[Patrick Turner]

On May 11, 11:01*am, flipper wrote:

.......
snip a lot which I feel no need to argue with....,


The most abusive form of 'social engineering' is when groups argue,
put in simple terms, "you have money, we want it, so we take it,"
using government as the source of enabling power. The founding fathers
of the United States, and other liberals of the era, called this
organized theft. Socialists, who falsely claim to be 'liberals'
because socialism has a bad reputation, argue that the one with money
"owes" it to those who don't and use government power to 'enforce
payment', aka "redistribution of wealth," arguably as a means of
bribery to power.

Despite all the good will expressed in the Constitution of the USA,
many terms used to express how society conduct itself, rule its
citizens and fund itself for the common good are rather rubbery, and
as anyone might tell you, rules are made to be broken, or at least
bent, twisted, warped, convoluted, trans-mogified, modified, ammended,
or outlawed.

Just consider QUOTE :- "you have money, we want it, so we take it,"
using government as the source of enabling power. The founding fathers
of the United States, and other liberals of the era, called this
organized theft. UNQUOTE.

From this idea came those who saw fit to describe all government
expense out of taxes collected as theft, and in the 1970s I saw ppl
with stickers on car bumper bars and back of motorcycle helmets with
"Taxation is Theft" . Anyway, usually there is little agreement about
how taxes are to be imposed on money flow, or wealth flow in any
economy so that all may benefit. Usually the ****in rich hate being
taxed, and perceive that their higher % of income tax is unfair
because they are effectively being expected to financially support
those poorer than themselves. The ****in rich always want more andf
****in more and MORE, and less and less government "interference" in
the form of taxes, financial regulation and environmental laws. The
****in rich want to put their competitors out of business, send 'em
broke, so only they may flourish. The ****in rich fund the media to
get the population to agree with them; effectively, the Rich tell the
poor, "eat this **** sandwich, its delicious" or they give messages
like "buy, buy, buy more and more from us because it'll make youse
'appy" But the taste, like the price is sour, and the happiness gained
is a myth, and people soon find themselves on a treadmill of paying
off never ending debts.

IMHO, there is nothing at all sacred about Big Business which seeks to
be a sacred cow, but tells lies to convey how wonderful they are and
how transparent all their dealings are. ( BP in the gulf ? ) All
governments are Social Experiments, some more successful than others,
depending who you are, what you are, and your social status. Equality
of status and opportunity and equity is a myth in most societies no
matter what their constitution says.

On the other side of the coin, unionists can also be a bunch of ****s
to deal with when they try to raise earnings while lessening
productivity. One might say environmentalists can also be a BOCTDW
when they try to hold up industrial projects or regulate industry.

Winston Churchill once said "Democracy is a terrible thing, until you
consider the alternative." But even the mild mannered polite Brittish
OK'd the bombing of Dresden. There are many still recovering from
bites on their arse from Thatcher.

Healthy discussions of gripes and troubles and rights and wrongs are
quite good tonic instead of secret police with jails full of ppl
disagreeing with Our Dear Leader, a la Nth Korea. Unfortunately, Dear
Leaders around the world are slow to catch on about what ppl want -
freedom of the press, separation of powers, no corruption, fairness,
equal equity, equal opportunity, and equal wages and equal shopping
opportunities. That's only for starters. Gaddaffi is finding outabout
it now.

At the moment, seems like Consumerism has replaced Communism.
Consumerism is now catching on everywhere around the world and
unfortunately we need 6 planet fulls of resources to keep everyone
happy with a north american lifestyle. The alternative would be to
seriously reduce the standard of living expectations in rich western
nations, but have everyone raise real standards to an equal level, and
thus make do with the One and Only PLanet we find ourselves upon. We
seem to have Peak Oil, yet we face a huge population increase and vast
increase in wish lists, ie, expectational increase while sea levels
are rising 3mm a year. Economists will tell you that the one shortage
of supply that the world will never experience is a shortage of
demand. The more we get connected, Farcing on Farcebook, ****tering on
****ter, the bigger becomes our sense of self importance and desire
for more and more meaningless aquistion of stuff. We head into an
unknown area if we all ignore history.

I guess the markets will decide what happens over the next 50 years,
if some jolly humdinger big fat wars don't.

Whatever happens, it'll never be over, things are never solved or
resolved.

Knowing that uncertainty is so damn certain, and that unknown un-
knowables abound, its easier to be happy and not worry, if you can
make it to next year without insanity and neurosis in spending habits
sending you broke.

You can survive well if you reject the message pedalled by the rich.
For me, "Putting on the Agony, Putting on the Style" has no meaning.
This was a title of a folk song written during the Californian gold
rush days of about 1860. Personally, I like to pedal around on a
bicycle, and I don't know how to use a mobile phone.

Patrick Turner.