STATISTICS
Rant


11.12.96 Boardroom hazards. 14.1.97 19:10 Economic vs political equality. 14.1.97 19:29 Value begins with labor. 15.1.97 0% unemployment. 17.1.97 The value of policemen. 21.1.97 Impossible implementations. 22.1.97 Soviet politicians. 23.1.97 18:44 The rich and powerful. 23.1.97 22:36 Perfect teeth. 27.1.97 12:58 Neither violence nor starvation. 27.1.97 13:07 Any reasonable man. 28.1.97 15:44 May I suggest? 28.1.97 15:53 Crappy and expensive education. 28.1.97 20:55 Equality and equal opportunity. 31.1.97 11:21 Let them make cars. 31.1.97 15:18 Run the race. 3.2.97 15:18 Such a nasty option. 3.2.97 17:28 A paper with numbers. 3.2.97 17:54 Empires, coke, and politics. 3.2.97 18:07 A example of socialism. 3.2.97 18:15 Skilled work and prostitution. 3.2.97 18:49 Third world education. 3.2.97 18:59 Sell your soul. 3.2.97 19:48 Perversions or lower prices. 6.2.97 04:12 Pasta, chia pets, and sneakers. 6.2.97 13:25 Unemployed for years. 6.2.97 13:49 The Alps and Camp David. 6.2.97 14:00 Bald, fat strangers. 6.2.97 14:09 Olympic politics. 6.2.97 14:16 A privileged elite. 6.2.97 14:29 State control. 6.2.97 15:11 Medicine or hookers? 6.2.97 15:28 Working without threats. 6.2.97 15:37 Already growing food. 7.2.97 14:49 Lazy criminals. 7.2.97 14:55 Consumer democracy. 10.2.97 21:21 Starting out equally. 10.2.97 21:37 Measuring creation. 10.2.97 21:43 Kites or food. 11.2.97 17:34 Liberty or death. 11.2.97 17:46 Diggers and fillers. 11.2.97 18:12 Without real democracy. 11.2.97 18:28 Death is still death. 11.2.97 18:36 Intent on competition. 11.2.97 19:03 Fortunes by the winds. 11.2.97 20:05 Free market liberty. 11.2.97 20:11 Believe in equal opportunity. 11.2.97 20:22 Capitalism vs. liberalism vs. justice. 11.2.97 20:32 Take away my incentive. 11.2.97 20:37 Justifying murder. 11.2.97 20:41 Happy feudalism. 13.2.97 If I installed WordPerfect. 15.2.97 Capitalist choice. 17.2.97 18:44 Factories will close. 17.2.97 21:04 Regulating a free market. 17.2.97 21:12 The establishment of civilization. 18.2.97 16:01 Crimes to steal food. 18.2.97 16:11 Unpopulated markets and desert islands. 18.2.97 16:21 Beyond the point of profitability. 18.2.97 16:32 Capitalist consent. 18.2.97 16:47 Raising prices. 18.2.97 17:06 You harm me. 20.2.97 Rises to the top. 21.2.97 16:17 Feudalism with democracy. 21.2.97 16:24 Transformed over the centuries. 24.2.97 Master of his manor. 25.2.97 13:58 The kindness of his heart. 25.2.97 14:09 Oh Great Hand of God. 25.2.97 14:15 TOTALLY FREE market system. 25.2.97 14:27 Into drug dealing or something. 25.2.97 14:34 One of three choices. 25.2.97 14:48 The industrial revolution has proven. 25.2.97 14:54 Willing slavery. 25.2.97 15:00 A deed in one hand, a club in the other. 25.2.97 15:13 That's probably beneath you. 25.2.97 15:17 Solve all our disputes. 25.2.97 15:19 A whole lot less reasons. 4.3.97 17:48 How about another hundred? 4.3.97 18:08 The vicious cycle. 4.3.97 18:21 Democracy in their favor. 7.3.97 Wide socialist choice. 11.3.97 17:24 Genetic symptoms. 11.3.97 17:32 The fear of God. 11.3.97 17:49 Dress codes. 11.3.97 17:58 Man's natural instinct. 13.3.97 Fall from heaven. 19.3.97 16:18 On top of that wheel. 19.3.97 18:36 Killed in upper management. 19.3.97 18:58 Glow-in-the-dark yoyos. 19.3.97 19:09 It makes you feel good. 19.3.97 19:16 Where is the initiation of force? 19.3.97 19:24 National education. 19.3.97 19:30 But at what cost? 26.3.97 18:18 The elite 13 states. 26.3.97 18:32 Digging up more gold. 26.3.97 19:09 Producing time. 26.3.97 19:25 Not only by your own marketing. 27.3.97 Against capitalist protest. 28.3.97 Sooner fire than hire. 2.4.97 13:41 Gunpoint value on paper. 2.4.97 13:50 Shiny bits of rock. 2.4.97 13:59 Matter in the universe. 2.4.97 14:06 Limited at any given moment. 2.4.97 14:13 Preventing use of knowledge. 3.4.97 Among the most uneducated in the world. 5.4.97 That fear is so great. 7.4.97 16:39 Privatizing one huge company. From: "H. Stowe" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,sci.econ,alt.politics.reform,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,soc.women,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 16:53:11 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Ray Van Tassle wrote: > > Wrong. PAYMENT is used to reward the discovery of new > > knowledge. > If the payment comes from "government", it has every incentive to NOT pay > for the discovery. That would depend on who controls the government. If it were controlled by a democracy of consumers, then it would indeed have the incentive to reward invention. But if it is controlled by a democracy of dollars, the incentive to reward new invention would depend if that new invention will hurt the business of whatever group is contributing the most money. This happens under capitalism because we're short-sighted cowards. A new invention that might put me out of business must be stopped at all costs. Any society based on competition is scared to death of efficiency. ------ We have nothing to fear but fear itself.
From: "J. Steinbeck" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.reform,alf.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 16:39:28 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > > Similarly, China developed all of its basic industrial infastructure > > under communism. > Completely false. China stagnated under communism. Development only > got going again when they partially privatized land. Not as bad as > Cuba. Wrong. China stagnated under autocracy. Just like large "capitalist" companies stagnate under autocracy. China is run as if it were one huge company. Shared resources. No democracy. Economic equality cannot be achieved without democracy. "New" ideas die without freedom of expression. Privatization is nothing but autocratic "communism" on a smaller scale. This only succeeds because the small size makes it harder to limit free speech.
From: "J. Steinbeck" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,sci.econ,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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Sat, 05 Apr 1997 15:01:57 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Ashley Medlock wrote: > > definition of wealth is nothing but a pyramid scheme. Real > > wealth is labor, education, equipment, and raw materials. > Real wealth is anything that is in demand by the market. Capitalism is > separation of economy and state. Please read a little before you post. Under capitalism, real "wealth" is determined by whoever has the most money to by stocks, bonds, futures, and whoever has the money to control law "enforcement" by controlling the media. Capitalists don't even have to own politicians if they own the media. Capitalist wealth consists of shiny bits of rock and flowery slips of paper. > Actually, drive to succeed in a capitalist marketplace far exceeds any > government imposed regulations. Do you really think I got my education > because of something the government said or did? Save your slander for > someone else. The drive to succeed motivates the capitalist middle class and upper class. The fear of starvation, hypothermia, and crime-infested neighborhoods drives the lower class. That fear is so great that it leads to crime itself, just to get enough money to escape from under the boot of capitalist autocracy. But do we want to give them welfare or education? Of course not. Then they might actually invent something to put us out of business, then they might actually discover they have a right to free speech. --------- Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. - C. Salzenberg
From: "J. Steinbeck" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Thu, 03 Apr 1997 16:09:47 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > Odd then that the wealthiest countries are all capitalist, and that no > undeveloped country has succeeded in becoming developed except by the > capitalist path. Capitalists define wealth in terms of gold, in terms of ugly art, in terms of overinflated prices for land. The capitalist definition of wealth is nothing but a pyramid scheme. Real wealth is labor, education, equipment, and raw materials. Capitalist labor would be among the most uneducated in the world were it not for the democracy that's disappearing under campaign commercials and lobbyists.
From: "D. Gale" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,sci.econ,alt.politics.reform,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,soc.women,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 14:13:54 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Ray Van Tassle wrote: > > Patent rights are a totally inefficient way of producing > > knowledge, because the simple enforcement of patent rights > > reduces knowledge. If new knowledge is indeed wealth, then > > new wealth has been created. Society as a whole should > > reward that and make it free for anyone else to use. > Patents are a way for "society" to reward the discovery of new knowledge. > Or do you think it should be expropriated because it's a non-tangible? Wrong. PAYMENT is used to reward the discovery of new knowledge. Where that payment comes from just depends how efficient you want your society to be. If it comes from a private individual, then you'll have to waste resources preventing anyone else from using that knowledge. If it comes from society as a whole (ie. a tax), then you wouldn't have to worry about keeping everyone else from using this information. If fact, you could then ENCOURAGE everyone from applying what was learned to INCREASE production everywhere. (Of course, a production increase in a capitalist society is bad - puts people out of work.)
From: "D. Gale" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,soc.women,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 14:06:21 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > Wealth need not be defined by dollars to be measured in dollars > or some such equivalency. The point is, however measured, wealth > is at any given moment limited, and hence S&D is not broken. True. Wealth at any given moment as defined by human effort, amount of information, raw materials, and equipment. Now, all that wealth can either be WASTED in competitive activity (marketing, warfare, secrets, & lies) or that wealth can be used to create NEW wealth. BETTER human effort (education), MORE information (communication), access to MORE resources (research), or MORE equipment (manufacturing).
From: "D. Gale" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,soc.women,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 13:59:10 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. JMH wrote: > But if knowledge = wealth, something I can agree with > as a very general statement, you still haven't reached > unlimited wealth or unlimited resources. What we know, > therefore what resources we have and the wealth we have, > is limited. Resources indeed ARE limited. Limited by the amount of matter in the UNIVERSE. Access to those resources can be increased by producing knowledge. Duh. Before we invented the drill, we couldn't tap oil. Before we discovered nuclear energy, we couldn't use it. ------- I'm surrounded by scarecrows, lions, and tin men.
From: "D. Gale" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 13:50:50 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > Capital is created by people who choose to refrain from current > consumption. Capital is air, numbers, pieces of paper, shiny bits of rock. There is no inherent value to capital except that people agree it has value. What it represents is the amount of time and effort a person placed into "producing" that capital. A government doesn't need to tax to raise money. It can just to print more money. In the end, it doesn't really matter. What REALLY produces new products and knowledge is in the labor, information, and raw materials. The value of a piece of paper can only be enforced by a gun.
From: "D. Gale" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 13:41:31 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > It is true that capital exists, but it exists because of the > very conscious efforts of those who create and manage it. Capital only has value because people AGREE it has value. (Either that or people are forced at gunpoint to place value on a piece of paper.) This value can be either determined by autocracy, silent democracy, or a democracy in which EVERYONE, rich or poor, autocratic or democratic, is free to speak her mind and willing to listen to the other side.
From: "H.C. Anderson" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. (Dream on.) Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 12:03:54 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bill Mechlenburg wrote: > The most prosperous capitalist countries in the world also spend the most > on education. > You can't run a prosperous growth company without highly educated > employees. Your hysterical paranoia contributes nothing but confusion to > the issue. Correct that the most prosperous countries spend the most on education. But incorrect that they are capitalist. They spend the most on education either because of communism or democracy. Capitalists and autocrats FEAR education, because that would mean more economic or political competition. So they hide behind either trade secrets or media censorship. Why don't capitalists just give away their trade secrets and patent rights? Simple. The welfare and education system in this country sucks. Nobody wants to lose their own job, so they create bogus work for themselves. Wasting everybody's time, when they could've been learning new things instead. If not public education, the companies THEMSELVES should educate their employees. Of course, in most companies, managers don't want to be replaced by their own employees, so they'd sooner fire them and hire a dumber one. Autocracy.
From: "H. Mencken" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 14:56:24 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike wrote: > Is it not ironic, the capitalist countries of the > world, like America, have the greatest standards > of living. The citizenry of said countries routinely > take for granted luxuries like: car phones, digitized > stereos, bottled water, luxury sports cars, and > personal computers. Fool. Some of most capitalist countries also have the WORST standards of living and have to resort to COMMUNISM before they fall apart. We don't have high standards of living because of capitalism, we have it DESPITE capitalism. Capitalism only produces wealth for the capitalist. DEMOCRACY spreads that wealth to everyone else. THAT is why we have welfare, public education, and employee protection laws. We VOTED for them against all capitalist protest.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,soc.women,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 19:25:25 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Tony Veca wrote: > Since when does defending a patent or copyright constitute initiation of force? > You would do well to check the constitution. The US constitution specifically > instructs Congress to enact laws that protects inventors, writers, and artisians > work so they have a chance to make profit from the fruits of THIER Labor. Knowledge, capital, land, equipment, animals, and even people simply exist. What can be done to/with any of these things depend simply on laws. Under a capitalist "democracy", stupid laws continued to be perpetuated by capitalist "education" and campaign contributions. > Listen real closely, each person decides on what they worth. I know that the > current job market they only pay you enough for what it will cost them to > replace you. This is the reason why my wife and I are in business for > ourselves. Wrong. You do not decide what you are worth. Under capitalism, capitalists do. Ask yourself if your salary is determined by someone above you or below you. That is the difference between autocracy and democracy. As an owner of a business, you might say your salary is determined by a democracy of your consumers; however, it is a democracy of dollars and not votes. The value of your product/service is also determined not only by your own marketing, but by your opponent's marketing as well. How much of that money wasted on marketing by both sides could be spent so much more efficiently on product research, entertainment, or real education? American capitalism plods along despite so much waste only because of one thing - democracy has made true capitalism impossible.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,soc.women,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 19:09:35 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Tony Veca wrote: > >If everyone is supposed to benefit from new ideas, then LET everyone > >benefit from them. > I hate to tell you this, but your wrong. No one has to the right to benefit > from the work of another without earning it. That is the whole point behind > Copyright and Patent laws. This is totally stupid. Knowledge can be "cloned" for virtually nothing. And yet we use coercion to PREVENT people from making use of a piece of information that can benefit society. What it all comes down to is this: new knowledge "creates" time. It frees up other people from manual labor, so they can go on to do bigger and better things. You can reward this "time" that was created by giving more "time" back. Under capitalism, so much "time" is given back that not only does it support an entire underclass on welfare, but also allows "time" to be wasted on frivolous production, like beer-mug caps or phone-sex. This extra "time" could be so much more efficiently spent on more education, so that more time can be "created".
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,soc.women,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:32:23 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike wrote: > > And who determines that one person's labor is worth more > > than another's? > The law of supply and demand, not your police state's guns. The "law" of supply&demand is broken at its very foundation on the assumption that there is only a limited amount of wealth to go around. In early governments, this certainly appeared to be the case. Whatever currency the government used, there was only so much to go around, so supply&demand was used to fight over what was available. But it's NOT digging up more GOLD that creates new wealth, it's NEW KNOWLEDGE that produces new products and allows access to new resources. It's not more GOLD that makes our lives better today, it's all the new KNOWLEDGE that has been learned. > Patent rights insure and important driving force in any free > market: the profit motive. It's the profit motive that has > brought the world personal computers, color television, and > luxury sports cars. After all, how many inventions can you > name that were that had there genesis with an altruistic > motive in mind? Patent rights are a totally inefficient way of producing knowledge, because the simple enforcement of patent rights reduces knowledge. If new knowledge is indeed wealth, then new wealth has been created. Society as a whole should reward that and make it free for anyone else to use.
From: "H. Mencken" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:18:32 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Tony Veca wrote: > Listen up and listen real closely. The shareholders provided the capital for > the company to use to make a product or provide a service. In return they they > recieve part of the profits from the company depending on the number of shares > they hold. Where does this capital come from? Inheritance? Random endowment? Consumers? Exploited from more employees? Fact is, capital simply exists. Who gets to control it depends on who controls the government. In a majority democracy, at least half the people do. Under an autocracy, autocrats do. Under capitalism, capitalists do. Freedom of speech for the poor, freedom to be heard for the rich. > I would say your right up to a point. But that would not explain the continual > success' of corporations like Gateway 2000, Amway, Micron, Intel, Saturn and > others. The reason these companies are successful is because of the simple fact > that they listen to their employees. The companies that I have seen that are > the most successful are the ones that combine the best of US and Japanese > corporate structures. The reason the Original 13 Colonies (TM) were able to achieve such rapid growth was that they were willing to share power with new states on an equal basis, instead of remaining the elite 13 states. So new states rushed to join with enthusiasm. Small companies, on the other hand, rarely grow in the same way. What may have been a democracy at first soon only hires underlings, each risking the wrath of his manager should he disagree (or simply ignored with self-righteous conceit), and thus new ideas are never allowed to grow as they once did, and the company stagnates.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,soc.women,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 19:30:59 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Tony Veca wrote: > The US Constitution is very clear on this matter. Thus the Copyright and Patent > Laws, to protect the right of the individual ability to profit from the fruits > of his labor. The problem comes from the fact that the government does apply > these laws evenly or fairly. They were indeed meant to protect the inventor and to promote new innovation, but at what cost? No one can feely use that patent to create anything new. Great minds are wasted doing patent research. And everyone's time is being wasted arguing over whether something really constitutes a copyright violation or not. If everyone is supposed to benefit from new ideas, then LET everyone benefit from them. Society needs to find a new way to reward invention.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 19:24:24 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Tony Veca wrote: > >can hunt or grow food too, if only some capitalist > >wasn't there to shoot him for trespassing. All of > >capitalist wealth is rooted in violent conquest. > That is only true for Europe and only partially true for the US. Other than the > events in the early history of this nation with the Native Americans and some > scermishes with the Mexicans and Cubans. The United States has never been into > imperilistis expansionism, it was to costly and didn't gain them anything in the > long run. And, Texas doesn't count, it fought for it's indepenance as an > individual nation against the Mexicans before it became a state. Ever heard of Manifest Destiny? Ever heard of the Philippines? Everybody thinks their own country has never committed a wrong in taking land. Duh, it's called "national education". > But, I do have a question, if I buy a piece of property, do I not have a right > to protect it as I see fit? And, since when did defense constitute agression? If you buy a piece of property from a thief, then then that just makes you a thief as well. Land is created by no one. So how does anyone come to own it? Coercion.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,soc.women,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 19:16:40 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Tony Veca wrote: >> The last thing we want to >> do is teach you to make anything from those resources, >> because that will just put ourselves out of business. > Why would I want to take the time to make something for myself, when I can pay > for someone else to do it for me, time is money, and it will cost me less time > to pay someone else to do the work for me. This is what Free-Trade and > Free-Enterprise is all about. And yet you hire mercenaries and lawyers to prevent other people from using something they already know, by claiming patent rights. Where is the initiation of force eh? > Wrong! What I fear is some idealistic eagaltarain telling me that I have no > right to the fruits of my own labor and accusing me of crimes against humanity > because I dare trade my skills and severice for other skill or services I either > do not or can not provide for myself. And who determines that one person's labor is worth more than another's? Whoever has the most money to buy guns and buy commercials and buy newspapers.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 19:09:10 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Tony Veca wrote: > It makes me feel good to give my money to charities because it makes me feel > good to help those who have lost hope. I wasn't born into money, I was raised > poor, but I worked my tailside off to reach a point where I had more than enough > to lead the lifestyle I want and to be able give to those less fortunate than > myself. But I did it all without steping on others, I did it by helping others. It makes you feel good to give your money to charities because it is evolutionarily beneficial to do so. Those individuals and social groups that helped eachother to survive benefited themselves, and thus passed on both their genes and their philosophies. Capitalism, of course, treats another human being like a wolf treats a lamb... one must die.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 18:58:36 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Tony Veca wrote: > Mr. Mencken do you understand the law of supply and demand? Yep, supply&demand says that there is great demand for Rogaine in America, but barely any demand for food for Third World nations. What supply&demand really says is the more rich people that demand it, the more supply there will be. So we have lots of great glow-in-the-dark yoyos. While people's minds are being wasted in starvation, crime, & warfare because they don't think there's enough food to go around. Because the ruling class is afraid that education will mean too much competition.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 18:36:21 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Tony Veca wrote: > >The *problem* is that because the poor have no right to use > >any existing resources, they are faced with one of three > >choices: starve, crime, or work for someone else who is more > >than happy to take his own "share" of everything you produce. > I have a question? If I work for someone (thank god that I do not), I trade my > time for money, i.e. I get paid for my performance and time I am there. How is > he taking a share of what I produce. I entered the contract with that person > voluntarily. Where does the money come from? Consumers. Who does the work? Employees. Is all the money going striaght from consumers to employees? Nope. Why? Can we spell "shairhuldor"? Guess not. How "voluntary" is a decision if you are faced with death otherwise? There is always a factor of coercion in any decision, be it hunger, rent, or a bullet. And the reason you have to pay rent or sharecrop is because someone back in time conquered a piece of shared land. > I have watched to many companies rest on their initial successes and count on > their strength to protect them only to be taken out buy some smaller company > that is smarter, faster, cheaper, able to move in novel directions and > constently pays attention to marketing trends. The reason small companies are so mobile is because they often approach democracy. Everyone has a say in a new product and no one is afraid that their manager will take all the credit or fire him if he disagrees. When a company gets too large, this democracy usually disappears, and no one sees any incentive to share their own ideas if it just means it will be killed in upper management or stockholders will take all the profit anyway.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,soc.women,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 16:18:34 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Kasey wrote: > > They are "not as good" at refining because of a lack of > > information. They lack information because those in > > manufacturing hide behind trade secrets and patent rights. > > Manufacturers hide knowledge because of capitalism itself. > > If I tell you how to do it, you'll just put me out of a > > job. A capitalist economic system is unable to reward > > the spread of information, despite the fact that the spread > > of information is what moves civilization forward. > having to reinvent the wheel is a flaw of capitalism in many of > it's incarnations, however this often results in a better wheel. But, I claim, worth sacrificing everything ELSE that could've been created during that time... like something to put on top of that wheel. > fortunately copywrights and patents (in the u.s.) do expire, > permiting the knowledge to pass to the public domain. However the system > does need to be reworked some, in some areas 17 years is too long for a > patent to exist. (take computer technowledgy for example). Also many do > patent every possible variation on an idea they can come up with in > order to creat a defacto monopoly. > Also capitalism doese provide an incentive to the force of > creation itself. it provides direct reward for creativity. Trade secrets and "national security" secrets NEVER expire. And this inefficiency will last for all of eternity. If creation benefits all of society, then all of society should reward it. Of course, stockholders wouldn't want to give up on the control they currently have over their "inventors".
From: ush9667@is.nyu.edu (skoosh) Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,soc.women,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: 13 Mar 1997 08:22:44 GMT Organization: New York University Tony Veca (tveca@gte.net) wrote: : On Tue, 04 Mar 1997 18:15:29 -0800, "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com wrote: : >And farming is hard and hazardous because of that other : >great capitalist construct - colonialism. You make the : >cotton, you mine the iron, you chop the wood. We sell : >it all back to you at much higher prices after turning it : >into cloth, pots, and tables. : Excuse me, the last time I checked these thing do not fall from heaven like : Mana. They take work Of course they do. What Anderson is referring to, I believe, is the relations of power that prevent colonized populations from ever being able to do that work. The reason why factories didn't start springing up in India (for instance) until after independence is that it was far more lucrative for Britain to force India to export raw materials to Britain, then sell the goods manufactured from those materials back to India -- a literally captive market. Ever watch _Gandhi_? Rent it this weekend if you haven't. There's a reason why he always seems to be at the spinning wheel. Gandhi preached the principle of economic independence from Britain. Toward that end, he advocated the wearing of homespun cloth, which not only allowed people, especially women, to make a living, but also hurt the British economically by giving Indians a choice apart from British-manufactured textiles. The Salt March -- another great example of how Gandhi underlined the economic exploitation of the British colonial system. : >The last thing we want to : >do is teach you to make anything from those resources, : >because that will just put ourselves out of business. : Why would I want to take the time to make something for myself, when I : can pay for someone else to do it for me, time is money, and it will : cost me less time to pay someone else to do the work for me. This is : what Free-Trade and Free-Enterprise is all about. That's great -- if you ever have the option to become able to produce those goods. If you are never allowed that option, then the "freedom" in free enterprise and free trade becomes a bitter joke. Time wasn't money for a lot of colonized peoples -- the work they could have been doing, which could have given truth to that cliche, was being forcibly exported to Europe and the United States, where it remains to this day. Even if they were working, most of the profit they were producing was (and is) exported as well. Protest to institute minimum wages and labor laws? Not very easy when the people who run the government (and the police/army) are the people who own the factory you work in. : >Capitalism perpetuates itself because its own proponents : >fear being on the pointy side of the capitalist spear. : Wrong! What I fear is some idealistic eagaltarain telling me that I : have no right to the fruits of my own labor and accusing me of crimes : against humanity because I dare trade my skills and severice for other : skill or services I either do not or can not provide for myself. If this was a perfect world where children were raised in equivalent environments and people traded on a level playing field, maybe you would be right. Unfortunately, the average American and the average Indonesian are not bargaining on a level playing field. That's why Nike can pay incredibly low wages to Indonesian women. How many of those women are in a position to start up a shoe company? How many of those women are even able to organize to lobby for higher wages? They'd be shot down (literally) by the Indonesian government. Of course Nike factory workers in Indonesia trade what they can do (sew shoes) for what they can't (distribute and market those shoes worldwide). But the question is, *why* can't they? What forces are preventing them from doing so? If Indonesians can make shoes, why can't they hire Nike to sell the shoes and get a much larger piece of the gross revenues? Did this idea just not occur? Are Indonesians simply not enterprising enough to think of this, or try it? Or are they systematically prevented from doing it? Anyway, I'm not sure who's telling you that you have no right to the fruits of your own labor. On the contrary, I think most people here would say that everyone has a right to the fruits of their own labor, especially the people who actually are laboring (as opposed to merely owning). : Tony Veca : Visit the Cyber Libertarian Homepage : http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1099/ : cyberlib@geocities.com Apparently you are a libertarian, i.e., opposed to government power and interference in private and individual affairs. I am puzzled, then, as to why you feel compelled to defend colonialism, which is outside government interference and coercion pushed to the extreme. H Whoever started this thread: there's too many groups on it, but I don't see any that are really off-topic... endless dilemmas... -- "I am going to pose a question," King Milinda said to Venerable Nagasena. "Can you answer?" Nagasena said, "Please ask your question." The king said, "I have already asked." Nagasena said, "I have already answered." The king said, "What did you answer?" Nagasena said, "What did you ask?" The king said, "I asked nothing." Nagasena said, "I answered nothing." -- _"Who's on First" Zen_ self-indulgent homepage plug: http://pages.nyu.edu/~ush9667
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,soc.women,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 17:58:00 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Sam Hall wrote: > >> If being a jester was the best I could, then I would be a jester. > >> "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the > >> courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the > >> difference." > >Christianity has granted you the self-justification for being > >a slave. Capitalism is rooted in violence, maintained by > >exploitation, and perpetuated by coercion. Capitalism is doomed > >to forever be a second-rate society in which corporations and > >nations refuse to share their knowledge, despite all the new > >knowledge that can be produced, and will fall victim to the > >first threat that they can't handle because they were too busy > >fighting with each other instead of learning from each other. > I am neither a Christian nor a slave. Capitalism is nothing more than > man's natural instinct. All other systems require that humans be > forced. Also, capitalism has done more good for the human race than > any other thing. It has certainly been good for the U.S. We are about > 5% of the the world's population and we have most of the wealth and > power. Correct, capitalism, like violence and feudalism, ARE nothing more than man's natural instinct. What is UNnatural, is democracy. And it is democracy that has made this country as productive as it is today, DESPITE capitalism. It is democracy that protects the employee. It is democracy that protects the consumer. It is democracy that educates the poor. What this country is missing is ENOUGH democracy. Everyone is equal, the rich are more equal. ----- Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. - C. Salzenberg
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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 17:49:05 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Hank Rearden wrote: > The government can't sway people if they aren't given the power to do so. > The more power the government assumes in controlling wealth, the more > your life will be swayed. > Capitalism works fine. If you buy twelve rolls-royces, good for you. If > you buy Congress, then there's a problem. If you elect Congressmen who > can force individuals, business, et al., then you also have a problem. > Capitalists can't force you into doing something. Yes, they can. Dress codes being just one minor example. A government is needed to prevent corporations from using economic coercion to control their employees. Limiting the power of federal democracy without implementing corporate democracy will just replace one ruler with another. What's really needed is more democracy on both levels. ------- Freedom of speech for the poor, freedom to be heard for the rich.
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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 17:32:47 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Hank Rearden wrote: > > The ones who contribute to charity do so because of guilt. > > They know they've robbed both their employees and their > > consumers... just by pointing to their blood-soaked deed. > > But despite knowing that they are wrong, they do not > > admit it because they fear that the masses may just be > > stupid enough to actually kill all of them for telling the > > truth. And the reason they fear the ignorant masses is > > because they continue to fight against educating the poor, > > for fear that an educated public might come up with better > > ideas that will make them unemployed. It's a vicious cycle. > Or they are God fearing and contribute because they want to. The fear of God (like the fear of Government) is NOT contribution because you want to. It's contribution because you feel you are forced to. However, the fear of God and Government are quite efficient ways of ensuring altruism among the members of society. This is desirable because cooperation benefits all members of society. What is NOT desirable, however, is when the fear of God or Government has made society forget why cooperation is beneficial in the first place. The result: racism, warfare, autocracy, capitalism.
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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 17:24:42 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. JMH wrote: > > Guilt it seems is not a very rational emotion. > I've also read (but forgot where) argument going just to opposite > direction. Guilt feeling can force us to behave in socially > beneficial ways. Whether this is nature or nurture in operation... Exactly. This emotion called "guilt" (like "pity") is just another symptom of genetic altruism. Because of natural selection itself, individuals that help each other are better able to survive harsh environments. For this same reason, various higher animals form cooperative communities. When resources are scarce, there are two options: violent confrontation leading to death in one and a possible injury in the other; or cooperative sharing of information that prevents the inefficient redundancy of re-discovery.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 18:34:08 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > > The "far-flung capitalists" do _intentionally_ reduce the > > consumer's choices for profit. This was asserted by me in > > this thread quite a while ago. And because they _intend_ > > it, they _are_ responsible for it and they _are_ to blame. > Ah yes, compare the narrow choice on the shop shelves of every > capitalist country with the wide choice in all those socialist > countries. Again (and again and...), your "socialist" countries were about as socialist as this one is democratic. In a country where you can't vote out corrupt politicians who are in it only for their own profit, you can never achieve socialism. In a country where you can buy yourself votes with campaign commercials or legions of lobbyists, you can never achieve democracy.
From: "H.C. Anderson" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 18:21:54 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Maxim Jacobs wrote: > > Power over the airwaves is power over ideas. Power over ideas > > is power over opinion. Why do you think political parties > > spend so much on marketing? > > Freedom of speech for the poor, freedom to be heard for the rich. > They dont have power over the airwaves since anyone can get a commercial if > they have enough money, and sometimes they dont even need that because of > cheap cable advertising prices. They spend so much on advertising to > influence opinion but that doesnt mean they have power over it. The > AFL-CIO spent millions in an attempt to influence the electorate so that > they would vote for a democratic congress. That didnt work obviously. Probably just didn't have enough money to spend. No one would run commercials at all if they didn't actually believe it would sway "democracy" in their favor. Anyone can hunt or grow food too, if only some capitalist wasn't there to shoot him for trespassing. All of capitalist wealth is rooted in violent conquest.
From: "H.C. Anderson" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 18:08:18 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. JMH wrote: > > Exactly. Profit is always the ultimate motivation. The only > > incentive for greater efficiency is so the producer can > > have more money. The ultimate benefit for consumers is when > > the price of something drops to 0. But in a capitalist > > society, that is completely impossible. > So all capitalilst are misers who only want money for > money's sake; they don't want the money for some other > end? The ones who contribute to charity do so because of guilt. They know they've robbed both their employees and their consumers... just by pointing to their blood-soaked deed. But despite knowing that they are wrong, they do not admit it because they fear that the masses may just be stupid enough to actually kill all of them for telling the truth. And the reason they fear the ignorant masses is because they continue to fight against educating the poor, for fear that an educated public might come up with better ideas that will make them unemployed. It's a vicious cycle.
From: "H.C. Anderson" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 17:48:57 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Maxim Jacobs wrote: > First off, fiscal conservatives dont support anarchy. One of the basic > roles that government has is to defend private property rights and there is > no more a private property than one's own body. "Private property rights" that include conquered land. "Private property rights" that include stolen resources given away to others. "Private property rights" that include wealth produced by taking advantage of workers who otherwise have no other access to stolen raw materials. > Second, even if there were an anarchist system why would things really > change? What incentive would there be for a property owner to spend a lot > of money on guns and thugs when they could easily get good workers just by > offering a fair price. Being a thug aint easy you know. And it took hundreds of years of living under feudalism for them to figure out that democracy was workable. How about another hundred years under feudalism?
From: "H. Mencken" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 15:19:54 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > About ten years ago somebody poured petrol around my house and set > fire to it. (Fortunately no great damage ensued.) I called the > police and told them I had a pretty good idea who did it. The police > were not interested. They did not even fill out a form. So I paid a > visit to the suspect and had a brief chat. > Compare this incident with all the times I have been harassed by > police on suspicion of being suspicious. So your proposal is what? Have no police at all? Next time you go visit that suspect, he's going to have a whole lot less reasons not to kill you on sight.
From: "H. Mencken" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 15:17:17 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Libertarius wrote: > >Give it up. The police does all those things AND defends your > >"right" to your property. Without them, you would have no > >property unless you hired your very own knights, squires, > >and archers. > WARNING: THERE ARE NO GUNS ON THESE PREMISES So you prefer the replacement of all police officers with personal weaponry? That's how we'll solve all our disputes right? Kill anyone who disagrees?
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,soc.women,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 15:13:10 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Sam Hall wrote: > >You harm me if your money allows you to fence off land and hire > >goons to prevent me from growing food on that land. You harm me > >if your money goes into TV ads telling everyone not to buy my > >product. You harm me if you spend money on technology that > >makes my job obsolete and I can't afford it myself. You harm > >me if you hire away all the good teachers, leaving me to study > >under the incompetent ones. You harm me if you can hire more > >lawyers or politicians to send after me than I can. > If you open a mom & pop hardware store next to a Wal-Mart, you get > what you deserve. Try instead to get a contract to haul the trash from > Wal-Mart. Oh, that's probably beneath you, sorry. It's called mightmakesright economics. Why not just go back to feudalism? If you try to go up against a king with just your own little pitchfork, you deserve to die. Try instead becoming the king's court jester. Oh, that's probably beneath you, sorry.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,soc.women,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 15:00:03 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Ray Van Tassle wrote: > > Ok, you walk up to a woman (or man) and hold up a gun. > > You tell her, "I will now have sex with you, and if you > > don't say 'Yes' then you will die." She says, "Yes." > > To a capitalist, this would be called consent, and thus > > they pat themselves on the back for exploiting workers > > who want to eat. > Typical liberal newspeak. Conflating mitigation of damage to voluntary > agreement. Coersion is using force (or threat-of-force) to compell > someone. Whatever they do in response is NOT voluntary. Coersion is using force (or threat-of-force) to chase someone off your land because they don't have a little piece of paper that says the land belongs to them... because they don't have a gun to fight back... because their parents didn't have the guns to fight back when they were chased off in the first place. The world's first landlord had a deed in one hand and a club in the other.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,soc.women,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:54:02 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > > Ok, you walk up to a woman (or man) and hold up a gun. > > You tell her, "I will now have sex with you, and if you > > don't say 'Yes' then you will die." She says, "Yes." > > To a capitalist, this would be called consent, and thus > > they pat themselves on the back for exploiting workers > > who want to eat. > However, the requirement to work to eat does not constitute > the threat of violence. If you feel it does, then please do > find a prosecutor who'll indict the Universe and a jury who > will convict it. When the end-result is death, do you think anyone is going to philosophize about whether guns or hunger constitute a threat of violence? Both lead to willing slavery. But if you must insist on a threat of violence, here it is: a hungry man needs food, he tries to use "your" land to grow food, you shoot him. Why? Because it's YOUR land; after all your great-grandpappy killed someone fair and square for it.
From: "H. Mencken" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:48:29 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Maxim Jacobs wrote: > > And THAT is precisely what's wrong with capitalism. Producers do > > not have the incentive to achieve efficiency beyond the point of > > profitability. Because if they do, prices will be so low they > > lose their business. > Do you think the point of business is to not lose money? Producers want to > reduce costs as much as they can so they can profit as much as they can. Exactly. Profit is always the ultimate motivation. The only incentive for greater efficiency is so the producer can have more money. The ultimate benefit for consumers is when the price of something drops to 0. But in a capitalist society, that is completely impossible. > And whom do you suppose sets the commondity rates? Consumers. Because if > consumers buy a for example, a lot more corn, the price will go up so that > farmers will get paid more for their corn. If producers actually believed consumers determined prices, then they wouldn't be so resistant to letting consumers ACTUALLY decide how much they could charge. Prices wouldn't go up if there wasn't anyone to raise them. Capitalism is one of the most counter-productive systems around: consumers want lower prices, producers want higher prices. Either the consumers are heading toward poverty or the producers are heading toward unemployment. Neither even stops to consider that by making products free, even the poor and unemployed will have the freedom to pursue more education. Face it, the industrial revolution has proven you don't need a large percentage of farmers to feed everyone.
From: "H. Mencken" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:34:23 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Aaron Bilger wrote: > Under laissez-faire capitalism, the government doesn't have the power to do the > abusive things our current government does (e.g. give money taken from taxpayers > to selected other individuals or companies), so the point of lobbying would be > gone. The problem isn't that rich companies can lobby a government to give > taxmoney to them, but that the government has such a power at all. The *problem* is that the government is continually used by the rich to enforce their claim over land and resources, a claim that resulted ultimately from gunpowder and sharpened steel. The *problem* is that because the poor have no right to use any existing resources, they are faced with one of three choices: starve, crime, or work for someone else who is more than happy to take his own "share" of everything you produce.
From: "H. Mencken" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:27:30 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > Somebody did. See Charles Murray's 'Losing Ground'. Although the > analysis is complicated, as you suspect, and the reading is hard, > like a bad textbook, the magnitude of carefully researched statistics > pretty much confirms your suspicion -- welfare causes crime and poverty. Pshaw, right. That's the capitalist state we all live in my friend. We feed them so they lose the incentive to join in any unseemly Marxist revolts. But we don't really try to educate them, because that will just cause more competition for us. Our capitialist version of welfare is just more practical than a better armed police state. But despite the fact that we don't want competition, we don't want to close off ALL paths to success for the poor either, because that may just lead the poor into drug dealing or something...
From: "H. Mencken" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:15:34 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Libertarius wrote: > >Central management only screws up if controlled by the few. > >Any decisions made by the few will benefit the few. If > >decisions were made by the many, you can bet that they > >won't be benefiting just the rich. The reasons that power was > >entrenched in Soviet politicians and money in the American > >wealthy are the same: lack of democracy. > The greatest control over the economy would be in a TOTALLY FREE > market system. And the only totally FREE market system would be when there are no soldiers guarding stolen property. When everyone owns an equal share of every resource and are FREE to join with others into their own companies, go it on their own, or give it away for no good reason.
From: "H. Mencken" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 14:09:43 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Karl Wee wrote: > > Central management only screws up if controlled by the few. > > Any decisions made by the few will benefit the few. If > > decisions were made by the many, you can bet that they > > won't be benefiting just the rich. The reasons that power was > > entrenched in Soviet politicians and money in the American > > wealthy are the same: lack of democracy. > How do you choose between a politician who will give you better housing > and one who will give you more food? In a way this is already happening > as we were forced to choose between someone who won't balance the budget > and someone who was a nut case in 1992. Correct. You don't. If computer technology can't handle a referendum on every issue, then elect single issue politicians. And if those single issue politicians don't know how to decide whether to fund more education or to balance the budget, then surely, it should be up to the voter herself to decide where her priorities lie. > There is a reason why most things in life are controlled by the free > market rather than the political process. The rules of the market are > few and simple enough for us to monitor things through the ballot box > and make sure things basically work. The rules of feudalism are also few and simple enough. Whoever can afford the most soldiers and firepower will rule. The same is true of the "free" market... Only poor freemarketeers believe that it's dominated by some Great Hand of God. Rich freemarketeers know that it is they who are the Hand of God.
From: "H. Mencken" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:58:30 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > > According to fiscal conservatives, any regulation is an attack on > > a "free" market. And thus, so was the abolition of slavery. How can > > there be more regulation than that? > Ending slavery would be an attack on "free markets" if slaves had no > rights, as many people believed back then, and as is the rule rather > than the exception in socialist countries. Fortunately, that situation > in this country has changed so that the use of force against other > humans is illegal. > It is not really a free market issue, but instead a human rights issue. And property rights are a human rights issue, so say fiscal conservatives. So what gives a plantation owner the right to take a share of what their sharecroppers produce? Because, through the kindness of the plantation owner's heart, he is willing to allow someone else to work his land without shooting her to death. Because, through the kindness of his heart, he has chased off all the Injuns that used to use this land, all for the benefit of the sharecropper. Because, through the kindness of his heart, he continues to chase off anyone else who wants to use this land, unless she is even more willing to hand over a share of what she produces.
From: "M. Luther" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 20:17:45 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Maxim Jacobs wrote: > > According to fiscal conservatives, any regulation is an attack on > > a "free" market. And thus, so was the abolition of slavery. How can > > there be more regulation than that? > But slavery itself was a regulation. It said that blacks were not allowed > to leave a plantation without their "owners" permission. If there had not > been laws and regulations backing up slavery, then it would not have lasted > as long as it did. One could easily have slavery without government involvement. And that's exactly what fiscal conservatives will get. Cut as much away from government as possible, until the lord is the true master of his manor, and is free to kill anyone who threatens to leave or stop working. Without a federal government, each property owner becomes the ruler over anyone on his property.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,soc.women,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:24:59 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Maxim Jacobs wrote: > > Rape is not "real coercion" unless the victim actively > > resists and is unable to escape because of a lack of > > strength. If the rapist instead gives his victim a choice > > between death or rape, then it is still up to the victim > > to decide. And capitalists give workers a choice between > > death or work, and it is also up to the victim to decide. > And what about the other choice that workers are given, to start their own > company. Just like bacteria, the simplest form of life, is the most > numerous organism in nature, sole proprietorships, the simplest type of > business is the most common type of business in the economy. In other > words capitalism is nowhere near being close to rape because absolutely no > coercion is involved. You can choose who to work for, for others or for > yourself. Yes, and you are free to go start your own country. Go claim yourself some remote island or coral reef. Capitalism makes starting your own company almost as difficult as starting your own government. The natural resources have long been claimed by capitalists, hiding behind legal documents and superior firepower. Mightmakesright politics has been transformed over the centuries into mightmakesright economics simply because the working class has become accustomed to working on "someone else's" land.
From: "M. Luther" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:17:26 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. mcessig@concentric.net wrote: > > In capitalism the consumers in the end decide who winds up on top. In > > feudalism the accidents of birth and marriage. > Do you actually believe this? If advertising, mass miseducation, and > outright propaganda can be effectively brought to bear by the ruling > class to make the consumers' choice for them then who actually made the > "choice." American "capitalism" is little more than feudalism held in check by a semblance of political democracy, which through attempted worker/consumer protection, truth in advertising, and anti-trust regulations have managed to scrape together a middle-class.
From: "M. Luther" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:41:43 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > > > But under socialism only the best and brightest could ever > > > make it to the top because it would be decided politically > > > who was the best and the brightest. > > It sounds like you just made a good argument against the capitalism you > > endorse. What's bad about endorsing the "best and brightest," rather than > > endorsing who has the most campaign money? Please explain... > This phenomenon of only the best and the brightest assuming > leadership roles in politics is so well established in practice > that its referred to as the pond syndrome: scum rises to the top. Wealth rises to the top. ------------- Freedom of speech for the poor, freedom to be heard for the rich.
From: "T. Hobbes" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:06:48 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Sam Hall wrote: > >Ok, if we have racers who get a free head start, we call it capitalism. > >If we have Harrison Bergeron held back by 10 ton weights, we call it > >liberalism. So what do you call it if they actually run a real race? > >I'd call it Justice. > What is this about? Capitalism is not a zero sum game. It doesn't > matter where you start. You aren't racing against other people, but > against yourself. Bill Gates getting rich has no effect on if I do. > I'll say it again, it doesn't matter where you start compared to other > people. True, they may have an easier time of it, but that doesn't > harm you. You harm me if your money allows you to fence off land and hire goons to prevent me from growing food on that land. You harm me if your money goes into TV ads telling everyone not to buy my product. You harm me if you spend money on technology that makes my job obsolete and I can't afford it myself. You harm me if you hire away all the good teachers, leaving me to study under the incompetent ones. You harm me if you can hire more lawyers or politicians to send after me than I can.
From: "T. Hobbes" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:47:53 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Maxim Jacobs wrote: > > vote in it. Poor freemarketeers are willing to let their fortunes > > be determined by the winds; rich freemarketeers know that it > > will be they who will be determining everyone's fortunes. > That is true and not true at the same time. While free markets are not > centrally planned, there are still many people that make decisions in it, > the consumers. If consumers suddenly don't like a product, that "rich > freemarketeer" will be out of business very quickly. In capitalism, the producers have just as much power over consumers. It's called marketing and a lack of selection. If consumers don't like a product, throw famous athletes and statistics at them until they do. If they don't fall for the marketing, then they still have to wait until a competitor comes up with a better product. And that is why we have mergers, oligopolies, and lobbying for regulations that boost entry costs. However, if consumers voted to raise a producer's salary for lowering prices, and lowered a producer's salary for raising prices, you can bet that the producer won't be raising prices.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,soc.women,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:32:20 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > > Rape is not "real coercion" unless the victim actively > > resists and is unable to escape because of a lack of > > strength. > I urge you not to test this theory of rape on real people. > It IS rape if she says no. She doesn't not need to shout NO. > She does not need to actively resist. It may even be rape if > she does not positively assent. You cannot assume passive > silence to be consent. > I am astonished that this should need explaining to anyone. Ok, you walk up to a woman (or man) and hold up a gun. You tell her, "I will now have sex with you, and if you don't say 'Yes' then you will die." She says, "Yes." To a capitalist, this would be called consent, and thus they pat themselves on the back for exploiting workers who want to eat.
From: "T. Hobbes" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:21:21 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Maxim Jacobs wrote: > > capitalism wastes human effort on screen savers and space > > travel, so the producers of food and shelter can claim, "Hey, > > it's not OUR fault food and shelter are so expensive. There > > just isn't enough to go around." > Food today is the cheapest its been in the history of mankind. Remember up > to last year when the Freedom to Farm act was enacted, farmers were > actually paid not to plant certain crops because the cost of food was so > low that many farmers were going out of business. And THAT is precisely what's wrong with capitalism. Producers do not have the incentive to achieve efficiency beyond the point of profitability. Because if they do, prices will be so low they lose their business. If, however, food was already free, and producers produce food based on a salary provided by consumers instead of commodity rates, then it would be to the producer's advantage to become more efficient and thus have to do less work for the same return. (Isn't the ultimate goal of technology to achieve NO work for the same return?)
From: "T. Hobbes" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:11:58 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Aaron Bilger wrote: > >Sure more consumption is good, sure jobs are good, > >but that isn't the point. The point is that human labor is a > >form of wealth. If you spend human effort to dig a hole > >and then to fill it up again, sure, you might have fed all > >your diggers and fillers, but the effort was wasted. > And it's amazing how rarely capitalism leads to such waste, whereas government > intervention into the economy -- such as paying grain farmers not to grow > anything, subsidizing tobacco farmers while at the same time spending > tremendously on a war on drugs, etc. -- produce such waste. And the government pays hospitals for each doctor they *don't* train. However, you miss the fact that in capitalism, the rich *become* the government. They can afford to lobby, they can afford to contribute, they can afford to fund raise. And you also miss the fact that we already *have* waste. Each dollar spent on making a CD instead of food is waste as long as people are hungry. Each dollar spent on making Rogaine instead of housing is waste as long as people are homeless. The reason this happens in capitalism is because venture capitalists see no reason to enter the "saturated" markets of food and housing, and instead opt for new unpopulated markets. And so we have a myriad of semi-useful products that no one would want with them on a desert island.
From: "T. Hobbes" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 16:01:02 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Sam Hall wrote: > >they won't be working on threat of hunger or eviction; > >they would be working because they want Satellite TV and > >a new sailboat. They also won't be committing crimes on > >threat of hunger or eviction; they would instead be > >committing crimes because they want Satellite TV and a new > >sailboat. > How many crimes are committed to steal food or to pay the rent? So > rare that it makes the news when it happens. And THAT, my friend, we owe all to welfare. Who needs to steal when you get it for free? But if you ever end welfare without showing the poor another easy way out, then watch out! You *will* see more of what's thankfully so rare today (at least in this country). ------------ The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. -- Anatole France
From: "T. Hobbes" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:12:59 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bill Whitehouse wrote: > The oil industry is an oligarchy - a group of monopolists that > have chosen to work together. The airline industry operates as > a oligarchy most of the time, with small, carefully-orchestrated > "fare wars" now and then. Both of these industries have been > _de_regulated over the last couple of decades. And as usual, > little competition, high profits. According to fiscal conservatives, their little "fare wars" should result in permanent low prices. Of course, this doesn't happen because of high entry costs and lack of consumer control. > > Capitalism is not against competition, it > > favors it, and shown throughout history. > Competition _itself_ seeks to eliminate the state of competition. > In laissez-faire capitalism there is _nothing_ that guarantees real > choice, and _everything_ that guarantees that all competitors will > be actively working against it. Exactly. Competition means hurting your neighbor so that you come out ahead. Cooperation means helping your neighbor so that you both come out ahead. Thus we also see in nature the hive, herd, flock, and pack mentality (not to mention the establishment of human civilization).
From: "T. Hobbes" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:04:06 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Max Jacobs wrote: > The racist society in the south during slavery was closer to 15th > century feudalism than it was to modern capitalism. Nazi Germany was a > Fascist state, which is again far from free market capitalism. According to fiscal conservatives, any regulation is an attack on a "free" market. And thus, so was the abolition of slavery. How can there be more regulation than that?
From: "T. Hobbes" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:44:28 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Max Jacobs wrote: > And who will give them the shoes? The government? In order for > everyone who wants shoes to get shoes without paying for them, the > government would have to take them from those that make the shoes or > from the other runners. Since this will negatively effect the demand > for shoes (why would you buy shoes if the government will give them to > you for free) less shoes will be made, and certain shoe factories will > have to close down since shoes arent as profitable as they once were. Yes, demand for shoes will decrease once everyone has shoes. But factories will close and workers will be unemployed only in a capitalist system. And no, you don't take from "the fruits of other people's labor", you take from the fruits of mechanical labor, and you keep paying the operators of those machines with better shoes... or tickets to Les Mis, cell phones, whatever.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 15:23:39 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Max Jacobs wrote: > > But he would still be alive after those years. If fiscal > > conservatives have their way here, they'd be dead within > > weeks. Maybe some Americans get jobs for the same reason > > slaves obey their masters. Who else is going to give them > > food to eat and a roof under which to huddle? > There is such a thing called a job market you know. You sell your > services to whomever you want to work for. Unless people work in a > one-business town (and id like to see someone give me an example of > that) they can always find work somewhere else. It is their choice. > Slaves on the other hand, never had anything even resembling a choice. There are many different types of "choice". Slaves work in a monopoly. If you don't work, you die. Capitalists work in an oligopoly. You must work for one of the Big Three, or you have to go into an entirely different (probably less profitable) business. In a society of real choice, each person would start with an equal share of resources, and be free to choose whether to incorporate their resources with that of another group.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:56:54 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Aaron Bilger wrote: > >If he created the wealth, then fine. If he inherited the wealth, > >then he did not earn it and does not deserve any more of it than > >the guy standing in the welfare line deserves a food stamp. > You can say he did not earn it, but inheritance is an issue of the property > rights of the person whose inheritance it is, not the inheritor. If someone > wants to give their wealth to their son or daughter, or to United Way or the > Flat Earth Society, or their pet parakeet, it is their property right to do so. So you hate welfare mothers because they have money they didn't earn, and you worship spoiled brats because they inherited money they didn't earn? What if I stole your computer? Do I now have a right to give that computer to my son? Or sell that computer to my neighbor? Would I have more of a right to sell that computer if I installed WordPerfect? What gives armies the right to kill others and then turn around and sell the property that they've just "earned"? > >Yes, that's exactly it. Capitalism holds back progress by > >creating waste. Do taxpayers have a right to tell politicians > >what to spend their money on? > An irrelevant question since politicians have no 'right' to take taxes in the > first place, any more than any other criminal could be said to have the 'right' > to take peoples' property by force. If a thief goes to your house and stole your TV, he doesn't have that right because it was force beyond your control. However, if someone holds a gun to your head and demands you take him to your TV, it is your *choice* to do so. Which is the capitalist justification for exploiting workers who "choose" to eat.
From: "J. Hancock" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:41:04 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Aaron Bilger wrote: > >The same way we decide what to do with tax money. We vote on it. > Since taxes are already money stolen from people, it's a pretty moot point > what's done with it. Taxation is already unethical. You wish to further > expand the evil of taking from people what they earned? The day you abolish taxes is the day the police stop defending your front door. Unless of course, everyone hires their own private little army and we can go happily back to feudalism and might-makes-right politics.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:37:47 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > > Maybe some Americans get jobs for the same reason > > slaves obey their masters. Who else is going to give them > > food to eat and a roof under which to huddle? > Observe that the jobs that Americans get usually pay substantially > better than the jobs that Frenchmen get, as well as being more readily > available. As if the French are part of this argument. Just because one man is paid a helluvalot does not justify the fact that another has nothing. It's like justifying murder because, hey, the murderer is still alive (and has more money than Frenchmen as well).
From: "J. Hancock" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:32:52 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Rich Johnson wrote: > : Money could either go to making glasses used over and > : over again by the poor, or it could go into making glasses > : that Richguy drinks from once, and then smashes against > : his fireplace. > Well, if the richguy does that he probably won't be rich for very > long and so his wealth will get redistributed to the people who > make the glasses. A fool and his money are soon parted. Just because an idiot will ultimately punish himself doesn't justify the fact that what he is wasting could be put to better use elsewhere. Blind men don't need a Mona Lisa. > The problem with that model is that if you take away from the > productive the choice of how to use the fruits of their labors > then they won't be as productive. Who is taking away the "fruits of their labor"? If they really earned it, then they deserve it. But if he stole someone else's raw materials to earn it, then the people he stole from also have a right to it. Say I killed a thousand Jews for their land and mined it for millions in gold. What are you going to do? Take away my gold? But won't that take away my incentive to mine more gold?
From: "J. Hancock" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:22:02 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Clint Johnson wrote: > > So who is going to say, "Give them all shoes (if they want them) > > and start them all at the same point"? ...I will. > > And I bet most Olympic judges would be smart enough to say > > the same thing too. > Wave the magic wand and they all have shoes... that still leaves some that > are faster than others. Since you can't make anyone faster than they are, > the liberal answer is to make the fast ones slower. Ok, if we have racers who get a free head start, we call it capitalism. If we have Harrison Bergeron held back by 10 ton weights, we call it liberalism. So what do you call it if they actually run a real race? I'd call it Justice.
From: "J. Hancock" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:11:31 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Max Jacobs wrote: > I believe in equal opportunity. Which is why I'm a libertarian. In a > free market capitalist system you dont have to like someone for their > color, you only have to like them for their money. If you believed in equal opportunity, do you believe all children should get the same shot at a good education? That entry into any school should be based solely on merit, and not on how much his parents can afford to pay for his tuition, transportation, or supplies? That inheritance completely opposes equal opportunity?
From: "J. Hancock" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:05:06 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > > > The analogy was that there's one Sally, and both > > > George and Joe desire to marry her. Whose choice takes > > > precedence? Geroge, Joe or Sally? > Well, as we've seen, NO it cannot. In the socialist version > EVERYONE gets a choice. Before Sally and George or anyone else > for that matter the whole collective must approve (50%+1.) You've completely missed the point. In a "free" market, Sally's "choice" is between either that of starving because George and Joe have all the money, or having to marry either George or Joe just to survive. It doesn't matter how fat, stupid, or ugly either George or Joe are. If she doesn't marry one, she won't make it past the month. In a society with more economic equality, she wouldn't have to marry either if she didn't feel like it.
From: "J. Hancock" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 19:03:24 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > Mr. Bill Whitehouse has not been paying attention. The whole > point of free-markets is that no one person makes the decisions > for the economy. The whole point of free-markets is that no one at all makes the decisions for the economy. The whole point of true socialism is that everyone who is affected by the economy has an equal vote in it. Poor freemarketeers are willing to let their fortunes be determined by the winds; rich freemarketeers know that it will be they who will be determining everyone's fortunes.
From: "J. Hancock" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 18:36:05 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > Nonsense. Almost since the first organism split, there was > competition. There may be a tendency for competitors to > eleminate one another, but there also seems a tendency for > competitors to survive. There are two paths to survival. You can either compete with your brother on every level, until only you have access to all the apples on the tree. Or you can cooperate, one brother harvests the apples and the other peels and stores them. Herds, tribes, governments, and companies all form because of cooperation. It is the coworker that is intent on competition, refusing to share any of his knowledge or help another coworker, that hurts both his coworkers and his company.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,soc.women,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 18:28:10 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > But what Mr. Bill Whitehouse fails to differentiate is > the difference between the Universe and other people > as givers and takers. The rapist "gives" his victim the > choice of submitting or whatever. This is coercion. It > can be challenged, perhaps not directly/immediately by > the victim, but in fact we do sanction rapists, and so > diminish the likelihood of such behaviors. Rape is not "real coercion" unless the victim actively resists and is unable to escape because of a lack of strength. If the rapist instead gives his victim a choice between death or rape, then it is still up to the victim to decide. And capitalists give workers a choice between death or work, and it is also up to the victim to decide. How do you define cause and effect? If a worker cannot obtain food, he's killed by nature, not by the fact that no one will give him food. If a victim bleeds to death, he's killed by nature, not by the fact that someone put a knife in him. As if these petty arguments matter. Death is still death in any case, and that is why victims submit to their rapists and workers to capitalists.
From: "J. Hancock" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 18:12:24 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > As to the other point of money being wasted on things nobody wants -- > this is exactly the problem with big government. It is instead the problem of a lack of democracy. Too many contractors have their hands in our government's pockets because too many politicians have their hands in contractors' pockets. When only the rich get to make all the decisions, you'll obviously have to settle for what the rich want. > much poorer. This is why it is important to make government as > small as possible The only thing a smaller government does is to enable more rule by the wealthy instead of only the super-wealthy. It simply allows people to be able to bribe local governments for control over more issues, instead of having to bribe the federal government. Without real democracy, money will always be wasted on things only the rich fancy.
From: "J. Hancock" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:46:06 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > > Money could either go to making glasses used over and > > over again by the poor, or it could go into making glasses > > that Richguy drinks from once, and then smashes against > > his fireplace. > If a rich person keeps breaking glasses (yeah, that happens all > the time...), then more will need to be produced, which creates > several jobs, so now several other people can buy food, glasses, > cars, whatever. Sure more consumption is good, sure jobs are good, but that isn't the point. The point is that human labor is a form of wealth. If you spend human effort to dig a hole and then to fill it up again, sure, you might have fed all your diggers and fillers, but the effort was wasted. And so, capitalism wastes human effort on screen savers and space travel, so the producers of food and shelter can claim, "Hey, it's not OUR fault food and shelter are so expensive. There just isn't enough to go around."
From: "J. Hancock" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 17:34:10 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > > Like the slave and the prostitute. While, I with my > > inherited fortune can feel free to go write music and > > great novels. > So now we've come down to equating working with slavery > and prostitution? Many slaves work for the same reason many of today's workers work: to get good and shelter, to avoid death by starvation or hypothermia. Some slaves choose to revolt against their masters and are killed. Some of today's workers choose to commit a crime and are also killed. > So then we're to assume that in the > socialist utopia there will be neither slavery nor > prostitution? None will work and we'll just all sit > back with our fortunes ... oooooooooops. Where'd those > fortunes come from? Each advance in technology will serve more people instead of replacing more. Sure, some people will still work in order to keep technology running and other people will work to come up with new technology. But they won't be working on threat of hunger or eviction; they would be working because they want Satellite TV and a new sailboat. They also won't be committing crimes on threat of hunger or eviction; they would instead be committing crimes because they want Satellite TV and a new sailboat.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 21:43:09 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Rob wrote: > The rich guy BURNS the money so no one benefits from it. Or so it seems. > Until you consider that cash is an IOU for goods and services provided. The > rich man has already given (sold) something to someone, or done something > for them to get the cash. The cash is just the means for the rich man to > get back what he traded his goods or service for. So if he burns the cash > it's actually BETTER for society as a whole as no one has to pay him back. > He basically donated his original product/service. Currency is hardly real wealth. Real wealth is food, real wealth is shelter, real wealth is natural resources (created by nature, not by man), real wealth is human labor. All of these could be easily destroyed or wasted. I could hire the entire population of the world to make kites for me, and after 10 years, I would indeed have quite a few kites. But the human population would also be dead because I have just wasted the world's human labor on kites instead of food.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 21:37:04 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Clint Johnson wrote: > > You don't seem to understand waste here. Richguy can spend > > his money to create real wealth, like building shelter. > > Or he could use it to put together the world's biggest ball > > of twine and then burn it to the ground. > You have a little trouble looking further than one step in the economic > web. "Richguy" *already* created wealth (or his parent if he inherited), If he created the wealth, then fine. If he inherited the wealth, then he did not earn it and does not deserve any more of it than the guy standing in the welfare line deserves a food stamp. If he uses property that was stolen with violence against the natives to create the wealth, then how much he deserves cannot be measured. If he uses force (through guns or hunger) to coerce others into helping create his wealth, then how much he deserves cannot be measured. > Your complaint is that he doesn't spend all his wealth on what *you* want > him to spend it on. Yes, that's exactly it. Capitalism holds back progress by creating waste. Do taxpayers have a right to tell politicians what to spend their money on?
From: "J. Hancock" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 21:21:53 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Max Jacobs wrote: > > You are mistaking a level playing field for enforced > > identical outcome. Giving everyone a comparable living and > > education is equivalent to putting a one-legged man > > and a two-legged man next to each other at the starting > > point. Sure, the two-legged man will probably win the > > race, but he still has to run the whole thing. > If you > simply want everyone to run the whole race you would not be advocating a > government provided living and education, you would simply ban > inheritance so that everyone starts out equally (I am not saying I > advocate this approach either) or something to that effect. Yes, if by banning inheritance and random endowment, and using it to achieve equality in every child's standard of living and education, that would be enough (one generation slow, but better late than never).
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: Real world, was Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 14:55:24 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bill Koehler wrote: > You neglected to mention how this miracle came about. > Did the Chinese government allow the farmers more freedom to produce? > What's good for hte consumer is good for the country. > Taxes and regulations create poverty. Exactly. Freedom is key. Democracy maximizes freedom (with possible constitutional protections of course). The ultimate good for any country will be achieved when consumers have full control over both the politicians and the economy.
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: Real world, was Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 14:49:20 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > > To simplify a vastly complicated situation, does having a TV and > > VCR in every room, a choice of > > designer Mac and cheese pasta shapes, or the ability to buy worthless > > gizmos and chia pet technology > > really increase our standard of living in the US? > Anything that increase happiness is, pretty much by definition, an increase > in the standard of lviing, so yes. Quite true. However, a starving man would be far happier with food than a rich man with a TV. In fact, a starving man would probably "generate more happiness" with both food AND a TV, then if you give both to a rich man. > > Obviously, this makes us feel better off, but our streets are > > becoming increasingly less safe as > > the institutional poor are forced to resort to crime to survive. > Nobody is forced to crime to survive. Some people do because: > 1) The Insane War On Drugs has caused the risk-adjusted benefit of > a life of crime to exceed that of a life of honest work > 2) Some people are too lazy to seek help. #1, true. #2, not true. Laziness does not produce crime. Initiative, seeing an opportunity and grabbing it, produces crime (along with a healthy dose of disillusionment with legal avenues to success of course). > > We must ...realise that to achieve a better standard of living, > > we have to spread the wealth around to all segments of society. > If by "we", you mean "the government", this has been shown to be a poor > way to improve society. "We" as in the consumers and the employees.
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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 15:37:34 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > > They wave a gun to prevent you from taking food from store > > shelves? Why? They claim it's the stores food. > If the people who worked to produce that food are not paid, they will > not produce food, and you will find yourself in the same hole as the > Spanish "Anarchists" who wound up sending armed men into the > countryside to compel the peasants. And who will need 50 people to produce food if one person could produce enough for 100? You mistake the ultimate disincentive (absolute equality) for the only alternative to the ultimate incentive (death by starvation, bullets, etc). You could give all 50 people enough food to eat, but you don't have to give them all 21" computer monitors (unless one person could easily produce enough for everyone as well). > > They wave a gun to prevent you from growing your own food. > > Why? They say it's someone else's land. > Probably because it is someone else's land, and much of the time he is > already growing food on it. And if he's not, I have every right to do so, correct? I can go to your corporate campus and start a vegetable garden and nobody will stop me.
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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 15:28:19 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > > So how do you eat? > Work. Just like the store owner and the farmer. Like the slave and the prostitute. While, I with my inherited fortune can feel free to go write music and great novels. > > You become > > a migrant farm worker and grow food for someone else on > > someone else's land... food that you still don't have a > > right to, even if you grew it. > No. We provide some service of some value to someone > willing to pay us, and then we exchange that pay for > what we want. The alternative is to take what we want > from others. Taking is initiation of force ... i.e. > waving the gun. Exchanging is NOT. The alternative is to take what we want from the mindless technology that produced it. Machines work without the threat of bullets or starvation so that people won't have to. This of course will never happen under capitalism. > > You just gotta be happy > > with what the landlords are willing to pay you and if you > > aren't, then tough. Go starve. > Nonsense. Care to document the last case of starvation > in the USA? Thank God it doesn't happen every minute, but if fiscal conservatives could actually do what they want to do with welfare, it's going to happen. But it's going to happen only until there are enough hungry stomachs to find the unity to pull off a revolution. ---------- Aide to Raygun: Sir, the poor are outside protesting your budget cuts. Raygun himself: Tell them they'll have to help themselves. Aide to Raygun: Sir, the Pentagon wants another $30 billion. Raygun himself: Tell them to help themselves.
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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 15:11:01 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > > > Yes, that's right, they spend it (creating jobs, which distributes the > > > wealth), or they invest it (creating jobs and wealth, which creates more > > > wealth for themselves and distributes more money to those newly employed). > > > See, it keeps building on itself. > > And they also waste it. Trying to circumnavigate the globe > > in a balloon. Building an olympic sized facility to satisfy > > their sexual perversions. Building the world's tallest > > statue, longest limo, or wrapping islands with plastic. > Creating MANY jobs...which distribute the wealth... WASTING jobs. More correctly: WASTING human labor. That labor could have been put to far better use actually creating some real wealth, like producing more medicine, food, shelter, or educational supplies. Capitalism hurts productivity because those in charge of production already have all they need of the essentials. So they just hire hookers for themselves instead of more food for anybody else.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 14:29:23 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > > That is because you have not found a single example of > > a country with socialism. In how many of your "socialist" > > countries are the rulers as poor as the ruled? In how > > many of your "democratic" countries are the wealthy as > > powerless as the wealthless? > Nonsense. Socialism is nothing more than state control of the > economy. This exist many places, and the greater the degree > of control the more dismal the results. And state control of the economy wouldn't be so bad if consumers actually controlled the state. The reason consumers do not control the economy is because the rich have hired guns and propaganda (Pravda, the Christian Coalition, etc) to keep them in line. Think about it, would a Soviet worker vote to produce more medicine and better distribution, or would he vote to buy everyone on the Politburo a new limo and Olympic training facilities for personal wrestlers?
From: "J. Iscariot" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 14:16:40 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > > That is because you have not found a single example of > > a country with socialism. In how many of your "socialist" > > countries are the rulers as poor as the ruled? > Socialism requires a privileged elite that makes decisions for > everyone, regardless of their individual desires. Socialism is in fact nearly impossible to achieve with a privileged elite. Those who have the power will force themselves into wealth. Democracy is in fact nearly impossible to achieve without socialism. Those who have the money will buy themselves into power.
From: "J. Iscariot" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 14:09:20 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Clint Johnson wrote: > > > > In capitalism, you start one two-legged man at the starting > > > > point and another two-legged man at the half-way point, plus > > > > a third two-legged man in the locker room waiting for shoes. > > Right. As capitalists say, "Those other two welfare bums > > don't even deserve to be in the same race." For fiscal > > conservatives, if you start halfway and finish before > > someone who has to run the entire race, then you're > > obviously better. > And as the socialists say: "Take the shoes away from the man at the > starting point and give them to the man in the locker room... as for the > man at the half way point it is obvious that alone isn't enough to make it > egalitarian so we will have to break his kneecaps. If that doesn't slow him > down enough... kill him." So who is going to say, "Give them all shoes (if they want them) and start them all at the same point"? ...I will. And I bet most Olympic judges would be smart enough to say the same thing too.
From: "J. Iscariot" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 14:00:52 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Max Jacobs wrote: > > We all love technology because > > it lets one person do the work of many. It thereby > > allows one person to produce as much real wealth as > > many "primitive" people. But where is that extra wealth > > going? In a capitalist society, it goes into the pockets > > of the capitalist. And the human labor that was replaced > > goes unemployed and unsupported. > Yes it is going to the capitalists, which is a high proportion of the > population. If anyone has a pension, that pension plan is most likely > invested in the stock market. And that ordinary person makes money off > of it. Also, havent you ever heard of stock-options? Again ordinary > workers are made into capitalists. Marx did want the workers to be the > owners and that is happening right now. And I'd be all for it just like I'm all for democracy. There just isn't enough of either, and there won't be enough until everyone has a decent place to live and food to eat, and at the cost of knocking down the current rulers a few steps closer if need be. > And if you are so concerned about technology displacing workers its time > for you to unplug all your lamps, since they put candlemakers out of > work, stop driving any cars, since that destroyed the booming horse and > buggy industry and make sure you unplug your phone, since without it > maybe the Pony express will come back. Like a typical capitalist, you think that technological labor is supposed to be the ultimate nemesis of human labor. The point of technology is for us to master it, use it to do our work for us, and eventually make us all unemployed if we should ever decide that bungee jumping for salsa or fucking bald, fat strangers is no longer fun.
From: "J. Iscariot" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 13:49:30 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Rich Johnson wrote: > : And if the rich guy doesn't feel like hiring the > : other 2 and decides to blow his money on a Picasso > : instead? What will probably happen is the other > : 2 take food from him by force. When faced with > : either starvation or crime, crime suddenly doesn't > : seem like such a nasty option. Of course, if the > : rich guy were smart, he'd hire the 2 even if he didn't > : need them... and that's were welfare laws come in. > So what happened to the money? Unless the rich guy buried > it in the back yard it ended up in someone elses hands who > in turn bought a big screen TV and went out to dinner at > a four star restaurant. The money spent on the TV went to > the salesman who is working on commission, the company who > made the TV who paid their workers, the waiter who brought > the dinner and the restaurant who paid their workers. Money could either go to making glasses used over and over again by the poor, or it could go into making glasses that Richguy drinks from once, and then smashes against his fireplace. You forget that oversupply creates waste. Richguy can buy as much food as he wants, so letting a few tons here or there rot from neglect is no big deal. The result is that much of the human labor that was used to create real wealth is wasted. > The basic question here is who should be deciding what to do with > the money. Should it be left to private citizens who may or may > not do good things with it or should it be in the hands of public > officials who may or may not do good things with it. I'll go with > the private citizen because I am a private citizen and would rather > decide for myself what to do with my money. The same way we decide what to do with tax money. We vote on it. If you ask a rich man if the money he spend on a ski trip in the Alps or to Camp David was worth it, he'd probably say yes. If you ask his underlings if that money would have been better spent on better maintained machinery or repairing a bridge, they'd probably say yes.
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 13:25:08 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Max Jacobs wrote: > You are completely correct. According to the August 29th Wall Street > Journal, in any given month 37.6% of the US unemployed find work while > only 3% of the French unemployed do. So in the US youll on average only > be unemployed a few months, if you are unemployed in France, where > frankly the job creation is really terrible, you could be unemployed for > years. But he would still be alive after those years. If fiscal conservatives have their way here, they'd be dead within weeks. Maybe some Americans get jobs for the same reason slaves obey their masters. Who else is going to give them food to eat and a roof under which to huddle? ----------- The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. -- Anatole France
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 From: gregor@goldengate.net (Gregor Samsa) Subject: Re: Real world, was Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 04:12:13 GMT Organization: Ocean Ice Northwest On 3 Feb 1997 15:18:02 GMT, jhblask@bigpapa.nothinbut.net (Henry Blaskowski) wrote: >Chloe Carter (qpcsoft@frontiernet.net) wrote: >> "In Communist countries, everyone has money, but there are no goods >> in the stores. In Capitalist countries, the store shelves are full >> of goods that no one can afford to buy". An indictment of the distribution networks and production choices in the ex-Soviet Union and its satelites, not of the socialist system itself. I can't help but wonder what level of consumables is implied here. The neccessities for all or the luxuries for the priveledged--the few. As an american I am appalled at the wasted economic resources that we, as a people, demand of our economy. To simplify a vastly complicated situation, does having a TV and VCR in every room, a choice of designer Mac and cheese pasta shapes, or the ability to buy worthless gizmos and chia pet technology really increase our standard of living in the US? Obviously, this makes us feel better off, but our streets are becoming increasingly less safe as the institutional poor are forced to resort to crime to survive. Certainly, we have $100 dollar sneakers on the shelves of every Foot Locker in the country--but the institutionalised poor can't afford such luxury without resorting to crime. We certainly have a wide assortment of Mac and cheese, but at prices inflated by the capitalists and their ever growing reliance on advertising to _sell_ an old product to new market. we also have the ability to choose our car from a pool of competitors--all offering, for the most part, the same product. We are forced to absorb the capitalist's "cost of business" in our day to day existence. This is the fallacy of our artificial economy. We must learn to not to become blind consumerist sheep, tighten our consumptive belts, and realise that to achieve a better standard of living, we have to spread the wealth around to all segments of society. We must eliminate homelessness and poverty--and its inherent crimes of desperation. Consumeristic Capaitalism is the bane of our social fabric. To a small extent, the soviets accomplished this. Perhaps, everyone didn't have what they wanted, but they had what they needed for the most part. they had employment, housing, health care and food. Everyone at least had the basics to exist. Now they starve and watch as their liveihoods are coopted and sent to the west. The USSR and its sattelites were able to compete with the US in both technological (remember the space race?) and artistic levels _while_ recovering from WW2--something that the US did not/or probally could not have done. We, as US-ers, are so smug! We have never had our infrastructure destroyed--the russians built a new and viable economic infrastructure only to have it destroyed by the nazis 30 years later. Less then 5 years after this debacle they bounced back and once again gave us grief--and competed with us on our terms. The populace of the ex-soviet block is just beginning to feel the brunt of capitalism--increased crime, hunger, homelessness, unemployment, and exploitation/social alienation. Something that hadn't existed in their nations for 50 years. Hate crimes and racism are running rampant (witness the break up of Jugoslavia--and the warfare and ethnic cleansing and the ascending facist and organised crime elements in the CIS. Welcome to the USA! >In Communist countries, the money they have is about as useful as >monopoly money, because the production backing that money is woefully >inadequate. Nobody makes stuff. This is called "a low standard of >living". Again an economic fallacy. Currency is not a measure of, but a system to store _wealth_ in capitalist economies. Under a pure socialist economy, the need for money would be academic and non existent. With a collective environment, money would become nothing more than a personal transfer payment of assets from one citizen to the another--as we call it the West a "title". Money, as you use the term, is irrelevent when used in conjunction with Socialism economics--you use the term in a capitalist way-- as a store of personal wealth. I'll again debate you in your Americentric (capitalist) model! It is obvious that the Ruble is worthless on the money exchange--the "free market". It's like the portuguese escudo or italian lira! Certainly, these currencies have been devalued to point where a simple purchase of a loaf of bread involves trading hundred or thousands of monetary units. What you must understand is the Rubel, Lev, and Ostdeutscher Mark were valued, not by the US controlled money markets standards, but by an internal economic system--a system that the US ignored. A OD Mark was worth a Mark and a Rubel was worth a Rubel. Only after adopting a capitalist economy, were these currencies devaluated--you seem to forget the concept of a closed economic system. Hey, want to trade in Cuban Pesetas? It's a buyer's market!
From: "J. Iscariot" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 19:48:15 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > > We all love technology because > > it lets one person do the work of many. It thereby > > allows one person to produce as much real wealth as > > many "primitive" people. But where is that extra wealth > > going? In a capitalist society, it goes into the pockets > > of the capitalist. > Yes, that's right, they spend it (creating jobs, which distributes the > wealth), or they invest it (creating jobs and wealth, which creates more > wealth for themselves and distributes more money to those newly employed). > See, it keeps building on itself. And they also waste it. Trying to circumnavigate the globe in a balloon. Building an olympic sized facility to satisfy their sexual perversions. Building the world's tallest statue, longest limo, or wrapping islands with plastic. If they truly only used it to create new wealth with human labor, then I have no problem with it. Of course, we can only guarantee that will happen if consumers had control over their spending. They might, alternatively, use it to create new wealth using technological labor and a minimum of human labor. The profits from that could then either go into more perversions or into lower prices, depending on whether consumers could put a gun to their head and tell them to lower prices or not.
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.labor-unions,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: Socialism negates freedom Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 18:59:39 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > > Ever wonder why more companies aren't employee-owned in > > our wonderful capitalist state? Is it because 95% of > > the people *enjoy* working under other people instead of > > with other people? The reason is that until we level > > the playing field and give every individual the same > > opportunity to enter any industry, industry will be > > dominated by the wealthy. > One, yes, many people like working for others. But would you say MOST people like working for others? The fact is most people ARE working for others, and if you believe most LIKE working for others, then you aren't as capitalist as I thought you were. > Another reason: statists, who want to control every aspect of the > economy, have put too many barriers in the way of starting a business. > Between licenses, regulations, bribing local officials, zoning laws, > etc, you need a lawyer and accountant for even the simplest business. > That raises the cost of entry significantly, so in this way, I agree, > we have unnecessarily raised the entry costs of many businesses. Licenses and bribes only work because there are enough rich people who can afford them. Take away the rich people, and bribe prices suddenly come down. And yes, I'd agree with throwing away unnecessary licenses and regulations, as long as it does not make the product unsafe. However, that alone won't empower a poor inventor to manufacture his own invention without first selling his soul for venture capital.
From: "J. Iscariot" 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: Socialism negates freedom Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 18:49:43 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Max Jacobs wrote: > > of revolution... that is, until all our business move away > > in search of cheap labor and welfare can no longer keep > > up with unemployment. > in Arkansas than it is to locate in California. So why havent all the > businesses moved to Arkansas and why is job growth so high in Silicon > valley, a relatively expensive place to set up shop? Simply because > businesses consider factors other than cheap labor, like availability of > an educated workforce, distance from distribution channels, simple > convenience, etc. In other words, if you are expecting all business to > move to other countries, dont hold your breath. Exactly. Skilled labor is key. Thank God for the fact that third world nations aren't as educated as we are (YET). Our efforts to fight education for the poor aren't helping much to hold down unemployment. The day that third world nations are as educated as we are, is the day that American based companies are in for a helluva fight against more efficient overseas companies (unless we institute some major tariffs).
From: "J. Iscariot" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 18:15:26 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > > The point is not that we can currently churn houses out > > for free. The point is that capitalism provides no > > solution for the replacement of human production with > > mechanical production. We all love technology because > > it lets one person do the work of many. It thereby > > allows one person to produce as much real wealth as > > many "primitive" people. But where is that extra wealth > > going? In a capitalist society, it goes into the pockets > > of the capitalist. And the human labor that was replaced > > goes unemployed and unsupported. > Yet somehow, despite considerable improvements in technology, we still > have essentially zero unemployment for skilled people here in silicon > valley, and moderate levels of unemployment for unskilled people, not > very different from the levels of unemployment many years ago. As technology improves, we just change the definition of "skilled work". "Skilled workers" is defined as the people who are not unemployed. There was a time when being able to copy words from one parchment to another was considered "skilled work". Capitalism only ensures that those who have not yet been replaced by machines will have work. It does not, however, ensure that these job won't eventually be replaced by machines (except for entertainment type work like baseball and prostitution).
From: "J. Iscariot" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 18:07:07 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > >> You cannot find a single example of thorough abolition of private > >> property in the means of production that has not been accompanied by > >> terror. > > Examples and anecdotal evidence. Pah! You cannot find a single > > example of murder that was not committed by a person with a > > brain in his head either. > But on the other hand I can find many examples of people with brains > that have not committed murder. > I can find no examples of countries with socialism that have not > committed mass murder. That is because you have not found a single example of a country with socialism. In how many of your "socialist" countries are the rulers as poor as the ruled? In how many of your "democratic" countries are the wealthy as powerless as the wealthless?
From: "H. Mencken" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 17:54:16 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > > In capitalism, you start one two-legged man at the starting > > point and another two-legged man at the half-way point, plus > > a third two-legged man in the locker room waiting for shoes. > Nonsense. That different persons might have different abilities > is in no way attributable to capitalism. Capitalism (aka free > markets) are simply blind to the supposed differences. It makes > no a priori judgements of merit, only judgements as to service > provided. Looks like you missed the point. In capitalism, you could have 3 people of different abilities, but the dumb one would inherit a chemical and materials empire, the smart one could grow up learning how to be a great coke dealer, and the corrupt one may grow up under the wing of a lifelong politician. Where you're born may not determine your entire destiny, but it carries with it a good deal of momentum.
From: "H. Mencken" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 17:28:00 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > > Yet again, what is inherent to capitalism that _guarantees_ > > this "chance of winning"? > Absolutely nothing. All free markets guarantee is that no one > is waving a gun around to force a particular outcome. You must > make your own chances for winning. They wave a gun to prevent you from taking food from store shelves? Why? They claim it's the stores food. They wave a gun to prevent you from growing your own food. Why? They say it's someone else's land. So how do you eat? You become a migrant farm worker and grow food for someone else on someone else's land... food that you still don't have a right to, even if you grew it. You just gotta be happy with what the landlords are willing to pay you and if you aren't, then tough. Go starve. ------- We were born on it, and we got killed on it, died on it. Even if it's no good, it's still ours. That's what makes it ours -- being born on it, working it, dying on it. That makes ownership, not a paper with numbers on it. -John Steinbeck
From: "H. Mencken" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 17:43:56 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > > Say 3 people have just barely enough for 3. > > In a capitalist society, the rich one will have a feast > > and the two poor ones will die. > A more likely outcome is that the other two will wind up working for > the guy with the food, probably with the result that more food is > produced. And if the rich guy doesn't feel like hiring the other 2 and decides to blow his money on a Picasso instead? What will probably happen is the other 2 take food from him by force. When faced with either starvation or crime, crime suddenly doesn't seem like such a nasty option. Of course, if the rich guy were smart, he'd hire the 2 even if he didn't need them... and that's were welfare laws come in. -------- The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. -- Anatole France
From: "H. Mencken" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:18:12 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Max Jacobs wrote: > > impossible to achieve economic equality without political > > equality. And political equality was the one thing these > > socialist-wannabes refused to implement. It is also > > impossible to achieve political equality without economic > > equality, and America is a prime example. > Do you actually believe everyone can be made equal? Considering the > diversity in talent, intelligence, physical size, and hair color of > humanity, we are all different. When you try to make people equal, you > are in fact discriminating and being very unequal in your methods. You are mistaking a level playing field for enforced identical outcome. Giving everyone a comparable living and education is equivalent to putting a one-legged man and a two-legged man next to each other at the starting point. Sure, the two-legged man will probably win the race, but he still has to run the whole thing. In capitalism, you start one two-legged man at the starting point and another two-legged man at the half-way point, plus a third two-legged man in the locker room waiting for shoes. ---- Some people are born on third base and go through life thinking they hit a triple. -B. Switzer
From: Bill Whitehouse whitehou@ncsa.uiuc.edu 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 11:21:15 -0600 Organization: Outland Revenue Henry Blaskowski wrote: > M. Luther (cyu@geocities.com) wrote: > > We all love technology because > > it lets one person do the work of many. It thereby > > allows one person to produce as much real wealth as > > many "primitive" people. But where is that extra wealth > > going? In a capitalist society, it goes into the pockets > > of the capitalist. > So far so good. Finish that thought... and then..... c'mon, you can > do it.... > Yes, that's right, they spend it (creating jobs, which distributes the > wealth), or they invest it (creating jobs and wealth, which creates more > wealth for themselves and distributes more money to those newly employed). > See, it keeps building on itself ... Now, let's see _you_ finish the thought. Yes, they spend it (in stuggling Third World economies like Mexico and political autocracies like East Timor where laborers don't have the legal rights to negotiate a living wage or even safe working conditions - making it a much better investment than in the expensive U.S./Europe labor market, where legally-protected worker's rights raise the overhead _much_ higher, in upper management salaries that are ludicrously out of proportion to what they add to the bottom line, to tax-deductable multi-million dollar ad campaigns in the aforementioned Third World countries - where they _know_ noone has the money to buy the products, to multi-million dollar golden parachutes for upper-management that, in most cases, have only been in upper management of the co. for a handful of years while the people who've been supporting the real bottom line of the co. for decades get pink slips to pay for said golden parachutes), or invest it (in obscenely-priced governmental lobbyists and legislator buyoffs that pay for even more legal concessions to business at the expense of worker rights - making U.S. worker expertise much more in line, price-wise, to Third World capitalist slavery _and_ further shift the corporate tax burden onto the middle-class laborer, in obscenely-priced mergers that keep Wall Street happy but reduce the number of consumer choices and, in turn, compromise the state of real competition, in tax-haven Cayman Island bank accounts that siphon U.S.- generated money out of the U.S. economy) You have to remove those blinders of yours to _properly_ "finish the thought". > > And the human labor that was replaced > > goes unemployed and unsupported. > Only if those people are too dense to figure out what that person with > the money wants -- a new car, How do you propose a laid-off car manufacturer assembly-line worker made obsolete by assembly-line automation is to provide that rich capitalist with their brand-new car? Maybe they could borrow the start-up venture money from that rich capitalist - an I.O.U.. How likely do you think that is? > a new computer, a big screen TV, Same thing. > or maybe their lawn mowed. Get out of capitalistic theoryland for a while, and wake up to the reality that _only_ those with capital have the option of hiring the expertise/labor it takes to make more capital, and compete with the rest of the capitalist "big boys". To even create new markets, which is really the only chance a new entrepreneur has, one must have a lot of capital (through a venture capitalist that isn't just looking for another tax break, a rare commodity) and the luck of timing - a lot of it. No Bill Gates was ever created trying to compete directly against the Duponts and Vanderbilts of the world, and _definitely_ not by looking for anything more than a subsistence wage via lawn mowing. And I guarantee that you, even with a better mousetrap, would not be able to compete with Bill Gates on his turf right now. It wouldn't even amount to a horserace. Bill Whitehouse whitehou@ncsa.uiuc.edu
From: "T. Hobbes" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 20:55:43 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > The problem is not economic inequality, but political inequality. The problem is both. > And in some fantasy world, those who seize power in this socialist > utopia will be benign leaders with nothing but the good of the masses > in mind. Socialism didn't fail because it was tried incorrectly, it > failed because of human nature. Only the people who are below average > think economic equality is a good thing, because that way they get > something for free. Only the people who are below average think *political* equality is a good thing, because that way they get something for free? When we say "political equality", what we are really saying is that people from different ethnic, cultural, geographical, and sexual backgrounds should have the _equal_opportunity_ to "pursue happiness" (as they say). By the same token, "economic equality" just means that people from poor families and people from rich families should have the _equal_opportunity_ to "pursue happiness" as well.
From: "T. Hobbes" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 15:53:33 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > > If there are that many jobs in the US, why is there so much > > opposition to guaranteed employment laws? > Probably because guaranteed employment laws tend to create massive > unemployment Kind of like how the Red Cross handing out free food in Ethiopia tends to cause massive starvation eh? Yeah, I see how that all works out. > > But if we invested more money into job > > training and education, we skilled workers would be shitting > > bricks because allofasudden, there's a whole lot more > > competition for our jobs. > In New York they invest almost ten thousand dollars per year per > school student, and not very many of them graduate with reading and > writing skills sufficient to get along. Maybe it's because they're too busy trying to teach students to speak and write like the White Upper/Middle class instead of teaching them HTML, C++, and SQL.
From: "T. Hobbes" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 15:44:44 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Jill E. Deel wrote: > > In a truly free society, force would come through > > neither violence nor starvation. > Your "free society" does exist. It is called the Welfare State, and it shows > precisely why your "free society" does not work. Because, it encourages the > very things,it is supposed to solve: poverty, unwed mothers, fathers that > abadon their children to a life-time of poverty and dependence. Indeed it IS called the Welfare State. But nobody ever claimed welfare was "trying to solve" unwed mothers or deadbeat dads. I am going to have to "admit" that welfare IS trying to solve poverty. And if it can do it by just giving out lots of cash, then the problem IS solved. If what you want instead is for the poor to be hounded by headhunters asking them to program this or edit that, then may I suggest more and better education programs for the poor? > The thing that amazes me is, you seem to be under the mistaken belief that > there is something wrong in working to avoid hunger or homelessness. Are you under the mistaken belief that there is something wrong in working to avoid suffocation? If there is enough oxygen to go around for everyone, then why NOT give it away for free? The problem with a market driven economy is that there will never be any incentive to make food or housing free. After all, how are them board members at ADM and Century 21 going to be able to buy that new summer cottage with helicopter pad?
From: "T. Hobbes" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 13:07:38 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > When someone in the US loses his job, it is like missing a bus. The > next bus will be along shortly. People keep phoning me up and > soliciting me for employment, and I politely knock them back. If there are that many jobs in the US, why is there so much opposition to guaranteed employment laws? People knock on your door probably because you are more skilled than most. There is no shortage of unskilled labor, just a shortage of skilled labor. But if we invested more money into job training and education, we skilled workers would be shitting bricks because allofasudden, there's a whole lot more competition for our jobs. So we do what any reasonable man would do. We fight education for anyone but the children of the wealthy.
From: "T. Hobbes" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 12:58:50 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > > The times socialism was "tried" failed not because of > > inherent deficiencies in the design, but because it is > > impossible to achieve economic equality without political > > equality. And political equality was the one thing these > > socialist-wannabes refused to implement. It is also > > impossible to achieve political equality without economic > > equality, and America is a prime example. > The Ukraine and Belarus have been trying a socialist economy with > democracy, with uniformly catastrophic results. If I took the American political system and put it on Venus, what's going to happen? I bet it will "fail" within the first hour after everyone dies of poisonous gases. Anecdotal evidence that does not take into account any other factors means nothing. There are a lot of rich Middle Eastern countries doing pretty well without democracy. Does that make non-democracy a great way to produce a rich nation? > Seems that without the death camps, a socialist economy goes to hell > in a handbasket very fast indeed. > Without the baton in the face, and the gun to the head, stuff just > does not get produced under socialism. Now this is a better point. You are saying that these "democratic socialists" fail on the point of motivation. Socialist motivation, you say, must come from force. Capitalist motivation comes from greed. However, working- class capitalist motivation comes from a different kind of greed - they just want food to eat and a place to live, without which, they would die - another kind of "force". In a truly free society, force would come through neither violence nor starvation.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:36:26 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > Then when she returned to Yugoslavia she found the fact that pretty > much everyone's teeth were an ugly ruin offensive, and she thought > that Americans would be offended by the teeth of the people she met. > Then finally she realized that her own teeth were no better, so she > borrowed a large sum from her father (who was part of the > nomenclatura) and at the next opportunity had her teeth patched up by > a free enterprise dentist. In a pure capitalist society, the rich will have perfect teeth, and the poor will have no teeth. In a economically equal society, everyone will have brown teeth. In a economically equal-opportunity society, everyone will be guaranteed at least brown teeth, and the productive will have perfect teeth.
From: "J. Hancock" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 18:44:06 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > > The argument was that something that hasn't been implemented must > > be a failed system. Win16 was overtaken by Win32, and now > > Nintendo has N64. But hey, a 1024 bit system has never been > > implemented in any large scale, so it must be a failed system. > But socialism was implemented on a very large scale, by a great > variety of people in a great variety of places and times, and every > single time, totally without exception, the results have been exactly > what was predicted. Take your variety of places and times and ask, "Did they have economic equality?" "Did they even have economic equal oppurtunity?" They called themselves "socialist" like we call ourselves "democratic": so the rich and powerful have a good excuse to be rich and powerful.
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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:33:23 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. James A. Donald wrote: > > The argument was that something that hasn't been implemented must > > be a failed system. Win16 was overtaken by Win32, and now > > Nintendo has N64. But hey, a 1024 bit system has never been > > implemented in any large scale, so it must be a failed system. > But socialism was implemented on a very large scale, by a great > variety of people in a great variety of places and times, and every > single time, totally without exception, the results have been exactly > what was predicted. Looks like you missed the original point: > > >> A basic premise (and we insist it ought to be established from the outset) > > >> for discussion of a future Socialist government here must be that the > > >> former USSR never had socialism, that socialism never existed and therefore > > >> never failed. What the Soviets implemented was _called_ "socialism" or even "communism" by themselves and by the West. But it was hardly the abolition of material possessions, or even a system of economic equality. Sure, lots of peasants were equally poor, but above them were the politicians who were "the haves". Just like America with lots of peasants who are equally powerless, but above them are the wealthy who dominate (or are actually in) high political office.
From: "J. Calvin" 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: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 21:49:54 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > > >> A basic premise (and we insist it ought to be established from the outset) > > >> for discussion of a future Socialist government here must be that the > > >> former USSR never had socialism, that socialism never existed and therefore > > >> never failed. > > > Yeah, you could argue that, but a system that cannot be successfully > > > implemented, is still a failed system. What is the difference between a > > > failed system and a system that cannot be implemented because it resides > > > outside the bounds of reality. > Unix works (I'm not as sure about MS/NeXT) and hence it makes > sense (perhaps only to the sensible?) to improve it. I'm not > sure anyone knows what a perfect OS is, though and I doubt many > hackers would claim they were trying to create one. Usually, > they just see an opportunity/necessity here or there for doing > some little thing better. The argument was that something that hasn't been implemented must be a failed system. Win16 was overtaken by Win32, and now Nintendo has N64. But hey, a 1024 bit system has never been implemented in any large scale, so it must be a failed system. UNIX was based off MULTICS. Just because MULTICS isn't around anymore, doesn't mean it was a complete waste of time. We don't have manned spacecraft to Mars yet either, but that fact alone doesn't make it beyond the bounds of reality.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.radical-left Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:44:19 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Parker wrote: > >Of course, we can > >also abolish the police system and allow everyone to hire > >their own security guards...whose value will be freely > >determined by the market, instead of by legislation. > No, the value of such things as policemen, firemen, and the military > is reflected by the market through the legislative process. People > decide what they are willing to spend for these things and vote > accordingly. It's still the market that determines the value, not the > legislation. If we can "reflect the value of policemen" through the legislative process, then why not "reflect the value of an automobile" through the legislative process? "The answer is simple," you say, "some people aren't willing to pay $60K for a Corvette ZR1, so they buy a cheaper car." Well, some people aren't willing to pay anything at all for the cops that come into their neighborhoods and beat-up/shoot their neighbors. > >Armed revolution also reflects the values of a society, > >often when the society has decided that it cannot get > >what it wants through legislation. 13 colonies fought > >a war against Britain for their values. The Confederate > >States of America fought a war against the North for > >their values. > Hehehe, values are determined by the market, how much people are > wiling to trade for something else. Taking by force is not a trade, > hence no value is determined. So you are saying our old Mr. Paine did not value his liberty over his life? If Americans don't value our independence at all, then why did we fight that war? Why don't we just give back our eastern seaboard to John Major?
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:11:04 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Max Jacobs wrote: > > Be careful that you make the point that unemployment is bad. > > After all, someone living in an advanced civilization with > > 100% unemployment might think that Norway is a hellhole > > where 95% of the people actually have to work to survive. > No a place with 100% unemployment would be a hellhole because an > unemployment rate is the percentage of the workforce that is LOOKING for > jobs but cant find them. Those that simply dont have jobs because they > dont want them (or their unemployment insurance ran out) are not > counted. So let's get rid of unemployment by instituting universal welfare. After all, by your definition, no one will need to look for work anymore, and therefore, 0% unemployment will be achieved.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory, alt.society.labor-unions, alt.politics.usa.republican, talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.libertarian, alt.politics.democrats.d, talk.politics.libertarian, alt.politics.radical-left, alt.fan.noam-chomsky, alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 19:29:49 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Jill E. Deel wrote: > But that would only be possible if there were the *opportunity* to get rich. > That is not possible in a communist country, unless you are an influencial > party member. Most of the milllionares of today in the US did not start out > that way, they *made* themselves that way. They climbed their way up, Bill > Gates included. Bill Gates may not have been born a billionaire, but he sure as hell wasn't born to parents making under $15000 a year. A man with no political power in the Soviet system had about as much chance of getting rich as a man with no money in the American system of getting into the Senate. > government order builders to simply build houses for "everyone who wants > one." Wouldn't that mean everyone would? Since you want them offered at > drastic reduction or free and houses *do* cost money, let me ask you > something. Who is going to pay for the land they sit on? Yes, everyone *would* want a free house. And why not give it to them if our technology allows it? Who will pay for it? Well, all value begins with labor. You need labor to cut the wood, labor to build the house, labor to do the wiring. In any society, that labor is available because it is willing to trade the results of its work for the results of labor that is working on, say, growing food. Now what if a large part of that labor were provided by machines? What if all unskilled labor were replaced by robots? Then there's an excess of "free" labor that could be used to "pay" for your houses.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory, talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.libertarian, alt.politics.democrats.d, talk.politics.libertarian, alt.politics.radical-left, alt.fan.noam-chomsky, alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future. Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 19:10:09 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote: > >Capitalism and communism aren't discrete. Rather, they > >fall on a continuum ranging from vast economic inequality > >(ie. kings and serfs) to total economic equality (Marx's > >never-achieved vision). The Soviet economy did not fall > >very far on the communist side, because great economic > >disparities remained between the ruling and working > >classes. > In the Soviet Union, any economic decision which affected more capital > than is represented by the labors of an ordinary human for about 16 > hours was made, by law, by a government bureaucracy. > made by government decision-making boards. After the original > revolution, these boards fed themselves; you could not gain any power > in the first place without the consent of a governing board, and your > retention of power and your advancement in power were always by the > consent of a governing board. There are two different things at work here. The Soviet system attempted (or at least gave lip-service) to achieve economic equality without guaranteeing political equality. This, of course, was impossible. Any selfish official could use his power to obtain money. The American system attempts (or at least gives lip-service) to achieve political equality without economic equality. This too is impossible. Witness the dominance of the Democratic and Republican parties over all third parties. Anyone with enough money can buy political power.
From: Scott Burright sburrigh@discover.wright.edu Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.society.anarchy,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions Subject: Re: Capitalism will implode in the near future Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 18:51:19 -0500 Organization: Wright State University On Tue, 10 Dec 1996, J. Calvin wrote: > Sure labor is scarce. At least the labor that is willing to risk > maiming themselves next to heavy machinery 8 hours a day, 6 days > a week, for $8 an hour. Now, how about labor that is willing to > play golf, make a few phone calls, and pretend to pay attention > at 2 committee meetings a day for $80K a year and a great 401K > plan? I bet that's not so scarse. Oh, I see! Your liberal heart BLEEDS for lazy manual laborers, but your sympathy EVAPORATES at the sight of a ROLEX! HEY, don't underestimate the hazards of the boardroom! For example, have you ever tried to get Dijon mustard stains out of an Armani jacket? I didn't think so! And talk about injuries! After a heavy business lunch, you could doze off in a meeting, slide right out of your leather chair, and bonk your head on that big table. Brazilian hardwood is HARD! It HURTS! And the other execs will LAUGH at you! So life at the top isn't all martinis and padded toilet seats, BUCKO. Remember that the next time one of those whirling thingamajigs snatches one of your fingers off. --Scott Burright "Most of our future lies ahead." -- Denny Crum, Louisville basketball coach

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

Click Here! |count|
|11/13|