supporting them meant that when Nicaragua finally got rid of them, it was a decade of civil war led by a bunch of Socialists who fixed their war-torn economy in typical Commie fashion, i.e. blatant incompetence mixed with greed and stupidity. The US intervention in Guatemala in 1954 was primarily to protect United Fruit from the somewhat liberal government (they weren't vaguely close to Communist, but taking massive quantities of land that were given by a previous government to one of its friends and giving it to their own voters is close enough for Anti-Communist work.) The US support for the various juntas and dictators in Guatemala during the repression of the 70s, 80s, and 90s hasn't been to protect United Fruit - they got eaten by corporate mergers in the late 70s :-) Marcos in the Philippines and Suharto in Indonesia were supported largely due to their anti-Communism, but the US certainly helped them maintain their corrupt regimes, and US industry did get cheap labor there - and US industries who benefited from that helped keep the political climate supporting them. The current excuse for intervention in Latin America is the Drug War; it's certainly used to keep local militaries well-armed and fighting their various guerilla narcoterrorista enemies. I'd say the primary motivation there is supporting the militaries, and the US military, and the US arms dealers, rather than the oppression itself. Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639
Re: why worry?
Mark wrote: I don't like gov't databases - they're mandatory. I have nothing against private databases - I can always "go around" those. government is is more and more beholden to corporate power and the trend will continue. before long, this distinction that you rely on between gov't and private will no longer protect you. read Database Nation... u may not be abe to "go around" so easily. and why should citizens have to become hackers just to keep their private data out of corporate databases? --Allan
Re: why worry?
Mark wrote: I don't like gov't databases - they're mandatory. I have nothing against private databases - I can always "go around" those. Megacorp are every bit as evil as governments are. The destruction of the state and multinational corps go hand-in-hand. In fact, they probably are even more evil -- and certainly more efficient in their evil.
