From: removethis! (Robert Vienneau) Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics,sci.econ Subject: Re: About economist Date: 9 Aug 1997 12:37:49 GMT Organization: Dreamscape Online > 1. What is value? Is value created by nature? How can we know the value > exist? Neoclassical economists thought there value theory was related to nature. Equilibrium prices are supposed to be indices of relative scarcity. Resources are supposed given in nature. Neoclassical economics is often taken to be a general logic not dependent on any particular set of social institutions such as those that exist under capitalism. > 2. Do we have any theory of value which can explain it correctly and > logically? Mainstream economists do not have a correct and logical theory of value. The following critiques (in reverse chronological order) show Neoclassical economics to be incoherent and insufficiently general: o Philp Mirowski's demonstration that Neoclassical economics relies on an arbitrary and theoretically and empirically unjustified conservation law. o The Sonnenschein-Mantel-Debreu demonstration that one cannot depend on equilibria in General Equilibrium Theory being either unique or stable. o The Cambridge Capital Controversy argument that factor prices are not determined by supply and demand in factor markets and that there is no coherent Neoclassical theory of production. o Sraffa's demonstration in the 1920s that Marshallian partial equilibrium is valid only if non constant returns are external to the firm and internal to the industry, the situation least likely to be encountered in practice. > 3. Do we have a value theory of economics which can explain how the > value exist etc. correctly? Promising approaches to the theory of value can be found in the Classical and Marxist emphases on reproducability and surplus, in Keynes' Chapter 17 liquidity preference theory of value, in Kalecki's markup theories of pricing, and in American Institutionalism. Partisans of mainstream economics might hope that the Santa Fe Institute's increasing returns theory of economics or Game Theory might someday be developed into an acceptable theory of value. [Questions deleted on which I do not feel like offering an opinion] > 12. There are no students, professors or professional economists have > complained of such textbooks of economics openly, why? Is there a secret > and powerful organization to control them? One might argue mainstream economics is vulgar bourgeois apologetics for capitalism. At any rate, mainstream North American economists are encouraged to be ignorant about some logical consequences of maximizing behavior and about the literature of their subject, especially history of thought. -- Robert Vienneau Try my Mac econ simulation removethis! game, Bukharin, at Whether strength of body or of mind, or wisdom, or virtue, are always proportion to the power or wealth of a man [is] a question fit perhaps to be discussed by slaves in the hearing of their masters, but highly unbecoming to reasonable and free men in search of the truth. -- Rousseau
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 1997 23:01:25 -0600 From: Subject: Socialism, Real and Fake Newsgroups:,alt.anarchism,alt.society.anarchy,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left, Organization: The Ardois-Bonnot Gang Socialism, real and fake (by Noam Chomsky) One can debate the meaning of the term "socialism," but if it means anything, it means control of production by the workers themselves, not owners and managers who rule them and control all decisions, whether in capitalist enterprises or an absolutist state. To refer to the Soviet Union as _socialist_ is an interesting case of doctrinal doublespeak. The Bolshevik coup of October 1917 placed state power in the hands of Lenin and Trotsky, who moved quickly to dismantle the incipient socialist institutions that had grown up during the popular revolution of the preceding months -- the factory councils, the Soviets, in fact any organ of popular control -- and to convert the workforce into what they called a "labor army" under the command of the leader. In any meaningful sense of the term "socialism," the Bolsheviks moved at once to destroy its existing elements. No socialist deviation has been permitted since. These developments came as no surprise to leading Marxist intellectuals, who had criticized Lenin's doctrines for years (as had Trotsky) because they would centralize authority in the hands of the vanguard Party and its leaders. In fact, decades earlier, the anarchist thinker Bakunin had predicted that the emerging intellectual class would follow one of two paths: either they would try to exploit popular struggles to take state power themselves, becoming a brutal and oppressive Red bureaucracy; or they would become the managers and ideologists of the state capitalist societies, if popular revolution failed. It was a perceptive insight, on both counts. The world's two major propaganda systems did not agree on much, but they did agree on using the term _socialism_ to refer to the immediate destruction of every element of _socialism_ by the Bolsheviks. That's not too surprising. The Bolsheviks called their system _socialist_ so as to exploit the moral prestige of socialism. The West adopted the same usage for the opposite reason: to defame the feared libertarian ideals by associating them with the Bolshevik dungeon, to undermine the popular belief that there really might be progress towards a more just society with democratic control over its basic institutions and concern for human needs and rights. If socialism is the tyranny of Lenin and Stalin, then sane people will say: _not for me_. And if that's the only alternative to corporate state capitalism, then many will submit to its authoritarian structures as the only reasonable choice. With the collapse of the Soviet system, there's an opportunity to revive the lively and vigorous libertarian socialist thought that was not able to withstand the doctrinal and repressive assaults of the major systems of power. How large a hope that is, we cannot know. But at least one roadblock has been removed. In that sense, the disappearance of the Soviet Union is a small victory for socialism, much as the defeat of the fascist powers was. ---------------------------------------- Dan Clore The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe Welcome to the Waughters.... The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned.... "Hziulquoigmnzhah" ( wrote: > Iqhui dlosh odhqlonqh! [if you don't send me a cc of your reply to this post, I might not see it] -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- Search, Read, Post to Usenet
4.8.97 All that New-World gold. From: "J. Calvin" Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.european-union,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.guns,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.economics Subject: Re: The gold standard and WE HAVE BEEN HAD Date: Wed, 06 Aug 1997 23:15:35 -0700 Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ) Derek Nalecki wrote: > > So the task of a central bank is to step between producing too > >much money, which can generate inflation, and too little money, which can > >cause an economic slowdown, and possibly even the emergence or acquisition > >of alternative currencies of various sorts. > Creation of money 'out of thin air' is a bank robbery ;-) against every > single person with more than $0 in a savings account or inside granma's > mattress. Money has no value except what you hope to buy with it. If a central bank invents money to pay off its national debt, nothing has really changed. But if it invents money to buy a medical patent or fund research that improves efficiency and gives it out for free, then it has in effect lowered prices if production increases. Or if the money is used to increase the amount of housing, that lowers the cost of housing. What money is returned to this new housing can simply be destroyed, equal to the amount created, or put to use somewhere else. Production lowers the price of whatever was created and inflates the price of everything else (since the labor that produced it now has more money to spend). So a truly intelligent bank increases production everywhere it thinks is important to keep prices down. Eventually, the extra money will wind up in lame status symbols, like jewels, watches, Ferraris, or whatever. Idiots will probably kill each other over them too, unless the nation insults them all into the ground. -------- The fear of rain was created by umbrella makers.
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian From: (Loren Petrich) Subject: Re: The gold standard and WE HAVE BEEN HAD (1) Organization: Netcom Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 00:22:42 GMT In article 5s2vm9$22nk$, Scott D. Erb wrote: >Actually, the people who were against the gold standard the strongest were >economists, esp. capitalist economists. Why should we tie our currency to >a mineral (esp. one most found in S. Africa and Russia?) Why not let the >market determine exchange rates and the value of money? A further problem is that the Gold Standard places monetary policy in the hands of the gold miners; monetary policy will be determined by how much gold they choose to dig up (too much, and it dilutes the value of gold). One interesting thing here is that the Spanish conquistadores hoped to become rich from all that New-World gold. Instead, the result was a lot of inflation. So that's what would happen with an influx of gold without the rest of the economy keeping up in value. >The gold standard was simply an anachronistic remnant of mercantilism, and >except for a few people with really strange ideas (and no economic common >sense), the idea is dead. I think that the Gold Bugs think that gold somehow represents intrinsic value -- which conflicts with the rest of their ideology, of course. -- Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh And a fast train My home page: Mirrored at:
From: "J. Calvin" Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left Subject: Re: SOPHISTRY VS ECONOMIC REALITY Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 18:31:02 -0700 Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ) Markus Diehl wrote: > > Does not the persistence of a large trade deficit prove the > > overvaluation of the dollar? > this is one of the fuzziest topics in economics. My view on that is: the > persistent current account deficit (= net capital inflows) shows only, > that foreign investors share the opinion that lending money to the US is > still a profitable business. This may be the case even for some decades. > Many newly industrializing countries have this in common with the USA. I > cannot judge the US dollar overvalued from this observation. This would > only be the case if the USA is overindebted based on reasonable criteria. > Anyway, to restrict one's view to the trade account is ridiculous. In actuality (in the absence of currency markets), foreign investments of currency have only 2 purposes: to buy imports from that other nation, or to attract foreign labor if this nation cannot attract it with just a minimal guarantee of biological comfort plus either sex or praise. Similarly, a nation's exports serve only 2 purposes: to get vital imports, or to obtain praise. The only problem with a nation (or province or city) too concerned with its imports and exports (mobile economy) is that its labor never has the time to improve its stationary economy: housing, health care, agriculture, infrastructure, etc.
From: "J. Calvin" Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: How do photons exist? Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 16:00:27 -0700 Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ) David L Evens wrote: > : Let's say in our frame of reference, we accelerate one spaceship to > : .5 light speed in one direction and another spaceship to .5 light > : speed in the opposite direction. What do the passengers aboard one > : ship think has happened to the other ship? > They see the other ship as having a relative velocity that is still less > than c to them. I don't have the formulas at hand to compute precisely > what that is, however. From our "stationary" frame, there will be a point in time when it appears to us that light from spaceship A will never reach spaceship B. To a person on spaceship B, the frequency of photon hits from A will decrease... it thus appears to Mr. B that A is moving slower and slower (and more red too) until the point at which their relative velocity difference reaches c, and Mr. B can no longer see Mr. A. It seems the concept of time stopping at c is like saying the hare will never catch the turtle, because whenever the hare reaches the spot the turtle is on, the turtle will have already moved forward another tiny bit. Anyway, if we pick a direction and accelerate in that direction until we are at .5 c and stop accelerating. It will then appear to us that we are stationary (since movement is relative). Can't we then just accelerate another .5 c and so on?
4.8.97 Shakespeare Monkey will know more. 5.8.97 Chaos theory. 13.8.97 Many versions of the same. 16.8.97 If I can't see it. From: "Z. Beeblebrox" Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.misc.forteana,alt.paranormal,alt.philosophy.debate,,alt.sci.time-travel,,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: the nature of evolutionary processes Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 17:25:28 -0700 Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ) Martin Dann wrote: > >Free will implies a noncausal universe and > >thus some Higher Power(s). Maybe there is (are). > First, nothing non-causal about the decisions *I* make, because *I* > cause them. Second, the move from non-causal to a higher power is a non > sequitur, and predicated on the refusal to accept the posibility of > uncaused events (you assume they must have been *caused*, and if not > part of a deterministic causal chain, then they must be *caused* by a > higher power). Does not follow! Sure, you cause your decisions like a football field determines the final score. Then, of course there's also how well the players have trained, the weather, the latest football rules, your memories and observations, cosmic rays, and the laws of physics. Physics tells us everything happens in a deterministic chain. One event leads to another. Heisenberg only proved that this deterministic chain cannot be fully predicted. Of course, this has been argued before by Zeno and his Stoics back in ancient Greece. And then along came philosophies about Higher Powers to argue that we're more than just dead presidents that haven't stopped moving yet. It's deja vu all over again. --------- Pereant, inquit, qui ante nos nostra dixerunt. "Confound those who have said our remarks before us." -- Aelius Donatus
From: (George Beckingham) Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.misc.forteana,alt.paranormal,alt.philosophy.debate,,alt.sci.time-travel,,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: the nature of evolutionary processes Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 03:56:39 GMT On Fri, 15 Aug 1997 17:50:26 -0700, "W. Wonka" wrote: >grossep wrote: >> > Ironic that if you do believe that your mind is less deterministic >> > than "non-conscious" objects, that you will have to accept the >> > existance of some Higher Power (TM), and yet, not one that uses >> > that power over your "free will". >> "Lower" objects are no more deterministic than my mind. However, the >> "lack of determinism" shows up better in my mind than in a rock because >> my mind has more routes open to it. >No more and no less. Just because WE can't determine something >doesn't mean it's NOT deterministic. But if your definition of >"nondeterministic" is anything we can't determine, then fine, >the world is nondeterministic. The only thing we base physics >on is experimental observations. Something is "deterministic" >if the same initial conditions always produces the same results. >The only problem is that the same initial conditions can never >be exactly reproduced. Thus, we invent this concept of >nondeterminism. Sure, it's more comfortable to believe that >the choices you and the others around you make aren't (or are) >fated, just as it might be comfortable to believe in an >afterlife. But if the only way you can prove nondeterminism >is by saying it can't be predicted, then that's just fighting >definitions. Free will implies a noncausal universe and >thus some Higher Power(s). Maybe there is (are). >---------- >Conquer fear. Question faith. Humor distraction. >Thou shalt not make any graven image, >or bow down before any creation in heaven or on earth. Those who are familiar with Schrodinger's Cat experiment can skip this paragraph. Erwin Schrodinger came up with a thought experiment in which a cat was placed in a box along with a vial of poison and a radioactive device-thing. The box was closed, and the experiment was set in motion. Depending on whether a particle decayed or not, the vial of poison would be broken, or would not be broken. Depending on that outcome, the cat would be killed, or would not be killed. The only way to find out whether that cat was alive or dead was to open the box. Until the box was opened, we could not tell whether the cat was alive or dead. That's as far as common sense takes us. Schrodinger said, however, that until we opened the box, the cat was neither alive nor dead, but in a superposition of states of being alive and dead, and neither alive nor dead. When the box was opened, we would see the cat in one state or another because our observation of the cat would collapse the wave function, and cause the cat to assume a definite state. Quantum physicists have embraced this thought experiment as a perfect analogy of one way the subatomic world behaves. Schrodinger was dumbfounded at their acceptance; he meant to ridicule them by demonstrating how absurd the whole thing was. "If I can't see it, it's not there." Okay, now stand on a railroad track and close your eyes. beck
From: "W. Wonka" Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.misc.forteana,alt.paranormal,alt.philosophy.debate,,alt.sci.time-travel,,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: the nature of evolutionary processes Date: Wed, 13 Aug 1997 11:43:36 -0700 Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ) grossep wrote: > > : Nope. The parameters that you'd need to predict this are more than > > : impossible to measure, they do not exist. > > "Because I said so." > Not quite. Even if one assumes that particles have a definite position > and momentum, and that these definite positions and momenta are known to > you, you STILL cannot predict that the dice is going to roll a six. So > something more is needed. > This "something more" is what I was saying did not exist. Unless you > can think of something that fills the bill? Again: "Because I said so." In order to "predict" something, you need to be able to observe it both before and after the experiment. But the observation itself becomes part of the experiment... and THAT is Heisenburg's point. Yes, when the observer is part of the system being observed, it isn't possible to fully predict anything. BUT that says nothing about whether the Universe is deterministic. Imagine if we try to simulate a smaller version of the Universe on a supercomputer. How do we put non-determinism into the simulation? That, in fact, is impossible because the computer is a deterministic machine. The only way it can show non-deterministic behavior is if "our Universe" leaks into the computer in the form of a hardware glitch... again proving that it isn't possible to predict anything because we are STILL part of the system that includes the computer simulation. So how do we avoid glitches in a deterministic simulation of the Universe? We could run many many versions of the same simulation on different computers. One glitch gets outvoted by all the other computers. But of course, that still doesn't avoid the chance that all those computers get exactly the same glitch at the same time... which is always a possibility, no matter how minute. Ironic that if you do believe that your mind is less deterministic than "non-conscious" objects, that you will have to accept the existance of some Higher Power (TM), and yet, not one that uses that power over your "free will". ---------------- "Culture" is the name we give to a majority insanity. If it weren't for culture, there would be only one reason to wear clothes on a hot day: pockets. (Where else would you put your hands?)
From: "J. Calvin" Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.misc.forteana,alt.paranormal,alt.philosophy.debate,,alt.sci.time-travel,,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: the nature of evolutionary processes Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 15:19:47 -0700 Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ) Tom Roberts wrote: > >Given enough monkeys and enough typewriters, eventually one > >will type up Shakespeare. And then, maybe all the other monkeys > >will come to Shakespeare Monkey for advice, teach it more than > >they teach other monkeys, ultimately ensuring that Shakespeare > >Monkey will know more than most monkeys. > But no knowledge is involved! How will the monkeys know that > "To be, or not to be...." is Shakespeare, and "aspodi dfkw sdswq sds" > is not?? You will have billions and billions of "teachers" teaching > gibberish for every one teaching something approaching English. The same way language is learned. We grow up associating the sound "apple" with that reddish (or greenish) thin-skinned fruit, or the sound of a bell with the delivery of food, or our own sense of self-worth with a book, a shiny rock, a philosophy, or a piece of colored cloth flapping in the wind. > Your attempt to reduce physics to reductionist logic is hopeless. > Look up "Chaos theory". Or look up the granddaddy of them all: > "Turbulence". One does not need Quantum Theory to show that complex > systems (e.g. biological organisms) are completely unpredictable. > The world is much more interesting than you paint. Who says it isn't interesting? Even simple deterministic systems can be unpredictable. Consider Conway's Game of Life. The only way you can predict what will eventually happen to any set of initial conditions is by actually running that simulation and seeing what happens. THAT is chaos. How would we know, given the simplest initial starting pattern in Conway's Life, that the pattern wouldn't eventually halt or become stagnant? Only by running that simulation. For all we know, THIS universe could be the result of the simplest such apparently non-halting pattern. ---------- If spacetime is quantized and we are red bishops, we will never encounter any black bishops.
From: "J. Calvin" Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.misc.forteana,alt.paranormal,alt.philosophy.debate,,alt.sci.time-travel,,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: the nature of evolutionary processes Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 17:30:38 -0700 Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ) Ron Moskovitz wrote: > Maybe you could go with a refresher course in statistics: if I roll > a die, and get a six, that does not mean that six is a preordained > outcome or that the die is biased towards producing sixes. Maybe you could go with a refresher course in physics: the movement of that die and the air molecules around it obey physical laws, and the six was, in fact, unavoidable. However, if you try to predict what will happen by measuring, for example, the dimensions of the die, air temperature, the movement of individual air molecules, etc, you are changing the experiment by your actions. In fact, that you try and succeed (or try and fail) in anything you do is unavoidable; it is merely a conceit of humanity that thought is not ultimately deterministic. And yet, it is impossible to predict the result of our actions except by trying it (or not trying it) and waiting to see what will happen. Given enough monkeys and enough typewriters, eventually one will type up Shakespeare. And then, maybe all the other monkeys will come to Shakespeare Monkey for advice, teach it more than they teach other monkeys, ultimately ensuring that Shakespeare Monkey will know more than most monkeys. ------------- Every intelligent society eventually runs simulations and experiments to explain its own creation, creating new intelligent societies in the process. God isn't dead. God is just away from his keyboard.
From: "J. Calvin" Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,can.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory Subject: Re: Libertarian ideals Date: Mon, 04 Aug 1997 18:26:38 -0700 Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ) Matthew Devney wrote: > Marriage is about two things: love and property. Sex (action or gender) > has nothing to do with it. When two people love each other and decide, > between the two of them, issues of money, cohabitation, medical care, > etc., then they are essentially married. Government only has an > interest in them for tax purposes; nobody else even has the right to > know about it, much less an opinion. Love is merely sex with praise. Property is defined by violence under capitalism or agreement under democracy. Taxes are merely a way for a government (whether autocratic or democratic) to keep down inflation after it loses control over its financial institutions... similar to the concept of a "loan" issued by banks, instead of just handing out grants: they are trying to hold back the inflation created by marketing. Then again, not enough numbers given to workers means the only people able to buy what they produce will be foreigners. Thus many Third World nations are busy producing lame export products instead of building housing or infrastructure.
From: "J. Iscariot" Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,alt.politics.economics,can.politics,alt.society.labor-unions,ab.politics,bc.politics,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: A "Livable Minimum Wage" is a Bad Idea Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 13:53:12 -0700 Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ) Giovanni 8 wrote: > Quite so. Interestingly enough, burying funds in the back yard > can also be productive. It produces greater security for their > owner than would exist if he had spent them on, e.g. Twinkies(tm). > Of course, those who most effectively choose their investments > produce the most value over the term of the investment. Such > choice requires a further investment in obtaining the valuable > information which helps in optimizing investment. This of course grows out of that one truly successful religion that has spread to every corner of the globe -- that precious metals can actually store value. Imagine the world's simplest economy: 2 people -- a king with all the shiny rocks and currency, and a farmer with no money at all. How stupid will the farmer have to be before he will trade food for money? Hey, EVERYBODY wants money right? A nation that claims it's "out of money" to do things is either stupid or afraid to admit the truth. Money *can* in fact grow on trees, because it can just print more (or invent numbers in some computers). The real question is how to motivate people to do useful work like producing food, housing, and health care if they are guaranteed a certain level of biological comfort. The answer is that certain amounts of biological comfort will always be sacrificed in order to get sex and praise (which includes, of course, imitation and self-praise). Praise it enough, and people will be falling over eachother to wear a yellow jersey, head a cheer-leading squad (or a nation), or spend hours everyday calculating and recalculating a stock portfolio. Those who cannot get enough sex or real praise resort to substitutes like drugs or imagined excuses to praise themselves. If it weren't for that, they would have no reason to get out of bed in the morning. Of course, the nation will have to be willing to admit that this small percentage of "unskilled" manual labor is much more important than what professional bullshitters do 365 days a year.
2.8.97 Spread that knowledge as much as possible. 6.8.97 Paint his fence. 19.8.97 Enslaved by its own brainwashing. From: "Z. Beeblebrox" Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,misc.invest.stocks,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions, Subject: Re: Communism -- a stateless "Society" cannot enforce its decisions! Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 17:03:48 -0700 Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ) Libertarius wrote: > ===>Not everything of value is edible. Tell your girlfriend > that gold has no value and give her a plastic engagement ring, > or better yet, one made from bread dough. Certainly doesn't have to be edible. A prune won't do you much good if you're falling out of a plane, but would you choose to be lost in a desert with a suitcase full of gold or bread dough? Two things determine value: utility and marketing. The value of gold would be entirely due to marketing if it weren't for its only recent uses in electronics. The value of gold was (many thousands of years ago) based on wheat, and had no value besides the fact that it was easier to carry units of gold than bushels of wheat. Today, in the more "advanced" societies, we carry paper money instead of wheat, but some clingers-on to the old shiny-rock religion still think there's somehow "real" value in gold... mainly because they're still invested heavily in it. So that's where marketing comes in: "REAL diamonds! NOT synthetic diamonds! NOT cubic zirconia! With a REAL certificate of authenticity!" Anything to make it seem more valuable than it is. And then we wonder why nothing useful ever seems to get done. -------- If we teach gorillas our history, would they fight wars over it?
From: "W. Wonka" Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,misc.invest.stocks,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions Subject: Re: Communism -- a stateless "Society" cannot enforce its decisions! Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 16:45:27 -0700 Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ) Libertarius wrote: > >bethbethbeth wrote: > >> Capital _is_ labor. Money represents one's labor, in portable form. > Money is a TOKEN OF VALUE and a MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE. Real > MONEY has INTRINSIC value, like gold or silver coins. > Government "money" is not real money but a certficate > of indebtedness -- i.e. the indebtedness of the Government, > a "note" or IOU. (See "Federal Reserve Note"). Please. You almost had it right there until your second sentence gave away your stupidity. Gold or silver has NO intrinsic value. The easiest way to see is this: one nation produces bread, one nation produces gold. One day, all their trade routes are destroyed (or they simply put up some trade sanctions). Which is the nation that survives? The only thing that second nation is doing is wasting its time... either because it's trying to brainwash that first nation into being their slaves, or it itself has been enslaved by its own brainwashing. Digging up gold improves the economy about as much as counterfeiting improves the economy. ------- With earnestness he advocated the case of injustice against justice, and by specious arguments and illustrations he strove to prove that injustice was an advantage to the State, while justice served no useful purpose. - St. Augustine
From: "J. Calvin" Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.socialism,,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Communism -- a stateless "Society" cannot enforce its decisions! Date: Wed, 06 Aug 1997 16:28:46 -0700 Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ) bethbethbeth wrote: > If a reward -- money, awards, praise, or winning a contest -- comes to > be seen as the reason one is engaging in an activity, that activity > will be viewed as less enjoyable in its own right. There's that old saying: "There are three ways to get something done: do it yourself, hire someone, or forbid your kids to do it." Payment automatically assumes that the person would rather be spending the money than doing whatever it is he's doing. These assumptions work amazingly well... for example, how most of today's nations assume they should try to achieve 0% unemployment rather than 100% unemployment. Use of money for biological comfort is one thing, but after that, wealth merely becomes a measure of praise: "My dick is longer than your dick." > There is an old joke that nicely illustrates the principle. An elderly > man, harassed by the taunts of neighborhood children, finally devises > a scheme. He offered to pay each child a dollar if they would all > return Tuesday and yell their insults again. They did so eagerly and > received the money, but he told them he could only pay 25 cents on > Wednesday. When they returned, insulted him again and collected their > quarters, he informed them that Thursday's rate would be just a penny. > "Forget it," they said -- and never taunted him again. And Tom Sawyer found a way to get payment for allowing other kids to paint his fence. Ultimately, everyone wants an excuse for feeling superior - real or imagined (of course, it'll ALL imagined, but that's just a cultural point). That's what comedy is all about. Some jokes are more subtle - making listeners feel superior to an earlier version of themselves - which, of course, is also the motivation behind self-education. ----------- "Culture" is the name we give to a majority insanity. If it weren't for culture, there would be only one reason to wear clothes on a hot day: pockets.
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 18:38:43 -0600 From: J. Iscariot Subject: Re: Communism -- a stateless "Society" cannot enforce its decisions! Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.debate,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.equality,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,talk.politics.libertarian Organization: International Order of Assorted Slackers (SWUYHNLBYJ) In article 5rmi1q$, wrote: > Your litany of Marxist BS notwithstanding, the ONLY true wealth > ever produced by Humankind was produced under the best market > conditions, even if admittedly most of the time and in most > places it has been far from being TRULY FREE! > The more "socialist" a system, the less wealth it will produce, > ultimately killing all motivation, and reducing all individuals > to the lowest common denominator, while enriching a few Party > Functionaries who will be riding herd on the people. Socialism > and Communism are predicted on the existence of a "working class", > therefore they can never elevate the workers to any higher level, > any higher standard of living, only maintain the masses as > cogs in the machine of the State, while preaching to them > about a Land of Manana, where the State will have "withered > away". Yeah, whatever. What exactly is "true wealth"? Certainly not digging up shiny rocks. There are only two types of occupations: keeping people alive and giving people a reason to continue to live. Knowledge of the first was so vital that early civilizations spread that knowledge as much as possible in order to survive. As a result, farming is no longer as respected as many of the occupations in the second area: entertainment, which includes everything from politics to management to academics and everything in consumer capitalism. People always want something to do, but as the percentage of people that are needed to do truly useful work falls, it's not the wages of migrant farm workers that should fall but the amount of time that each person NEEDS to be a migrant worker, or construction worker, or whatever. And for the rest of the months out of the year, they should be free to do whatever the hell they want. If your nation can market people to the point of thinking that high heeled shoes are sexy, then it's your own damn fault if even a democracy can't convince its own fully supported people to do what it itself thinks is important. Then again, a lack of motivation tends also to steal all the labor away from organized crime and warfare as well... -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- Search, Read, Post to Usenet
From: "W. Bagger" Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,sci.econ,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.liberalism, Subject: Re: Income Mobility Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 21:44:02 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Wooding wrote: > Capitlalists (either free-market believers or businessmen) do > NOT rule in the USA. Bureaucrats and politicians do. That's > why businessmen lobby so much and spend so much money trying > to buy the influence of the rulers. Wake up biscuit brain, the rich and the powerful were born of the same parents. You think Al Gore's family is poor? The fact is, the more property you have, the more you believe in property rights, and the more you're able to tell other people that "everyone" believes in property rights. Sure wolves can blame lions for eating sheep, but them wolves better brush their teeth REAL well before they open their mouths. ----------- "Arthur Phili ..." it said, then glanced sharply at him and down at his clipboard. He frowned. He looked up at him again. "I've done you before haven't I?" he said.
From: "W. Bagger" Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Stock Market Worry Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 22:31:32 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. LUIS LOPEZ wrote: > > I'm pleased with the fantastic performance of the stock market, but > > it seems to good to be true, and it worries me. > > I wonder if interest rates are too low letting speculators borrow > > cheaply to gamble in the market? > > Any of you wizards see signs of this? Or am I just a worry wart? > Well, I'm worried too. But then I was worried when the Dow hit 5000 pts. > So what now the market is going to do? Maybe this is as high as it will > get. All shares look overvalued to many people. Even to Warren Buffett. He > said that publicly last February, and the market went into a tailspin soon > after his remarks. And look at where it's now: 7500+ points. So what next? > could be 8000 around the corner. It may be. > That's what makes the market interesting.We'll never know for sure what it > is going to do next. The answer is: "The stock market is nothing but a way to keep stock brokers employed." The Dow goes up, the Dow goes down. Where do these little bits of economic photons end up? Is there some black hole out there just waiting to suck up all our numbers? Fact is, if stocks crash, these economic photons have just moved to commodities, bonds, or to stocks overseas. What happens to your bank account? Not a fucking thing. What REALLY causes a capitalist society to fall apart? When the few human beings whose labor are ALWAYS needed (ie. farmers) decide not to listen to marketers anymore and stop working. Of course, we gorge them with overdue loans to make sure that will never happen. ----------- "The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy ... Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water."
From: "G. Eliot" Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left Subject: Re: The Global Abolition of Money and Property Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 22:12:08 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Paddy Joe Shannon wrote: > Second, no criticism of 'socialism' or 'communism' is valid which relies > on references to China, Cuba, Russia, Korea or anywhere else, because > these places were not, and are not, socialist. In fact, a moneyless > society has not existed in recorded history, and its establishment > remains the last great human goal to be achieved. > Fifth, no violence is necessary for this transformation, only the active > and conscious cooperation of the 99% of the world's population who do > all the work and who presently get little or nothing out of it. Almost total agreement except for the point that 99% of the world's population "do all the work". In fact, a tiny minority actually does the important work. They are the farmers of grains. All the rest have invented work that have varying levels of importance. The vast majority are involved in occupations that ultimately result in entertainment of some kind (whether to entertain themselves, their bosses, other people, or all of the above). -------------- "The society which scorns excellence in plumbing as a humble activity and tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because it is an exalted activity will have neither good plumbing nor good philosophy ... Neither its pipes nor its theories will hold water."
19.6.97 21:22 A society that does not value human life. From: "G. Eliot" Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.politics.reform,can.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.economics, Subject: Re: Computer Cost Benefit Analysis of Death Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:34:44 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. jim blair wrote: > But we do have cases of convicted murders who kill again, both in prison > and after being released. There was a case right here in Madison of a guy > who killed a little girl, served about 15 years, got out, and killed > another little girl. You might see this case differently is the second > girl had been your daughter. If you emptied the jails of drug and property "crime" offenders, you'd have a heck of a lot more room. How many witnesses are killed because offenders do not want to jail for non-violent crime? ------- It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished. ....unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. --Voltaire
From: "G. Eliot" Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,can.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.economics, Subject: Re: Computer Cost Benefit Analysis of Death Date: Thu, 19 Jun 1997 21:22:54 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Della Lu wrote: > The jist of it is that when a guilty person is executed it saves 5-50 > innocent lives through deterence, when a misconvicted person is > executed it still has the deterant effect (since it is not known at > the time by the justice system or by criminals generally that the person > is innocent), and saves 4-49 innocent lives. Why not just execute the entire population? No more murderers because no one left to murder. I could just as easily say that one execution encourages 5-50 other executions. A society that does not value human life is a society that does not value human life. Duh. --------- History of the Universe: God trains Dog. Dog rebels. Dog trains God. God rebels. God trains Dog. Dog rebels. Will the cycle never end?
From: "G. Eliot" Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.economics,talk.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Natural Right Minimum Income: Purple Wage?? Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 19:33:53 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. jim blair wrote: > Interesting. Phillip Jose Farmer published an interesting SF story back > in the 1970's called "The Riders of the Purple Wage"; The "purple wage" > was the income everyone got just for existing, anything else they made > was OK and taxed at some (I think) low flat rate. > But somewhere you switched from "mankind" to the US. Does someone become > entitled to the benefit of a country the day they move there? How do > "rich" countries keep any benefits for their citizens? When an unemployed individual enters a job market, either his labor is needed to keep himself or other people alive, or it isn't. If it isn't, then there's no reason to force him to work. If it is, then it just allows some currently employed person to retire. Is someone being productive simply by existing? That would depend on the definition of "productive". Food and health care (and the occasional new building) are the only occupations that are truly productive because they keep people alive. Every other occupation can be considered entertainment (of course, this also includes entertainment foods like ice cream, entertainment health care like braces, and entertainment buildings like libraries). Will we run out of space? We could fit the entire population of the world in China and not match the density of NYC, farm the rest of the land, and still not touch our oceans. ----------- Producers who can't produce anything useful keep hiring advertisers until they have redefined "useful".
From: "G. Eliot" Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.atheism,alt.christnet,alt.politics.socialism,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.democrats.d,,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.correct,,alt.renewing.american.civilization Subject: Re: Why creationists must be opposed! Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 18:10:31 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Platypus wrote: > As a matter of Biology, we know when a new life begins. You may wish > otherwise, but that's too bad. This is not 1297. Life begins when the > genetic material from the 2 parents fuses, and a fertilized egg begins > its development. This is fact. It is not up for negotiation, nor it it > subject to public consensus. If nobody believes it, it is *still*, > *fact*. Be you God fearer or atheist, no attack on my character, (as > will doubtless follow from the likes of Kenfran, Milt, Olson, and Zepp, > who have no other rhetorical option -- fire away, boys...) will change > it. Prevent conception, whether by condom, abstinence, or whatever, and > you prevent life before the fact. That is assuming you can define life itself. Where does life begin and chemical reactions end? If a chicken is an egg's way of producing more eggs, then what is sperm or ovum? Do businesses use marketing to produce more business, or do marketers promote business to perpetuate marketing? Is the abortion debate merely a way to keep lawyers and preachers employed, after which, we'll have to find a new obsession, like whether we can hold off on disease treatment in order to study the spread of plague? Abortion is not an issue by itself. Would you be more likely to have an abortion if society holds single-motherhood in contempt? Cut support for health care and doom welfare mothers to poverty? Condemn adultery and then live in fear that humanity will die of homosexuality? ------------- Thou shalt not make any graven image, or bow down before any creation in heaven or on earth.
From: "G. Eliot" Newsgroups:,,,talk.politics.theory,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.os.msdos.programmer,comp.unix.programmer Subject: Re: Big Brains (Re: Einstein?) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 1997 21:37:50 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Michael Bain wrote: > >Actually, I think that whole 10% thing just started as rumour, and, > >amazingly, many people DO take rumour as gospel (God knows why?!) I > >believe that the 10% theory has been disproved, and that we do in fact > >use 100% of our brains. As you said, it would be pointless to have a > >mostly useless organ (particularly our brains!) and evolution doesn't do > >that, except when something becomes obsolete (e.g. appendixes). > In any event, the greater error in thought may be that using *more* > of a brain is better. It has been bourne out that more intelligent > "brains" actually have a *smaller* percentage of use then less > intelligent ones for similiar mental tasks. So, it appears that > efficiency is a more important aspect of the brain than overall > use... EG.. which program is better, both do the same task, one > is 1000 lines, one is 10,000? You can equip a computer with 64 Megs of RAM and just have it run screen savers, or you can run a web server on a computer with 16 Megs of RAM. Then there's the notion of hard-drive disk space, which in human terms, translates to writing things down. (Something we've been doing for thousands of years I might add.) In terms of an organization, you can either structure it so that 20 out of 20 people get to think, or 3 out of 500 people get to think (with the other 497 doing what those 3 tell them to do). -------- NAPOLEON: What shall we do with this soldier, Guiseppe? Everything he says is wrong. GUISEPPE: Make him a general, Excellency, and then everything he says will be right.
From: "G. Eliot" Newsgroups: talk.politics.medicine,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc, Subject: Re: The Rights of Doctors Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 16:47:39 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > > Yet what is implied with the assertion of "So you admit that too much > > government is the problem," is that the problem of secret pricing > > (thru BCBS) _is_ somehow related to big government. Sorry, doesn't > > follow. > The real problem is government intervention, in the form of the > medical monopoly, the intrusive regulations on every move a doctor > makes, on every move the producers make. People in business blame government. People in government blame business. People in "democratic" countries blame communist countries. People in "communist" countries blame "democratic" countries. People in "religious" countries blame secular countries. When someone's got you by the purse-string, they've got you by a noose. --------- Bloom's Seventh Law of Litigation: The judge's jokes are always funny.
From: "S. Arsheesh" Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,,talk.politics.libertarian,,alt.politics.radical-left,,alt.society.labor-unions Subject: Re: Attitudes towards the Law (was: NJ's Liberal Death Penalty Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 22:33:30 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. wrote: > > But that's not my point. It all leads to an attitude that the law > > doesn't matter. When people think that law doesn't matter, what's to > > stop them from murder and rape? The answer: NOTHING. > #1) What is stopping them from raping and murdering people now? > The answer is nothing except for the punishment, which will > remain if we have laws against jaywalking and smoking How do we even know there's crime (TM) if we didn't witness one ourselves? The answer is, "If I can't report on my own wickedness, I shall report on the wickedness of others." Heck, even exaggerate it a little. Make it seem more dire than it is. Get some pulses racing. Better ratings, more entertainment. Much better than a horror movie because you can say it's real. Fuel paranoia to draw attention away from my own autocracy. The dirty truth is always more entertaining when it involves someone else. Only trouble is, paranoia breeds paranoia. Let's all go hide in our bunkers now. ----------- There's only one zoo where we can see unreasonable humans: the media.
9.6.97 The king is obviously more valuable. 11.6.97 This thing that you are advocating. 16.6.97 Their very own kingdoms. From: "W. Bagger" Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.politics.economics,soc.misc,alt.society.labor-unions,rec.misc,alt.politics.radical-left, Subject: Re: Workers under capitalism get only a "living wage" Date: Mon, 23 Jun 1997 19:09:45 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Stacy G Kilgore wrote: > What planet do you live on? Do you really see no relationship between > profits and people's lives? Do you really think an airline would see it > in their best interest to kill people intentionally? > The fact of the matter is that planes crash for the same reason the > Challenger blew up. People are fallible. They make mistakes. And > sometimes those mistakes cost the lives of other people. It has nothing > to do with socialist or capitalist principles. > Just out of you believe that capitalists are the origin > of all evil? Stupidity is the root of all evil. Political and corporate autocracy are mere tools to perpetuate stupidity. Mistakes happen, yes. But hiding them sure isn't going to prevent them from happening again. And it is so much easier to hide mistakes and perpetuate mistakes if all decisions come top-down, if peons are afraid to disagree. ---------- Newton's Law of General Stupidity: Human behavior can be completely predicted by knowledge of all the chemical and electrical interactions within the brain. Thus there's no such thing as "free will". Heisenburg's Law of Special Stupidity: By trying to study the chemical and electrical interactions within a person's brain, we change those interactions. Thus it is not possible to determine "destiny".
From: "G. Eliot" Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,soc.misc,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.economics,rec.misc,alt.politics.radical-left, Subject: Re: Workers under capitalism get only a "living wage" Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 17:19:42 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Stacy G Kilgore wrote: > The fact of the matter is that planes crash for the same reason the > Challenger blew up. People are fallible. They make mistakes. And > sometimes those mistakes cost the lives of other people. It has nothing > to do with socialist or capitalist principles. > Just out of you believe that capitalists are the origin > of all evil? What is a capitalist principle? The only view that all capitalists share is that if they have a lot of money, nobody has the right to use guns to take it away from them. So they hire their own guns. Tell me again how government ownership or private ownership differs from monarchy. Fact is, monarchy and feudalism never died. They've just diverged into their very own kingdoms - government, business, military, religious, educational, etc etc. Those who control words say words are superior. Those who control currency say money is superior. Those who control faces say its beauty. Those who control weapons say its violence. "Superiority" was a concept invented as a way to get praise. The fact is, the concept of "superiorty" is inferior if all it means is secrecy (to keep everyone gullible) and self-censorship (to keep yourself employed). In the end, everybody is doing useless and pointless jobs, all the while worring about limited resources. ------- Show me a man who is a good loser and I'll show you a man who is playing golf with his boss.
From: "S. Arsheesh" Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,sci.econ,soc.misc,alt.society.labor-unions,rec.misc,alt.politics.radical-left Subject: Re: Workers under capitalism get only a "living wage" Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 18:51:11 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. > R* wrote: > > If you (the peons) organize, manage, and administer industrial > > productivity there will be *none*! > > All this country needs to finally bury itself is to put a bunch of > > worker bees in charge of things. > > Worker bees are stupid people. > > They are worker bees *because* they are stupid. > > Put worker bees in charge of auto design and you get Volkswagens. > > Put worker bees in charge of aircraft engineering you get > > crash-and-burn. So what is this thing that you are advocating? A centrally planned command economy? Hah! It's amazing how capitalist pawns think their companies are any different from your average everyday run-of-the-mill "communist" economic autocracy. Only defenders of slavery deserve to be slaves. You want to know why planes crash & burn? When the choice is either lives or the bottom line, there is only one choice under a system where profits are king. Whistle blowing trouble makers MUST be stamped out - NEVER to work in this town again. ------ The Ape squealed in rage and terror: "Take him away. Take him away. Take him where he cannot hear us, nor we hear him. There tie him to a tree. I will - I mean, Aslan will - do justice to him later."
From: "S. Arsheesh" Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,soc.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,rec.misc,alt.society.labor-unions, Subject: Re: Workers under capitalism get only a "living wage" Date: Mon, 09 Jun 1997 20:08:18 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Parker wrote: > ...and of course, the value of a human to society is nothing more than > the value of his input into society. The economic system, whatever it > is, has the function of determining the value of his labor to society, > indeed, the value of the society's self sustenance is exactly equal to > the value of each human's input By linking the rewards to the > individual to his input to the system, the economic system insures > it's sustenance. Lacking this link, the socialist's must rely upon > force, which is what eloquently damns socialism. What rewards and what input? Shiny rocks for chia pets? Useless on both ends, my dear dog biscuit. Is a king more valuable to a society or a farmer? The answer to that question, of course, depends on who gets to make the decisions. Under a monarchy, the king is OBVIOUSLY more "valuable". How does corporate structure differ from a monarchy? They don't. And the more the monarchy, the less incentive corporate "peasants" have to work. It's not like peasants really believe in doing what they're ordered to do anyway. There's a difference between "force" as in calling in the military to enforce corporate democracy and "force" as in just passing "laws" that plants the seeds for corporate democracy. What is this difference? The difference is that in one, people are afraid NOT to practice democracy, and in the second, people are given the COURAGE to practice democracy. But of course, control freaks always assume only they themselves have any good ideas, dooming the rest of society to self-censorship. --------- And the fewer other skills these idiots have, the more they try to make their one skill seem important.
From: Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.union.iatse,alt.union.natl-writers Subject: Re: Capitalism at work, ain't it great. Date: Mon, 16 Jun 1997 15:43:05 -0400 Organization: Private Individual spin wrote: >  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >   The old man was walking on the beach, where many starfish had >   washed ashore. He saw a little boy on the shoreline, throwing them >   back into the ocean. The boy said 'They'll die if I don't get them >   back into the water.' The man said 'Son, there are hundreds of >   starfish ashore. It's not going to make a difference.' The boy >   picked up a starfish and threw it into the water. He turned to the >   man and said, 'It made a difference to *that* starfish.' >  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - If a sea star has washed ashore, it's probably time for it to have washed ashore. Too many starfish can choke the food cycle, destroying oyster beds, for example. Similarly, too many unemployed citizens of small developing nations can strangle the economic potential of viable producers. Tell the little observant boys to leave habitat management to nature or professionals and to keep their hands off the wildlife. ;-)
From: "S. Arsheesh" Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,sci.econ,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,can.politics,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,,alt.politics.socialism Subject: Re: inequality innate? not so, big oh. Date: Sat, 07 Jun 1997 15:24:13 -0700 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Patrick Bartek wrote: > Equality doesn't mean that *people* are equal physically or > emotionally or spiritually, but that they are entitled to *equal* > treatment under the law, and equal opportunity. > Humanity needs to be diverse. For without diversity, there could > be no change. Exactly. A society with too much order dies because it can't adapt to external change. A society with too much chaos can't produce something resembling itself. ------ Immigration (TM) is a boogeyman invented by slave masters to draw attention away from their autocracy. Limited Resources (TM) is a religion invented by financiers who think patent law is more productive than marine farming.

|HOME| [email/finger/index]

|count| Make your visit count, load this image. |11/13|