D E N I A L
Rant


8.3.97 A capitalist democracy. 15.3.97 Capitalist regulations. From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Regulations Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 16:02:11 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Terry McIntyre wrote: > which is that the State - and State - does _not_ serve people who > lack gelt. It is, in fact, their worst enemy. Recheck your logic circuits. The Almighty State does not serve the people ONLY if the people can't control it. The reason not even 51% of the people control it is simple. Mass media. If the only things you ever hear is one rich guy arguing with another rich guy about abortion or a budget, who the fuck cares? Why go vote? There's no real freedom of expression in this country. If you can control the two "extremes" of the debate, then you have controlled the debate. ------- Freedom of speech for the poor, freedom to be heard for the rich.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Regulations Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 15:33:29 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bill Koehler wrote: > I can protect myself. Why should the intelligent > submit to the will of the admittedly incompetent? > Capitalist's do not pass regulations because once > they stoop to that the become fascists. Capitalist education has made you incompetent. What are "property rights" but capitalist regulations? Regulations that prevent anyone from having access to conquered land, without giving the "owner" a cut of everything produced? What are patent laws but capitalist regulations?
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Regulations Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 15:11:25 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bill Koehler wrote: > > Fiscal conservative idiots blame all legislation for all > > problems. They're too stupid to take the time and figure > > out exactly which ones help and which ones hurt. Either > > that, or they expect that by taking what's left of out > > democracy out of business, they will have free reign over > > their employees. > All regulations add to costs, which must ultimately be > paid by the consumer. Get a brain. Consumers pass regulations to protect themselves. Capitalists pass regulations to protect themselves. Employees pass regulations to protect themselves. Now the question is, which of these 3 has more control over government? In a capitalist "democracy", it's whoever can fork over the most money for campaign contributions, lobbyists, book deals, and "honoraria".
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Greedy consumers, was Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 19:17:18 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > Have you ever shopped around for a lower price, or bought something > because it was on sale, or waited for something to go on sale, or > bought a cheaper but more-or-less equivalent brand of a product? > Then you are _intentionally_ reducing the business owner's profit, > Don't you feel guilty about the pain your greed causes? Why don't > you just pay the higher price and get on with life, instead of > hurting all those innocent people? What innocent people? There are practically NO innocent people. If because you were hired, that someone else could not find a job, then you have denied him all the wealth he could have produced if he had your job. If you fence off resources and hired armed guards to keep out "trespassers," just so you can take a bigger cut from those who work for you, then you have denied someone the wealth they produced. If you ride in with the calvary and declare this land is now the property of the State of Texas, then you have denied someone their right to that land. And BECAUSE there are no innocent people, welfare is necessary.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Capitalism is competition. Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 16:39:34 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bill Koehler wrote: > > It is by engaging in interpersonal competition that murders > > are committed, that wars are started. Capitalists completely > > forget the entire point of civilization: that cooperation > > better enables each member of that society to compete against > > the problems of NATURE. Capitalism holds back evolution by > > hiding knowledge jealously, for fear of competition. > you state competition leads to murders and war. (You > must be referring to the drug war.) Then you state > that capitalism fears competition. Nothing like being > on both sides of the fence. Yes, including the drug war. And yes, capitalism fears competition, because competition fears competition. Why do fiscal conservatives insist on better educations for rich kids, if not for fear of unemployment? Why do capitalists continue to seek out the most empty and useless markets, if not to avoid competition? Why do capitalists have to hide "trade secrets" jealously, if not for fear of competition? The problem with capitalism is competition itself -- someone has to lose, better you than me -- so what happens is that you both lose, just one less than the other.
5.3.97 Disruption to their business. 20.5.97 Serious orderly mass communication. 22.5.97 Anything at all belongs to you. 26.5.97 Take your VCR. From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.philosophy.objectivism,sci.econ,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Capitalism Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 14:27:01 -0700 Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ) Curt Howland wrote: > "By liberty, I understand the power which every man has > over his own actions, and his right to enjoy the fruit of > his labor, art, and industry, as far as by it he hurts not > the society, or any member of it, by taking from any > member, or by hindering him from enjoying what he himself > enjoys. The fruits of a man's honest industry are the > just rewards of it, ascertained to him by natural and > eternal equity, as is his title to use them in a manner > which he thinks fit: And thus, with the above > limitations, every man is sole lord and arbiter of his own > private actions and property - a character of which no man > living can divest him but by usurpation, or his own > consent. -JOHN TRENCHARD, Cato's Letters No. 62 (1721 > January 20) So here is the common thread: capitalists want the unemployed to work, communists want the rich to work. Imagine if we divided the population into 365 groups based on occupation. How many of those groups are actually needed to keep everyone alive? 7? 14? That's what, one week, two weeks of work per year? No one should be required to work more than that. And as technology improves, that number CAN and SHOULD decrease. Even if job rotation creates an added 50% inefficiency, that's still only 3 weeks a year. What do they do the rest of the year? Then you have to understand human motivation. People can and will continue to work a job if there's enough praise that goes along with it. Will the praise be sincere? If the job is actually useful, it will be. Of course, even hatred is a form of praise if it indicates fear. But praise alone is not enough if it doesn't include the exact steps needed to obtain it. Thus many people would sooner knock off a liquor store or kill themselves than go out and TRY to find a job.
From: "H. Stowe" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.philosophy.objectivism,sci.econ,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Capitalism Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 18:00:40 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Matthew White wrote: > > And who's to say robbery is immoral, > I do. And if I steal your car, take your VCR sell your fridge you would > too fool! Ah, but if theft WERE legal, but personal violence NOT legal, then there would be a mass spree of theft and reciprocal theft, until everyone suddenly rediscovers the value of lending and working together. Not bloody likely with Pavlov's dogs like you around. ------- The fear of rain was created by umbrella makers.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.philosophy.objectivism,sci.econ,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Capitalism Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 13:41:48 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. LQuest wrote: > "Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to > vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the > right of government to seize the property of some men for > the unearned benefit of others > --Ayn Rand, > "The Question of Scholarships" - THE VOICE OF REASON The voice of Pavlov's dog is more like it. Who's to say that chair on your lawn belongs to you? Who's to say that lawn belongs to you? Who's to say anything at all belongs to you other than your own body? "Property" can be defined in only one of two ways: communication or violence. In a violent society, those who control the military control property. In a brainwashed society, those that control communication control property. ------- Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. - C. Salzenberg
From: "W. Hearst" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.philosophy.objectivism,sci.econ,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: Capitalism Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 16:33:58 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Giovanni 8 wrote: > Another interesting aspect is your allegation that capitalists > do not look at "structural, big-picture issues". We see the > left as not looking at ethical or structural, big-picture issues. > They seen short-sighted, aimed at the quick fix of the dole and > holding people down, rather than the long-term aim of wealth for > everyone through their own efforts. It is quick to overlook the > immorality of robbery and extortion in its haste to "do good" > with other people's money. And who's to say robbery is immoral, especially if without threat of bodily violence? The media does, communication does. Without communication, there would be no laws. You want big picture? HERE is big picture. Real initiation of force is when a security guard drags you out of a TV studio or newsanchor soundset for trespassing or disturbing the peace. So what happens if there IS NO initiation of force? Chaos on all the "serious" newscasts of course. As it should be. With the rise of "serious" "orderly" mass communication came the dawn of warfare. --------- NAPOLEON: What shall we do with this soldier, Guiseppe? Everything he says is wrong. GUISEPPE: Make him a general, Excellency, and then everything he says will be right.
From: Mokmeister gone@bit.ey Newsgroups: alt.society.anarchy,alt.anarchism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform Subject: Re: Capitalism Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 13:57:28 +0000 Organization: Ericsson Karl Marx wrote: I think > a simple agrarian lifestyle is perhaps the best one. Don't mistake me, > I am an anarchist at heart. I don't believe any individual should have > authority over another. But it is not government which is responsible > for the oppression of individuals, but rather, it is this oppression > which makes government possible. That is, I am saying, government is a > symptom, or a tool, not a cause. For in addition to their being no > government during that period of history, there was, more importantly, > also no class structure, the defining characteristic of modern society. > No person owned substantially more wealth than any other. It is the > unfair distribution of wealth that presently exists which allows those > in power to exploit the powerless, for the powerless have no alternative > but to starve. Government is in some ways like an arena where the > forces of society play themselves out; in our modern government, the > common man has been able to eak out some victories, in the form of > labour and other laws, that have protected him from the most overt > exploitations. Would anyone agree with me that government is basically run by big business, and that these labour laws etc. were only created so that government could pacify and control a large enough percentage of the population so that big business could continue to profit off of the masses of workers without too much disruption to their business. Government does not care about us or the enviroment, they are only concerned with maintaining control over their populace so that big business can continue to exploit those apathetic enough to continue to work for someone else's profit.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Difference between a 'liberal' and a 'libertarian' Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 19:05:15 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Chris Byler wrote: > >Libertarians are liberals who are too rich to admit that > >capitalism steals from the poor and gives to the rich by > >exploiting the desire to eat and keep warm. You might say > >the intersection of liberals and libertarians is the a bit > >like the ACLU... > What exactly does capitalism 'steal' from the poor? They don't have > anything to begin with, or they wouldn't be poor! Land, resources, and raw materials weren't always owned. They became owned the day an army rode in with superior weapons and declared the land belonged to them. What has happened from that day on is that the stolen land has been given, sold, and resold. What continues to happen is that capitalists hire armed goons to defend their so-called "property rights", just so they can continue to deny the poor access to resources, unless the poor submit to handing over a portion of everything they produce.
3.3.97 Jesus with share-holder. 5.3.97 17:06 United against another company. 5.3.97 17:12 Deserves to be oppressed. From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.british,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.datahighway,alt.politics.ec,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.europe.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.org.un,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: The Jewish Basis of Capitalism Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 17:46:59 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Communist wrote: > Marx was a genius. He was an honest Jew who had the bravery to > criticize his own people's capitalist practices. You can't hope to debunk > capitalism while being ignorant of the Jewish authors of capitalism. It's obvious that either you are a fiscal rightist hoping to drive some division into "Marxists", or a social leftist afraid that fiscal leftism will threaten civil liberties. Nevertheless, it's important to play along because it is important to note that no set of values is infallible. Not Marx, not Moses, not Jesus, not Jefferson, not Rand, and not Hitler. What is important is the ability to pick out for yourself what part of any theology is right and what is wrong. What is even more important is freedom of expression, that introduces and spreads new ideas (as opposed to capitalist expression that only spreads the "ideas" of the rich). And in addition: the ability to admit you're wrong. History's greatest mistakes are started by leaders who have "been right so far" and are perpetuated by leaders who refuse to admit their errors for fear it will damage their credibility. ...so they go merrily on, being wrong for the rest of their lives.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.british,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.datahighway,alt.politics.ec,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.europe.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.org.un,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: The Jewish Basis of Capitalism Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 17:12:30 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Communist wrote: > I find this argument pathetic, self-serving, and ridiculous. Why do > Jews deny their obvious love of money and even try to blame others for > it? Everyone knows Jews love money. That Jews go to the length of > blaming others for their own natural greed is the best confirmation > possible of their natural, capitalist greed. Pshaw, right, as if. You really do think you can discredit communism by blaming it for racism don't you? It's quite obvious you are a member of the ruling class trying to stir up division among the masses, so that you can more easily control them. Anyone stupid enough to fall for your ruse almost deserves to be oppressed.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.british,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.datahighway,alt.politics.ec,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.europe.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.org.un,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: The Jewish Basis of Capitalism Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 17:06:24 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Communist wrote: > Jews weren't forced into being money-loving capitalists by anyone. Jews > are natural-born money-loving capitalists! This "we-were-forced-into-it" > argument is the classic, self-serving, pathetic Jewish response. > Capitalism derived directly from Judaism. Marx said: Or Jesus said, or Mao said, or Hitler said. Isn't it time you got a brain of your own? Everyone else has one. It's stupidity like yours that leads to the perpetuation of autocracy and capitalism. Civilization was not founded upon division, it was founded upon unity. United against the forces of nature. Not united against another company, or united against another race. You can't hope to debunk communism with your capitalist racism.
From: "J. Calvin" Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.british,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.datahighway,alt.politics.ec,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.europe.misc,alt.politics.greens,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.org.un,alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: THE JEWISH BASIS OF CAPITALISM!!! Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 09:07:01 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Communist wrote: > Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look > for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis > of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion > of the Jew? Capitalism. What is his worldly God? Money... If you think you can discredit communism by accusing it of anti-Semitism, then you better get your head out of your ass. I could just as easily say Christianity is to blame for capitalism. The reason governments loved Jesus so much was that he (or at least government versions of the Bible) did not preach politically, but only spiritually. If only capitalists could replace all references to Jesus with share-holder...
2.3.97 15:46 Hired guinea pigs. 2.3.97 15:51 Force, vote, or brainwashing. 8.3.97 The heart of altruism. From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: democratic socialism = nonsense Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 16:53:53 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Frodo wrote: > >The junk is demanded by the middle class, who have nothing better > >to spend their money on. That's capitalism for ya, always in > >search of empty markets, new useless exercise machines, growing > >hair on bald men, to satisfy the perversions of whoever has the > >most money, instead of those who are dying in poverty. > What a load of rhetorical bullshit. If anyone is dying in povery in > this country it is because they are too stupid or too lazy to either > find a job or go down to the welfare office. No duh. Y'know, there's a whole other world out there beyond US borders. I know the media doesn't really like to cover it but let me assure you, it does exist. Americans never like to study the governments of other countries, because that would just make us feel bad about our own. We wouldn't want that now would we? And yes, we do have what passes for welfare in this country. And indeed, life expectancy for a poor American is (ready for this?) LOWER than for a rich American! Wonder of wonders. At least the "Abolish Welfare Now!" thread is gone, and you fiscal conservatives have retreated to defending capitalism itself.
From: Feline feline@cableinet.co.uk Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: democratic socialism = nonsense Date: Sat, 08 Mar 1997 01:02:47 +0000 Organization: Cable Internet Jeremy Dombroski wrote: > Capitalism is a great incentive for people > to get educated. If I were living in a world where, no matter what I did, > I would get an equal share of everyone elses labor, why would I want to go > to school? Why would I work? Because I feel some altruistic urge to help > out my fellow man? Sorry, the human mind doesn't work that way. Let's be honest neither you or anyone else works to advance the cause of capitalism, socialism or any other -ism. The simple truth is that you work to provide the means to maintain yourself: for food, for shelter, to reproduce, for leisure etc. So long as it is possible for you to improve the quality of these factors you will continue to do so voluntarily. If an individual can achieve this through employment, self employment etc. then fine. If an individual can achieve this through crime then fine. If an individual can do this by exploiting the welfare system then fine. All of these activities at their most basic represent strategies for survival and that is the reality of human nature. At the heart of altruism lies nothing more than self interest, a bargain, which amounts to the suggestion that: if I look out for you then you look out for me. The question has nothing to do with morals but is an eminently practical survival strategy. I don't have to spend most of my time looking out for people who will deprive me of my efforts to survive and nor do those who have entered into this contract with me. This in turn enables me, and them, to spend my time more effectively in achieving the things I want to and they the things they want. The advantage of the collective is that it is greater than the sum of it's parts and therefore superior to the individualism. It appeals to each of it's members however on the basis of self interest. Of course there are always going to be individuals whose strategy is to exploit this bargain. The problem then for the altruist is to identify these individuals and either get them to accept the collective position or face exclusion from it and the benefits it brings. That simple. Feline
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: democratic socialism = nonsense Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 15:51:05 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. james lee wrote: > Dear fool, the only difference between comunism and socialism is this: > One is slavery by force the other is slavery by vote. It is the > difference between murder and suicide. As opposed to capitalism, which is slavery by brainwashing. Where the masses accept their slavery because they actually think their employer owns all those raw materials he holds under armed guard. Raw materials conquered by violence and taken by coercion... but hey, after a few centuries, you idiot peasants are going to forget all about it and will THANK us for finding the good in our hearts to let you use our stolen property.
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: democratic socialism = nonsense Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 15:46:02 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bill Koehler wrote: > > Yes, capitalism is very good at producing tons of junk, but how good > > is it at fulfilling real needs? Even in the USA, which has fared > > better under capitalism, there is alot of stuff wrong. > > And in the third world it actually starves thousands of people. > Who do you suppose demands the "junk" in a free market? The junk is demanded by the middle class, who have nothing better to spend their money on. That's capitalism for ya, always in search of empty markets, new useless exercise machines, growing hair on bald men, to satisfy the perversions of whoever has the most money, instead of those who are dying in poverty. Capitalism will never produce a future of organized space colonization, except by guinea pigs hired by the rich, who will be quickly wiped out by some unforseen hazard because there just aren't enough educated people around to come up with a solution.
28.2.97 19:56:57 A serious look. 28.2.97 19:56:59 Reinventing the wheel. 7.3.97 The 1% excuse. From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Min wage, was Re: Real capitalist world Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 19:27:02 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Guest Internetcafe Beachnet wrote: > I think that raising the minimum wage creates active entrepeneurs, > therefore it is to benefit the society as a whole Raising the minimum wage is little different than cutting taxes. All it leads to is inflation. If you really want to help the poor and spur incentive, then you need to make it impossible to deny someone access to resources with coercion. You need money to go straight from the consumer to the producer, without stopping in the hands of a stockholder. And you need both federal and corporate democracy to prevent power from being concentrated anywhere.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Min wage, was Re: Real capitalist world Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 19:05:43 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Guru George wrote: > >What a bloody waste of time! What a foolish way of organizing work; > >hundreds of software developement companies reinventing the wheel! > >That's far more inneficient than the most wasteful of public > >beauraucracies. And yet, in a capitalism, the only alternative is a > >monopoly, which is even worse. > Think more carefully: all these software companies 'reinventing the > wheel' as you put it are reinventing it slightly differently, some of > those differences are incremental improvements, improvements are > imitated, and that's how you get progress. Oooo, a tiny little 1% improvement can justify the rest of the wasted 99%. Why bother trying to reverse engineer or imitating your opponent's work if that information were shared? Shared information is what is truly efficient. Capitalists hide behind "trade secrets" not because they LIKE reinventing the wheel, but because that's the only way to keep your competition from getting a leg up. You're obviously in capitalist denial for the sake of argument... or a complete idiot. > It's incredible that this 'inefficiency' argument can still be peddled > after the Communist experience. Yeah, again the "Communist" experience. There was NO "Communist experience". No nation has ever achieved communism. Why? Lack of democracy. Those who had power got rich and stayed there. As opposed to the American system, where those who had money got powerful and stayed there. Yeah, I know, you're about to bring up your 1% excuse again, "but but, my friend Joe went from rags to riches and even became president!"
From: benjack@cycor.ca (Ben Jackson) Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Min wage, was Re: Real capitalist world Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 19:56:59 GMT Organization: HookUp Communication Corporation, St. John's, Newfoundland, CANADA On 28 Feb 1997 13:31:18 GMT, jhblask@bigpapa.nothinbut.net (Henry Blaskowski) wrote: >Bill Whitehouse (whitehou@ncsa.uiuc.edu) wrote: >> > If I have a company, and discover that a particular job adds $5.25 to >> > my income, I would pay someone $5.00 to do it (after all benefits/taxes >> > are considered). If the minimum wage raises that cose to $5.50, >> > that job will go undone ... You point out here some fundamental problems with capitalism: Nothing gets done in less it makes money. There are many social functions that you can't (or shouldnt) charge for and yet need to be done. And in a laissez faire there is no incentive for anyone to do these things so -surprise surprise- they very often don't get done. Even Adam Smith recognized this when he spoke about public goods. He gave the example of a lighthouse. A lighthouse is obviously useful to people and yet you can't very well charge for its usage; you can't selectively give it to people, it's effects are too broad. Perhaps you could devise a way to charge for the use of a lighthouse, but should you? Instead of researching how to do things better, we research how to make money from doing things better. There are other, perhaps more relevant examples of this. For instance, software developement. Some friends of mine are designing a computer game. They are spending hours coding furiously just basic structure. Recently it occured to me. This has all been done before. All this research and development, all these hours spent have all been spent before. What a bloody waste of time! What a foolish way of organizing work; hundreds of software developement companies reinventing the wheel! That's far more inneficient than the most wasteful of public beauraucracies. And yet, in a capitalism, the only alternative is a monopoly, which is even worse. So while one corporate bureaucracy would probably have less waste than a public bureaucracy, a single public bureaucracy would undoubtably be less wasteful than 5 or 10 corporate bureaucracies all fighting for the same customers! >> If that job goes undone, then the job wasn't necessary anyway, and >> the company - and the economy - becomes that much more efficient. >Necessary? Necessary for what? Is anything other than agriculture >stritly *necessary*? The real question is whether that job would've >improved society, with, say, better service at a gas station, or >cleaner floors at a restaurant. And what about the unemployed >person, who now has a significantly lower standard of living, not >to mention less spending power, which could've led to even more >jobs. This is the sort of mentality that our Real Capitalist World perpetuates? We must create more work for people to do, not necessarily because the work is useful or anything .. but just on principal !? Does anyone else see how ridiculous this is? If we produce a comfortable amount of goods and services then what the hell is the problem? Our system of distributing these resources, clearly. >If the job is required for the business, such as cooks at a >restaurant, they may be hired at a loss in the short run, but >eventually, everyone needs to add to profits. Otherwise, the >business will go under, and owners and employees will be >unemployed. If you as an employer pay your employees a wage they can live on then you will fall prey to the asshole that doesn't. Capitalism rewards efficiency, punishes inefficiency. Having morals is inefficient. _That's_ why laissez faire is destructive. Ben Jackson / _evanesce "Those who put out the people's eyes reproach them for their blindness." - Milton
From: benjack@cycor.ca (Ben Jackson) Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Min wage, was Re: Real capitalist world Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 19:56:57 GMT Organization: HookUp Communication Corporation, St. John's, Newfoundland, CANADA On 28 Feb 1997 05:08:59 GMT, "aisarose" aisarose@ix.netcom.com wrote: >> If the job is necessary, then it won't go undone. The employer >> _will_ pay it, not only because it supports the labor market, but >> also because it supports the consumer market. And, indirectly, >> the employers. And because they have to. >> It's better for both parties than nationwide strikes, in any case. >It's not better for the people who are unemployed due to the minimum wage. >Their wages are zero. >If you raise the price of lettuce above its market value, people buy less >lettuce. >If you raise the price of labor above its market value... >The minimum wage, in all its forms, causes unemployment. So does technical innovation. A new automation means that less people have to do less dreary, repetitive work, while still producing the same amount of goods. Good news? Not if the gains of this innovation go exclusively to the employers. Just means more people go without a source of income as they become redundant. This is the necessary result of an economic system where workers have little or no control over the company in which they work. If the workers owned the means of production and created some new automation that meant they needed 30% less labour to produce equal goods, then they could work 15% less and use the other 15% to the price of the goods they sell (depending on what sort of economy they live in they would have various reasons to do so) . If our economic system creates unemployment whenever we make an automation or raise the standard of living for the majority, then maybe we should take a serious look at the viability of our economic system! Ben Jackson / _evanesce "Those who put out the people's eyes reproach them for their blindness." - Milton
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.usa,alt.psst.hoy,alt.prophecies.nostradamus,rec.arts.disney.misc,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.canada,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.immigration,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.europe,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.reform,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,altilluminati,alt.society.anarchy,alt.anarchism,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.nuke.the.USA,alt.politics.reform,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.governmen Subject: Re: Democratic Republic?, Re: America in the 21st Century are we fucked or what? Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:07:38 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Sanger wrote: > >achieve universal welfare. Few people would deny that > >the sharing of knowledge is more productive than hiding it. > >Those that do, do so because they fear someone else will > >use that knowledge to take something from him. And that is > >the fatal flaw of an economy based upon competition. > The system of government in the USA is not a Democracy but it is now and > always has been a Democratic Republic.... And a sham of one at that. As if campaign contributions from the rich aren't enough, the rich Perots and Forbeses spend whatever they feel like marketing their schemes and pushing their own agenda. And if that doesn't work, we hire a few zillion lobbyists, offer huge book deals, or a little honoraria on the side... Yes, it is a democratic republic, every dollar gets a vote.
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,soc.rights.human,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.anarchy,alt.org.food-not-bombs,alt.anarchism,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: HONOR THE HOMELESS- WHY? Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:31:22 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Alexander J Russell wrote: > >Being a rape victim isn't such a great honor either, but to have > >survived might be. So try to prevent rape from happening ever again. > >And we prevent the violent seizure of land as well. Of course, we > >don't want to do anything about the land that was already seized. > >Nor do we prevent armed guards from keeping these homeless off the > >land. Nor do we offer them a decent education. The last thing we > >need is more competition in this business. > How is a rape victim related to the homeless? A rape victim has had a horrible > violent crime done to them. The homeless are simply inept. The *crime* done to the homeless is the crime of using force to drive someone off your "property". The world's first deed belonged to the capitalist with the biggest club. > I don't know about where you live, but where I live almost all the homeless are > homeless by choice. I suppose the poor are poor by choice as well eh? The rich certainly are rich by choice. Why else would they spend so much money on campaign commercials? Why else do they continue to insist on "property rights" when they all know that any land they've ever bought was just stolen land. You own your mind, you own your muscles. You don't own the right to deny someone else access to natural resources unless it is by unanimous consent.
28.2.97 Numbers, words, bullets. 5.3.97 Economic suicide. From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,soc.rights.human,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.anarchy,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.org.food-not-bombs,alt.anarchism,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: HONOR THE HOMELESS Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 18:22:47 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Cecil H. Cox, Jr. wrote: > >Yes, only because those are their OWN employees. But how many > >managers would teach their own employees how to do their own > >job? Why not teach employees of other companies as well? > What kinda bull is that? IF that were true why did Lee of Chrysler CEO > fame start out at Ford and allowed to move not only elsewhere, but up > the ladder in the auto industry. > Some companies have taught others from other companies. Look at the > aircraft industry. One black slave owner does not justify all of slavery. The point is that capitalism is inefficient. It is inefficient because it profits to hide behind trade secrets, and it profits to hide behind patents, behind copyrights. So what happens is that information that could easily be shared for the benefit of everyone is kept hidden... forcing other companies to reinvent the wheel. This is the flaw that leads to unemployment, famine (in third world nations), jealousy, crime, and warfare.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,soc.rights.human,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.anarchy,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.org.food-not-bombs,alt.anarchism,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: HONOR THE HOMELESS Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 16:12:03 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Wayne Aiken wrote: > : Not just handouts, not just a job, but both plus an education > : in between. A real education that doesn't teach them useless > : trivia like long lists of SAT words, but an education that can > : even threaten your own job. A stupid idea for a capitalist > : society, but a grand idea for one that's not quite so bent on > : competition. > If quality educations are so "stupid" for a capitalist society, then why > do companies spend so much money on sending their employees to special > training centers? Yes, only because those are their OWN employees. But how many managers would teach their own employees how to do their own job? Why not teach employees of other companies as well? Wouldn't that cause the entire industry to move ahead faster? Sure it would, but in a society based on competition, teaching your peers is economic suicide. THAT is why capitalism holds back progress. > A decent quality education is available to anyone > who wants it. It's called a public library, if they blew their first > chance at public schools. Competition is actually a *great* motivator > for bettering yourself. And yet fiscal conservatives demand a BETTER education for their own kids, because they KNOW that a "decent" education is NOT available. So do you think any guy off the street can afford to spend day-in-and-day-out learning in a library? Sure the library might provide him heat, but there won't be much food. It is wealth that enables a person to concentrate on knowledge, instead of fighting for rent. Competition is also a *great* motivator for murder and racism.
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,soc.rights.human,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.anarchy,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.org.food-not-bombs,alt.anarchism,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: HONOR THE HOMELESS Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:23:21 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bill Koehler wrote: > > Not just handouts, not just a job, but both plus an education > > in between. A real education that doesn't teach them useless > > trivia like long lists of SAT words, but an education that can > > even threaten your own job. A stupid idea for a capitalist > > society, but a grand idea for one that's not quite so bent on > > competition. > Just for your information nobody is giving anything > you're going to have to earn it. Or is that to > tough? Tell that to all the "owners" of natural resources. How do they EARN money? They earn money by hiring armed goons to chase off "trespassers" on land that was previously conquered by more armed goons. They earn money by denying the poor their right to use these resources, unless they get a share of everything produced. And they back it all up with numbers in deeds, words in lawbooks, and bullets in guns. A capitalist's right to property is the right for workers to keep what capitalists give them (out of the goodness of their hearts), and the right for capitalists to keep what they've gained through violence. Welfare corrects only the tip of the iceberg.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.anarchy,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics,alt.california Subject: Re: STOP LA Anti-"Panhandling" Law ! Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 17:13:29 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Angelmoon wrote: > Well, this welfare reform is a step in the correct direction, at any rate. > Limiting citizens time on welfare;refusing all welfare and similar > assistance to illegal immigrants, and having a minimum number of years that > legal immigrants have to be productive before they can collect anything are > all things that will help. I'm not sure that it will help make more > responsible people of all those in my children's generation, but if we > stand strong and firm, the following generation will have a higher chance > of developing a good sense of responsibility for themselves and their > actions. Refusing both work and assistance to undocumented immigrants does nothing but drive them into crime. Trying to keep immigrants out is only delaying the inevitable - our companies are going to sooner or later pack up and go to those countries with cheap labor anyway (as soon as they get a decent education). So here's the dilemma, the more democratic this country is, the better this country is, the more aid to the poor this country gives, the more the poor from other countries want to come. The solution isn't to build a lot of walls and hire a lot of border patrol officers. The solution is to promote both democracy and aid to the poor in other countries, share information with them and help them get up to our levels of production, and we might even learn something from them too...
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Food costs (was Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:24:15 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bob Tiernan wrote: > > And yet not free. Why not? Capitalism is the obvious answer. > Why *should* food be free if you don't grow it yourself? The only free > food is roadkill and fruit you find growing in the woods. You can grow > your own at minimal cost, but would you give a lot of it away for free? > They'll keep coming back for more until you see the light. In other words, the only free food is what you find on public property. Quite right. Capitalists continue to insist that their own property is "private" as if someone willingly gave that land to them. In the short term, that is not a lie. But in reality, it isn't ANYONE'S land to give in the first place. Something that came only from nature belongs to everyone (or at least everyone who wants it). You can only own that land if it was appointed to you by unanimous vote. But as soon as a new person changes her mind, then that land is no longer entirely yours, because you have taken away her right to use that land as well. Thus if wealth redistribution is impractical, then adequate welfare is essential.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.immigration,alt.skinheads,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.conspiracy,misc.immigration.usa,alt.politics.immigration,talk.politics.guns,alt.illuminati,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,soc.culture.europe,alt.nuke.the.USA,soc.culture.canada,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.reform,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.folklore.military,alt.government.abuse,soc.couples.intercultural,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.mexican,soc.culture.europe,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,soc.culture.african.american Subject: Re: Nazi Media Blitz Launched Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 15:42:19 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. > greatdane@mindspring.com wrote: > > I personally have a lot of respect for what the Nazis accomplished > > racially................(snip).......Their courage and sacrifice are an > > inspiration to European patriots everywhere and we owe them a duty to > > insure their sacrifice was not in vain........That was 50 years ago but > > the race problem has only gotten worse, which vindicates Hitler as > > being right.... You know why there are so few idiots like you? Because idiots like you don't know how to function in society and wind up killing eachother off. All that alleged "intelligence" is wasted on destruction instead of construction. Divisive societies like yours are doomed to failure. Thank God for natural selection.

|HOME| CJohnYu.96@alum.mit.edu [email/index]

Click Here! |count|
|11/13|