MARKETING
Rant


24.2.97 Tearing down work. 4.3.97 Already been distributed. From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Class-free society? Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 14:53:00 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Tim Reed wrote: > If the system doesn't reward ingenuity why is Bill Gates the single > richest man in America? Who did he inherit that wealth from? > Apparently somebody named Windows. > And Ross Perot, he surely must have inherited all of his wealth from > someone. No, he borrowed 2000 dollars from his wife and started a > business. And you forgot one thing, money doesn't always equal power in > the United States. Bill Gates is very rich, but he doesn't have nearly > the power that Bill Clinton does. Just because someone is rich doesn't > make them a ruler. Nobody becomes rich or a ruler alone. They get there by cooperation. Though most are more "cooperated to" rather than "cooperated with". Even incredible intelligence means nothing without education, or a roof over your head and food to eat. Many members of the "new rich" know this, and despite having seen the evils of capitalism, they are forced into a life of hypocrisy because to give up everything they've earned (or exploited) would just put them at the mercy of self-righteous capitalists and deluded politicians. So instead, they attempt "trickle-down liberalism" - donations to charity, education programs for local schools, campaign contributions to liberal politicians - which is all fine and dandy on the surface, but it still doesn't solve the fundamental evil of capitalism itself - the destruction of real democracy and freedom of expression.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Class-free society? Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 20:26:28 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > > Yep. As far as they're concerned, the fairest thing to do is distribute > > all wealth equally amongst the non-ruling class. > One small problem: who are these benevolent angels who will organize > the redistribution of other peoples wealth? Perhaps a true democracy not dominated by money driven campaigning and money driven lobbyists? You forget that wealth has ALREADY been distributed, from those without enough weapons, to those with better weapons. And, if the product of human labor counts as wealth, it continues to be taken from employees and given to stock-holders who do nothing but point to a blood-soaked land deed.
From: Mike Lepore notmyaddress@zxzxz.net Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.radical-left Subject: Re: Class-free society? Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 05:35:49 -0500 Organization: The characters in the From field are not my address Bjorn Andersson wrote: > Why are socialists and communists so concerned and dismayed about > classism? After all, the ultimate class-system is the communist system: > the ruling class and everybody else! Are these people (socialists, > communists) trying to say that only having these two classes is somehow > better than what we have today? I have no idea what you're talking about when you say that a classless system is a class system. It sounds like mystical nonsense to me. I'm against class rule becuase it is the major cause of all social problems. It causes wars, poverty, pollution, racism, censorship, alcoholism, and about a hundred other problems I can think of. As for whatever problems capitalism doesn't _cause_ (such as hurricanes), it does cause a great magnification of the associated human suffering. I'm against class rule becuase a forty hour week that consists of working ten hours for one's wages and the other thirty hours for the boss's profits can therefore be reduced to a ten hour workweek simply by getting rid of the job of the boss. I'm against class rule because I love my children, and I want them to inherit a world based on cooperation and harmony, not one in which the personal benefit of one person is defined as the tearing down of the work of another person. > You socialists and communists need to grow up. There is no way to ever > completely irradicate classism. It will exist in one form or another > until man no longer walks the earth. The animal kingdom exists in a > hierarchy of classes, why is it so difficult to understand that this is > simply normal behavior? I see. So, by similar reasoning, if there's no way to eliminate all illness, should we abolish all the hospitals? If there's no way to prevent all future fires, we should of ahead and abolish the fire department? If we do otherwise, then I guess we "need to grow up." Did you think through your philosophical system carefully? > Again, you people need to grow up and take advantage of a system > (capitalism) that thrives on the knowledge and ingenuity of man. Let go > of your envy and access the opportunities at hand. Ha ha! The funniest claim ever made for capitalism is that, after the system's total dependence on inheritance of wealth from generation to generation, to justify it by saying that the system works by rewarding ingenuity. Tell you what -- if I were to design a system form scratch, a system with the objective of rewarding knowledge and ingenuity, I sure wouldn't start out with groundrule that someone shall be a ruler of society because his or her parents were rulers of society. And the "envy" argument (used throughout history by the defenders of every class-rule, from the Roman empire to feudalism to 19th century chattel slavery) is another hilarious argument. If you see millions of people across the centuries working to make the world a better place, by identifying injustices and struggling to rectify them, what better way to belittle these efforts, and to urge that the master classes be blindly worshipped, than to say that those wish to abolish the office of the emperor are merely envious that they are not th eemperor? > Ps. Society needs a "ruling class" of some sort. In the US the ruling > class is YOU, the people. The lack of rule will only result in anarchy. I think you need to consult a dictionary. A class is a particular population group. If we establish democratic self-management by the people, then we would not be a "class." Mike Lepore mlepore@juno.com
25.2.97 Taking away 20%. 13.3.97 The beauty of the industrial revolution. 20.3.97 The basis of welfare. From: "J. Steinbeck" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: The fallacy of democratic socialism. Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 15:57:15 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Parker wrote: > >Wrong and wrong again. I would claim that there are ALSO > >millions of people who can be president. THAT is why we > >vote... we all think we know more than one of the candidates. > >We vote for our president and yet we cannot vote for our > >police officers. Who has more direct contact with us? > >Do we really live in a democratic society if we can't > >even vote for the government official that holds the gun? > >Do we live in a democratic society if we can't vote to > >raise an officer's pay for saving a life and lowering it > >for beating up a neighbor? Fact is, an officer reports > >to his manager, instead of to citizens. In a truly > >democratic society, officers would elect their managers, > >and we would at least be able to vote on general enforcement > >policies. > make up your mind, do you want the citizens to vote for the > policemen's boss, or do you want the policemen to vote for him? That would depend on your version of a democratic republic. Any election process is democratic. Any appointment process is autocratic. The surest way to get police officers back in touch with their own communities is to have them be elected by their own communities. The surest way to get supervisors in touch with their own officers is to have them be elected by their own officers. This, of course, can never happen in an autocratic society. Any talk of democracy will be ended by a purge, disguised as a sex scandal.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: The fallacy of democratic socialism. Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 14:41:56 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Guru George wrote: > >Yep. We all owe eachother. But not all the same amount. > >If labor prices in this country truly were supply and > >demand, then police officers would be making a fortune > >and the president would be making nothing. Who wouldn't > >want to have coffee with various heads of state all day > >instead of risking their lives chasing after an armed > >man carrying bags of green paper? Who wouldn't want to > >surf the web all day, or splash paint on a canvas, > >instead of scrubbing toilet bowls? > No, I mean it: pay me for the space you are using, otherwise you are a > hypocrite. And pay me for yours. Everyone pays everyone. Of course, those monopolizing more resources will have to pay more. This is basis of welfare (at least, it was, before everyone forgot it).
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.society.labor-unions,alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: The fallacy of democratic socialism. Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 16:15:22 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > So, do they eat your grubs before or after you eat them? Neither. Everyone gets a grub that wants one, and if there aren't enough for everyone, then everyone starves. But the beauty of the industrial revolution is that it means we don't need everyone to be farmers to give everyone enough grub. Then, how DO you decide who gets to be a farmer and who only gets to receive welfare? Well, actually you don't. You educate those on welfare so that they can do better and more productive things, like figure out how to grow food on our oceans or build spaceships to galaxies far far away...
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: The fallacy of democratic socialism. Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 18:03:22 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. mikeki@erols.com@erols.com wrote: > > Just because both Democrats and Republicans accept bribes > > doesn't make it any more right. Stolen property is still > > stolen property. "Property" defined by fencing off a > > piece of land is property stolen from the world at large. > > And the world at large has a claim to part of anything > > you produce from "your" property, especially if you are > > preventing someone else from using it to make a living > > for himself. > If I cultivated a field, and produced wheat, it is I who > should profit from the harvest. If society was to claim a > right to my harvest, what motivation would I have to cultivate > said field? Answer: I would not produce the harvest, becuase I > would not profit from such an endeavor. If the socialist/communists > had their way, civilization would cease to function. If by cultivating your field, you have prevented someone else from also cultivating that field, then you have taken away someone else's rights. You would only deserve 100% of what you produced if that land was appointed to you by unanimous decision. But if you're sick of society taking away 20% of what you produced, then feel free to let someone else cultivate that land. The trick is to find either exactly how much can be taken away before no one would want to cultivate that land, or to provide welfare and education for everyone who wants to but can't.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Capitalist inefficiency, Re: Free stuff Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:28:14 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bill Koehler wrote: > > Let's make those free, too. You've already promised me a lot, like > > a free house, free food, and now more free stuff. > Free bread and circuses wowed them in Rome 2000 years ago. > Untill the farmers showed up at the gates of Rome wanting > their free bread. Even free food that long ago eh? The industrial revolution proves you don't need a hell of a lot of famers to feed everyone. Do you think Bill Gates works for food? Threat of death isn't the only way you can get someone to go to work in the morning. And as technology improves, more and more things can be made free. Communists are served by technology, capitalists are replaced by it.
22.2.97 Those who initiate force. From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Welfare - necessary & desirable, Re: socialism. Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 23:53:34 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Jim Glass wrote: > >> There is no "surplus" labor. Nor is labor "appropriated by > >> capitalists"; services are bought and paid for. > >Tell that to anyone who was laid off. Technology creates > >surplus labor, and thus surplus wealth. Either you waste > >that wealth on trips to Vail or you educate those who were > >laid off so they can produce more technology. This is what > >makes welfare desirable.... > Funny. What welfare has done is create an entire "underclass" > of drones, unemployable and in-educable. Out of curiosity, > how do you manage to hold this view in spite of copious > easily-visible evidence to the contrary? That is becauase our country has a capitalist's welfare instead of a scholar's welfare. That's why we punish people for getting a part time job or saving money - by throwing them off welfare. Fiscal conservatives don't really want to educate the poor, because that would just lead to more competition for their own kids. This fear of competition is what capitalism is all about - if I don't beat you down, you will beat me down. No one ever believes that helping another person would actually help society, because, like a true capitalist, he'll just put you out of a job.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian Subject: Welfare - necessary & desirable, Re: socialism. Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 14:33:22 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Giovanni 8 wrote: > > As a matter of fact the easiest way to define a socialist economy > > is one where surplus labour is not appropriated by capitalists > > but retained by those that produce it! > There is no "surplus" labor. Nor is labor "appropriated by > capitalists"; services are bought and paid for. Tell that to anyone who was laid off. Technology creates surplus labor, and thus surplus wealth. Either you waste that wealth on trips to Vail or you educate those who were laid off so they can produce more technology. This is what makes welfare desirable.... > Those who initiate force and > fraud are criminals and should be dealt with as such. Those who initiate force include armies and navies. However, they quickly sell the spoils of that force to relatives, who now claim that it had no part in the initiating of force (which is of course true). Capitalists justify theft so that they can continue to skim off what employees produce by charging consumers more. You own your ideas and your effort. Nothing more. Not even the right to use that land unless it was by unanimous decision. This is what makes welfare necessary....
22.2.97 Hunting the buffalo. 30.3.97 Invented by cowards and perpetuated by fools. 1.4.97 Heck, look at your backyard. From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,alt.politics.socialism,alt.fan.publius,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions,soc.culture.china,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.economics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: Capitalist panic Date: Tue, 15 Apr 1997 15:26:04 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Publius wrote: > No. We are now suffering here under a modern version of > Cpommunism (see my "TAXTIME BLUES" article). I > want a return to the original American system - still > there in the Constitution. I'd like to soo the > current Hong Kong system here - where a whole family > from the toddler up working to to put together some > itemm like shoes on contract - with the firm knowledge > that eventually at least one of them become a multi > millionaire. . PUBLIUS You mean a fucking pyramid scheme don't you? The day everyone has a million dollars is the day a loaf of bread costs 20 grand. Christ. Fear of losing your personal "fortunes" driving rightists to autocracy. The real awful truth is that your fucking gold, silver, paintings, Jags, and bimmers aren't worth squat if nobody wants them. And the only way you can force people to want them is either at the point of a gun or by brainwashing them with marketing. -------- Money is more genetic than intelligence.
From: "D. Gale" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa.republican,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.canada,alt.politics.reform,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.mexican,soc.culture.europe,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalist panic (Re: "a kind of Pontius Pilate feeling") Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 14:10:39 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. > Jay Hanson jhanson@ilhawaii.net wrote: > >> Capitalist autocratic idiot. There's NO SUCH THING as limited > >> resources. That's ONLY a scare tactic used by other capitalists > > In 1992, the two most prestigious scientific institutions > > in the world, the National Academy of Sciences and the > > Royal Society, issued POPULATION GROWTH, RESOURCE > > CONSUMPTION, AND A SUSTAINABLE WORLD which ended with: > > "The future of our planet is in the balance. Sustainable > > development can be achieved, but only if irreversible > > degradation of the environment can be halted in time. > > The next 30 years may be crucial." You are SUCH an idiot. Degradation of the environment ONLY becomes a problem if we don't have the knowledge to handle it. Did we worry about lack of firewood before we discovered coal? You bet we did. Read between the lines, ya fool. What the report is REALLY saying is that our society needs to spend more on welfare, education, and research. Less on the various non-cooperative industries, like weapons, marketing, whathaveyou. Look at our oceans. Look at our mountains. Heck, look at your backyard. How much of that is farmed? How much of our time is being wasted on competitive research instead of cooperative research? Starvation results ONLY if population growth is coupled with IGNORANCE and COMPETITION. ----- I'm surrounded by scarecrows, lions, and tin men.
From: "H.C. Andersen" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.canada,alt.politics.reform,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.mexican,soc.culture.europe,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalist panic (Re: "a kind of Pontius Pilate feeling") Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 18:35:18 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. cathryn wrote: > Actually, given this graph, maybe tobacco companies are providing > a service by allowing people to voluntarily reduce the population. > Figure the more smokers, the fewer bodies and the, yawn, inevitable > gigadeath is postponed. > Personally, I believe population is limited, with current technology, > by fresh water supplies. If there's adequate fresh water, then > people can eat and drink. And, that goes a long way to keeping > you alive. If the population continues to rise, agricultural > production won't collapse as long as society is anything but total > anarchy. Capitalist autocratic idiot. There's NO SUCH THING as limited resources. That's ONLY a scare tactic used by other capitalists and autocrats used to fool you into supporting their policies. The human population is as high as it is now simply because we have the KNOWLEDGE that enables us to support so many people. And the more knowledge we have, the more we will support. But both capitalists and autocrats are AFRAID of knowledge, because that will lead to either economic competition or political competition. So what do they do? Deny education to the poor and powerless... and so they starve. A self-fulfilling prophesy invented by cowards and perpetuated by fools.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,can.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,ca.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Capitalist panic, Re: democratic socialism. Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 15:10:47 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. JMH wrote: > 10% of the plan's value. From what I gather the impetus for the > legislation had to do with misues of such funds and a lack > of diversification and nothing to do with employee-ownership > per se. All this talk about owning this or owning that is quite stupid (important, but still stupid). It draws attention away from the whole idea of forming a company and a society in the first place: cooperation, the sharing of knowledge. Capitalists fear the sharing of knowledge for one primal reason: fear of competition. Some even think overpopulation will lead to worldwide starvation. Starvation results only if there is a lack of knowledge. The world is full of unfarmed land, some even fenced off for "environmental protection"... (ie. protecting future generations of the upper class instead of current generations of the lower class). And we hunt the oceans like ancient Americans hunted the buffalo, instead of learning to farm it. And we don't know how to farm it because capitalists are deathly afraid that an educated lower class will put them out of a job.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.democrats.d Subject: Re: electoral socialism. Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 11:19:18 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Giovanni 8 wrote: > > Socialism may indeed be government ownership, but > > the government would be owned by consumers instead of > > by corporate contractors, campaign contributors, and > > political lobbies. > So, all that matters is which group of thugs "owns" > the government? Blather. Better a mass of thugs made up of the citizens than of a mass of thugs made up of the elite. "We're better than you because we're rich and powerful and therefore really know how this country should be run." That's the same excuse given by kings, dictators, and Soviet "communists". > What matters is whether the government defends against > initiation of force and fraud, and refrains from initiating > force and fraud itself. Today, we have government which > initiates force and fraud, and only sometimes defends > against initiation of force and fraud. True. So what about the products of "force and fraud" that was already initiated? - Namely back when Manifest Destiny conquered this glorious land of "ours" and then sold it to the highest bidder. History's first deed belonged to the man with the biggest club.
19.2.97 Losers in health care. 14.3.97 22:20 Neither poor nor rich. From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Racist Libertarian Health Care Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 22:28:36 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Curt Howland wrote: > > Personally, I would be perfectly happy if every fiscal > > conservative would admit that welfare is a RIGHT, *if* someone > > is using coercion to prevent you from having access to the > > resources needed to make a living. > The force or fraud that constitutes coercion is what > is punishable. > The taking of property specifically to give it to > someone else at gun-point is just initiating force, > and as such wrong. 1. I conquer land by force. 2. I drive off everyone else by force. 3. You cannot grow food, so you ask me for permission to use "my" land. 4. I say, give me half of what you produce and it's a deal. 5. You look around, and see that all the rest of the land has been taken by force as well. So you agree. 6. I use the money you "gave" me to start a business. 7. I pass the profits of that business off to my son. 8. Go to step 3, replacing "land" with "equipment". Nearly all of capitalism is based upon coercion.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform Subject: Re: Racist Libertarian Health Care Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 22:20:28 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Big Oh wrote: > =| Personally, I would be perfectly happy if every fiscal > =| conservative would admit that welfare is a RIGHT, *if* someone > =| is using coercion to prevent you from having access to the > =| resources needed to make a living. > What you are really saying is those that don't want to expend any mental > and physical energy to support themselves should have the right to be > parasites and use any necessary force required to live in the style they > would like to become a accustomed to that others have achieved through > their application of mental and physical energy. Neither force by the poor nor force by the rich. What is currently happening here, is that because the rich are using force, then the poor must use force to get back what was taken in the first place. The poor use force in the form of voting for welfare laws. The rich use force in the form of campaign contributions and lobbyists for "property laws". These are the laws that continue to allow them to hold stolen property under armed guard. All land ownership resulted from theft. That theft has allowed land owners to enrich themselves by restricting who has access to that land, producing stolen capital that now fund the vast majority of today's business ventures.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.libertarian From: larry@biancx.com (Larry Racies) Subject: Re: Racist Libertarian Health Care Organization: Newsreel Service Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 21:16:47 GMT In article 330B35E9.6636@inforel.com, Cyndi Bakke cbakke@inforel.com wrote: >George Conklin wrote: >> In article 330A72BB.6B00@inforel.com, >> Cyndi Bakke cbakke@inforel.com wrote: >> >George Conklin wrote: >> >> In article 330A2687.3D74@inforel.com, >> >> Cyndi Bakke cbakke@inforel.com wrote: >> >> >George Conklin wrote: >> >> >> In article 3308a6f0.1391160@news.blarg.net, >> >> >> Infant mortality rates, in case you don't know, do not >> >> >> include homicide. Of course, racists don't like to admit this. >> >> >Anyway, infant mortality rates among the poorer classes in the United >> >> >States are higher than among the upper classes. >> >> >Cyndi Bakke >> >> And it is this class-specific mortality patterns that the >> >> establishment of the National Health Service in England >> >> sharply reduced. By not having a similar system here, we >> >> maintain a much higher class-specific mortality than other >> >> nations. Keeping this differential high is racial murder. >> >We all know that nationally run health care services that mandate prices >> >and services for citizens don't work for a number of reasons. Among >> >other things, they cannot serve the demand that they create at the >> >prices that they mandate. >> You ignore the fact that the health systems of Europe do work >> in keeping mortality low and in providing universal coverage. >> You are just spouting stupid theory once again....pure bullshit >> is the correct word. The huge gap in class mortality was found >> also in England before universal coverage. >It would be a little more fair if you responded to my entire post >instead of consistently taking statements out of context. Maybe you are >incapable of getting at the core of my arguments, and so are left with >only this inadequate option. Besides, just because you don't recognize >that supply and demand systems exist and determine prices and >availability doesn't mean that they don't. No matter how often you say >that gravity is a stupid theory, you're still going to fall down when >you stop standing up. >Cyndi Bakke No.........you are the one who happens to be wrong in this case. Free markets are great for the distribution of ordinary merchandise. But health care is not ordinaru merchandise. There are always winners and losers in the marketplace, but in health care the losers can lose their lives, which is why the marketplace functions so poorly in health care. It is why Leonard Abrahamson gets some $80 billion golden Parachute from US Health Care while 43 million Americans have no health insurance at all. The HMOs and the insurers are quite content to let the government cope with the poor by Medicaid and the old by Medicare; they skim the cream of profits from the rest of us by delivering a minimum of coverage for a maximum of prices and profits. That's your law of supply and demand at work... and it stinks. Larry Racies
20.2.97 Capitalism and democracy are synonymous 1.3.97 But you do? 17.3.97 22:03 Put it up and risk losing it. 17.3.97 22:10 Excuses for violent ownership. From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.labor-unions Subject: Re: An Enlightenment Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 18:54:04 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike wrote: > The statists you cite believe in one central tenent: one must sacrifice > one's means of production (i.e. income) to support the common good (i.e society). Ok fine. How about no state, but people? Not statism, but peoplism? Or more correctly, democracy? Who tells you what to do with your resources now? Who tells you how much you get paid now? Is power going top-down or bottom-up? That's the difference between feudalism and democracy. If your manager really does know more than you, he would be able to TEACH you and your coworkers about the correctness of his policies... of course, we can't let that happen. Nobody wants smart underlings in a capitalist society... they'll steal your job.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.usa-sucks,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.music.rage-machine,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.labor-unions Subject: Re: An Enlightenment Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:10:11 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. David G. Hughey wrote: > > Wrong. Only capitalists own what they have not earned. > > They earn money the old-fashioned way. They inherit it. > > They conquer it. They exploit it. Employees do the work > > and stock-holders do the "earning", by holding up a > > piece of paper in one hand and a gun in the other. > Wow. So many concepts in one short paragraph. Yes, most capitalists do > earn their money (most millionaires are self-made). And yes, they > "conquered" if you will. They didn't sit on their behinds and make a > bunch of impassioned speeches about how society owes them a living > and how the government owes them wages. And yes, employees work in > exchange for wages. They exchange their particular skills for money. > Investors exchange their capital for a return (i.e., the money "works"). > There is no "gun" (what silly language THAT is); no one is "forced" to > employ the capital. The "gun" is called the police, the military. The gun is controlled by whoever has the most campaign contributions and lobbyists. Employees sell their souls to employers because they would have no other access to valuable resources otherwise. When the world's first capitalists (ie. conquerers) established the school system, little did they know their excuses for violent ownership would manage to fool generation upon generation of their own kind. ------- Capitalism is rooted in violence, watered with fraud, and harvested with coercion.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.usa-sucks,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.music.rage-machine,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.labor-unions Subject: Re: An Enlightenment Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:03:05 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Curt Howland wrote: > Please point out why investors, who put their money > up and risked loosing it, should not share in the > success that they made possible? Whose money again? If I stole you car, I'd be willing to "put it up and risk losing it" too. So what happens if I steal your car and let my brat kid inherit it? Or I could charge everyone $5/mile for a ride in "my" car, or I could charge a taxi driver $5/day for the "right" to use "my" car. Land is created by no one. The only reason land is currently "owned" is because of violence. ----- Capitalism grows out of the barrel of a gun.
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.usa-sucks,alt.music.rage-machine,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: An Enlightenment Date: Sat, 01 Mar 1997 15:23:27 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Tim Schreiner wrote: > > Well, as most intelligent human beings know, there is only one > > thing that creates poverty along with exploitation: it is the > > institution of capitalism. > Perhaps Marxists like yourself should find another country. I like this one just like > it is, except I would move to shrink the size and scope of the Federal government > so that we have fewer redistributionist schemes and less inrtrusion on > individuals. Why do Marxists have no right to change the government, but you do? Because you have more money? Because your grandfather shot and killed a bunch of Injuns for farm land? Because you take advantage of people who want to eat by taking away 50% of what they produce?
From: Antonio Iacovelli nmorena@mlink.net Newsgroups: alt.flame.right-wing-conservatives,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.usa-sucks,alt.music.rage-machine Subject: An Enlightenment Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 21:09:43 -0500 Organization: Internet-Login Bill Koehler wrote: > Please enlighten us. The only thing we require is that you may not use > force. > Consumer advocate > What's good for the consumer is good for the country. > Taxes and regulations create overty. Well, as most intelligent human beings know, there is only one thing that creates poverty along with exploitation: it is the institution of capitalism. It is very naive to suppose that the "laissez-faire" system as Adam Smith described it is infallible. Credit is due to the genius of Karl Marx in describing and prophecizing what is going on today. The distribution of wealth and utility is grossly inbalanced. In Canada, for example, 40% of the population earns 80% of the total income. Due to increasingly high deficits and debts, governments are at the mercy of major corporations--the "big players"--who hire lobby groups in order to assure their shareholders that legislation will be passed in their favour. Thus, corporations are permitted to recieve tax-exemptions and subsidies at the expense of the social programs which are designed to help the poor. The government of Quebec has cut 1.1 billion dollars in education in two years. This action sets off an unavoidable consequence: the hiking of tuitions which, in turn, will forge an even greater gap between the "haves" who can afford higher education, and the "have-nots" who cannot. The capitalists who perpetrate these injustices try to wash them down our throats with the rediculously medieval notions that education is not a right but a privilege. The most rediculous of all notions, however, is that capitalism and democracy are synonymous. The media continuously refer to ours as the "free" world. Excuse the rhetorical question but, "Who owns the media?" It is corporations like General Electric who own the media and reap huge profits from large-scale wars, destruction, and massacre. They supply the United States of America--a genocidal, imperialistic bully--with the weapons of war. All one has to do is read (the truth) about Nicaragua, Vietnam, Chile, East Timor, Korea et al to know that the USA is(has been/will be) operating against the tradition and definition of true democracy. Not many people are aware of this because General Electric, Westinghouse, and Walt Disney do not report on it. *Obviously, since they are guilty conspiring parties in these clandestine machinations.* Unfortunately, most Americans DO get their news from the "Big 3" networks than any other source and these must divert public attention away from the truth and onto trivial matters. Either that or outright lie. A sort of brain-washing, if you will. Perhaps I ought to use the milder term: thought-control. On to a brighter topic: that of socialism. The essence of socialism, in its true Marxist tradition, is founded on principles of equality, democracy, and justice. True socialists are internationalists and are against hatred and bigotry of any kind. The emphasis is on solidarity and satisfying human need, not corporate profit. Those of China, Cuba, and the former Soviet Union are not "Communist" regimes; rather, they are state-capitalist in their nature and they exploit the working class as badly as the western capitalists do. In fact, Marxist ideology has never been fully implemented in our world. It will hopefully happen soon on a global scale. Please visit http://www.mlink.net/~nmorena/iso.html to read about where International Socialists stands as an organization. Antonio Iacovelli
18.2.97 Creating busy work. From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Campaign Finance Reform? No. Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:35:21 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > > If a light bulb company made a $.05 bulb that lasts for 90 years, > > it would instantly put itself out of business. It would make much > > more sense to create a $.10 bulb that lasts for just 1 year, and > > then the customer will be back to buy another. > Yet, if the LBC makes a $0.10/1 year bulb, another will make > a $0.09/year bulb, and LBC will be out of business. And yet > another will make a $0.09/year bulb WITH a more eye pleasing > spectral characteristic. True. Capitalism works only for small improvements. But if either company invented a bulb that would put all light bulb companies out of business, then you can be damn sure they'll try to destroy all knowledge of such inventions. > > If politicians made laws easy to understand, all of a sudden they > > would have a whole lot more people telling them what they're doing > > is wrong... not to mention putting a lot of lawyers out of work > > as well. They have to create busy work for themselves, or else > > they would look like they accomplishing even less than they are now. > However in politics, competition seems to drive us towards > an ever-more costly gov't which delivers ever-less benefit ... It depends what politicians are competing for. They currently compete for more and more campaign contributions, so that they can fund their campaign commercials. If you vote for me that's great, but if you vote for me AND give me $100K, then you can expect a far better return on your pre-election "investment".
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Campaign Finance Reform? No. Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:56:10 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Karl Wee wrote: > If a game is not fair because referees can't or won't see the whole > picture, can you make it fairer by tinkering with rules about how much > each player is allowed to show the game to the referees? > The fundamental problem with the political system is that policy issues > are too complex for voters to understand. We have a problem no less than > the invalidation of a basic assumption of the theory of democracy. > Either voters become more educated and aware (which requires a cultural > revolution of sorts) or policy issues must be simplified in order for > democracy to work again. If a light bulb company made a $.05 bulb that lasts for 90 years, it would instantly put itself out of business. It would make much more sense to create a $.10 bulb that lasts for just 1 year, and then the customer will be back to buy another. If politicians made laws easy to understand, all of a sudden they would have a whole lot more people telling them what they're doing is wrong... not to mention putting a lot of lawyers out of work as well. They have to create busy work for themselves, or else they would look like they accomplishing even less than they are now.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics,talk.politics.guns,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.current-events.usa,alt.co Subject: Re: DO we need more spending of education? Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:34:30 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Lew Glendenning wrote: > I don't know how to handle the problem of a Chinese ICBM, nor an Iranian > germ warfare attack, nor ... But, given the incentives to think about > it, and a corporate structure to listen, somebody will develop the > answers. Quite easy in fact. The same way we deal with the "unruly poor". You pay them welfare. Of course, if we were truly intelligent, then we would go one step beyond that. We would actually *work together* (yeah, I know, quite a foreign concept for most capitalists, but please bear with me). We would have a merger in the same way our companies merge. We would combine our resources, share our information, and educate both sides until both countries are able to produce more than they would have if they were fighting a war against each other.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.theory,alt.society.liberalism,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics Works, my rump! Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 21:09:23 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote: > Simply having the federal government send every household a check > equal to the poverty level for that size household would cost less > than the welfare system we have now. > (Note: that does not make it a good idea.) What does make a good idea is the same as what a body does when your lungs become infected. Devote resources to bring that sick part back up to speed. Give them food, give them shelter, but most important of all, give them an education and even a well paying job. Let them see for themselves how easy it is to show up at work every day and make a lot more money than staying at home all day, and a lot safer than fighting wars against the police and other gangs. (And something useful might even be produced to boot.)
18.2.97 18:44 One dollar, one vote. From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.media,alt.politics.usa.congress,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory Subject: Re: Campaign Reform Idea - Obey current laws first Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 18:20:23 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Loren Petrich wrote: > >Out of curiosity, what's your source for your assertion that > >"Republican candidates are rarely if ever outspent in a campaign"? > Just look at the record -- Republicans are BIG spenders on > getting elected, and in recent years, Democrats have been rather pathetic > in begin Republican-wannabes in this regard. Who cares who's *worse*? Each dollar spent on a campaign is an attack on democracy unless *every* citizen gets the same right to be heard. ------ Freedom of speech for the poor, freedom to be heard for the rich.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.fan.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.pj-orourke,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.journalism,alt.journalism.critism,alt.journalism.newspapers,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.media,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory Subject: Re: Campaign Reform Idea - Obey current laws first Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:44:09 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > > It is unfortunate, but it seems whatever the law or how it is written > > someone will always attempt to circumvent it, and the democrats are no > > more guilty that the republicans. > Well actually, no. I know of no allegations of the Republicans > selling policy for contributions in violation of the law. Who cares who is *more* guilty? Whoever is guilty at all must be dealt with. Ever wonder why anybody contributes any money to any party? If they didn't see an advantage to doing it, then why did they do it? Or are we all altruists? The fact is that any campaign contribution is a direct attack on democracy. ...assuming the Constitution says "one citizen, one vote" and not "one dollar, one vote".
From: qpcsoft@frontiernet.net (Chloe Carter) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.media,alt.society.liberalism Subject: Re: The American Class System (was: Re: The Metaphysics of Liberalism) Date: 18 Feb 1997 20:04:15 GMT Organization: QPC Software In article 5ecim2$cpc@crl.crl.com, griffith@crl.com (Dave Griffith) writes: >>But everything else seems to be taking a ride in that old handbasket. >Oh, please. The primary education systems are overdue for a shakeup. >The health care systems are getting one. The deficit's been too >high for too long, but we're getting a handle on it before it gets >to be problematic. Income growth has been slower than historical >norms, but most of that's just accounting artifacts. Income inequality >has increased about as it always has in times of rapid technological >change. Environmental concerns need some looking after, and are starting >to get it. Minor troubles. Would that it were so! The various developments ('shakeups') that Mr. Griffith mentions are all in one direction, and that is the spread of market values into virtually all spheres of life. Take his first example, education. Most of us agree that education is critical to success, at both the individual and aggregate (societal) levels. Yet access to a decent education is more and more being conditioned on the ability to pay for one. The problem is that education is one of those things that affects all of society, not just its immediate consumers. If Person A has a BMW, and Person B has an Escort, this has absolutely no impact beyond the two individuals. However, if someone receives a poor education, all of society suffers from that person's inability to contribute up to his/her potential. We need to determine where is makes sense to employ market logic, and where it doesn't, and this is what we're not doing. We're simply allowing the market to dominate everything, including domains where even free-market conservatives might not welcome it (e.g., the family). - Chloe
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.dilbert,alt.society.labor-unions Subject: Re: THE NEW CORPORATE LINE - Layoffs/more hours/lower wages/no job security are all simply ... "America" Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 22:44:30 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Ford wrote: > >Apparently, the new spin being attempted on "globalization" is that > >"by golly, it's simply America. Thus folks, when you don't even > >bother to hope for a raise, and your boss hints that despite your 10+ > >hours a day at the office (plus Saturdays and often even Sundays) that > >you're "not putting in your time" and thus you stand to be "downsized" > >the next time around ... just hum "God bless America." The American > >dream? What's that? Pursuit of Happiness? ... Oh that's just for > >people like Bill Gates. FDR and the unions got Americans believing > >that they really were equal... thank God that we beat that out of > >their heads... -D > Technology produces a surplus a people. So either you kill them, feed them, or hope they starve before they try to kill you.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Overcoming Capitalist Odds? Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 22:14:00 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Loren Petrich wrote: > >> He went to Harvard and a private school before that. > >> That hardly counts as poor in my book. In any case, > >> he's still anecdotal evidence (and what about those > >> who ARE destitute?). > >Ah, yes, everyone who overcame the odds through hard work is > >an amazing exception; > Perhaps it's time to accept the ugly truth about this -- people > are different, and some people are good at some things and some people > are good at others. Where would Dan Quayle, Michael Huffington, Steve > Forbes, and even George Bush be without the BIG head starts they got from > their parents? > Michael Kinsley notes in _Big Babies_ that business leaders seem > remarkably ashamed of the upper-middle-class and even upper-class origins > that many of them have. There are three paths to guaranteed success: 1. Have a whole lot of brains. 2. Have a whole lot of money. 3. If you don't have enough brains, substitute money.
7.2.97 14:11 The people who love them most. From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.current-events.usa,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.media,alt.president.clinton,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa,alt.education.alternative,misc.survivalism,alt.philsophy.objectivism,misc.taxes,talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Public Schools are Prisons (was: Inability to concentrate from too much TV? Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:01:39 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Dennis Cardinale wrote: > > Oh - you're whining because you have to pay taxes like all of the rest > > of us. I don't have kids in school, but I pay taxes just like > > everybody else. And I don't whine about it. > How high must your taxes be before you begin whining about them? I wouldn't mind it being a lot higher than they are now, but only if it was spent on things the consumers want, instead of things corporate contractors and big money contributors want.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.current-events.usa,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.media,alt.president.clinton,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa,alt.education.alternative,misc.survivalism,alt.philsophy.objectivism,misc.taxes,talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Public Schools are Prisons (was: Inability to concentrate from too much TV? Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 14:11:37 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Tom Potter wrote: > Better yet, the education of children should be > controlled by the people who love them the most. > Thier parents. Some parents also beat, molest, drown, and leave their own childrens' bodies rotting in the basement. What about those children?
6.2.97 The capitalist cheer. From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.european-union,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: THEORETICAL QUESTION - Should Fed. Reserve Chair be directly elected? Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 15:25:55 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > > The ones that really had their heads screwed on straight simply > > cheered. Suddenly, machines could replace assembly line workers, > > farm hands, and cloth-makers. And we're still cheering, > > because it's still happening and the money is going into our > > mansions and art collections instead of into the rest of society. > By "going into our mansions and art collections", do you mean that > money is physically being placed into expensive vases and paintings > and attics? I don't think so. I believe what you mean is that the rich > have given their money to artists, builders, decorators, etc, instead > of the rest of society (by which, based on your previous posts) you mean > bureaucrats and the terminally lazy. Isn't progress great? Yes, they do go to artists (unless the artists are dead) and to decorators, and also to 1-900 number operators and fortune cookie writers. The point is waste. To a rich man, entertainment is not waste, because he already has all the essentials he needs. To a poor man, the Psychic Friends Hotline *is* waste, because what he really needs is bread on the table. The rest of society is neither bureaucrats nor the lazy. The rest of society are the consumers from which the money comes and the employees from which the products come. But of course, we capitalists would get more profit from high prices and low pay... which is why the Dow Jones jumps whenever it finds out unemployment is high: more cheap labor, business is good.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.european-union Subject: Re: THEORETICAL QUESTION - Should Fed. Reserve Chair be directly elected? Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 08:44:54 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > > Taxes and regulations are necessary, and have helped fend off poverty and > > prevent things like monopolies, trusts, child labor, etc. Just look at the > > industrial revolution, look at WHY government had to get involved. > Gee. My history books tell me that the industrial revolution caused a > dramatic rise in living standards and education, and scared the piss > out of the landowners because all their workers and the small farmers > headed off for the cities. The ones that really had their heads screwed on straight simply cheered. Suddenly, machines could replace assembly line workers, farm hands, and cloth-makers. And we're still cheering, because it's still happening and the money is going into our mansions and art collections instead of into the rest of society.

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

Click Here! |count|
|11/13|