Re: Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________---_ azikdi

[Luke Kaven]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote:

[...]
>What we deserve is to have our elections given the same respect as the rest
>of the world gets from us. If some other country decides to elect someone
>that a large number of our citizens don't approve of you hear from our
>citizens via some newspaper trying to convince them to vote the way we'd
>like.

America has been in the asassination and coup business for many years.
Salvadore Allende was a duly elected leader that we overthrew, just
one example.

>You won't find one of our newspapers with a banner headline saying that X
>number of your citizens are dumb.

You said that to most of the countries in Europe just last year.
Remember all of the colourful names you called the French?

[...]
>**** off you stupid little twit. Go fix your own problems and stop bitching
>about our choices. Without us, you'd be nowhere and nothing.

Here's a monument to the arrogance that dooms your cause in the end.
It is funny, considering that you're talking to the EU, a superpower
even bigger than America--and once it pulls itself together, a more
powerful one. You are foolish to be beckoning world war.

Luke

[George Jetson]

"Luke Kaven" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote:
>
> [...]
>>What we deserve is to have our elections given the same respect as the
>>rest
>>of the world gets from us. If some other country decides to elect someone
>>that a large number of our citizens don't approve of you hear from our
>>citizens via some newspaper trying to convince them to vote the way we'd
>>like.
>
> America has been in the asassination and coup business for many years.
> Salvadore Allende was a duly elected leader that we overthrew, just
> one example.
>
>>You won't find one of our newspapers with a banner headline saying that X
>>number of your citizens are dumb.
>
> You said that to most of the countries in Europe just last year.
> Remember all of the colourful names you called the French?
>
> [...]
>>**** off you stupid little twit. Go fix your own problems and stop
>>bitching
>>about our choices. Without us, you'd be nowhere and nothing.
>
> Here's a monument to the arrogance that dooms your cause in the end.
> It is funny, considering that you're talking to the EU, a superpower
> even bigger than America--and once it pulls itself together, a more
> powerful one. You are foolish to be beckoning world war.
>
> Luke

The original poster's subject reads like dialogue from "Plan 9 From Outer
Space"! Too obvious ?
Since I really don't know myself...What do you call people who feed trolls?

On the offtopic drival posted about what countries do to each other I
paraphrase Winston Churchill quite badly, "America sucks, but everyone else
sucks worse."


--
They can have my command prompt when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.

[Pete Dimsman]

According to this report, all of this may be a moot point soon:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/08/globalwarming.reut/index.html
Study: Arctic warming at twice the global rate

Species, including polar bears, may go extinct as ice melts.

OSLO, Norway (Reuters) -- Global warming is heating the Arctic almost
twice as fast as the rest of the planet in a thaw that threatens
millions of livelihoods and could wipe out polar bears by 2100, an
eight-nation report said on Monday.

The biggest survey to date of the Arctic climate, by 250 scientists,
said the accelerating melt could be a foretaste of wider disruptions
from a build-up of human emissions of heat-trapping gases in Earth's
atmosphere.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Luke Kaven" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote:
>
> [...]
>>What we deserve is to have our elections given the same respect as the
>>rest
>>of the world gets from us. If some other country decides to elect someone
>>that a large number of our citizens don't approve of you hear from our
>>citizens via some newspaper trying to convince them to vote the way we'd
>>like.
>
> America has been in the asassination and coup business for many years.
> Salvadore Allende was a duly elected leader that we overthrew, just
> one example.
>

After his inauguration, Allende began to carry out his platform of
implementing socialist programs in Chile ("La vía chilena al socialismo" -
"The Chilean Way to Socialism"). This included nationalization of certain
large-scale industries (notably copper), reform of the health care system, a
continuation of his predecessor Eduardo Frei Montalva's reforms of the
educational system, a program of free milk for children, and an attempt at
agrarian reform [1]
(http://icarito.latercera.cl/icarito/2003/912/pag1a.htm). A new "excess
profit tax" was created. The government announced a moratorium on foreign
debt payments and defaulted on debts held by international creditors and
foreign governments. These moves angered some middle-class and almost all
upper-class elements, while greatly increasing Allende's support among the
working class and the poorer strata of society. Thus, the country was
polarized.

Throughout his presidency, Allende remained at odds with the Chilean
Congress, which was dominated by the Christian Democratic Party. The
Christian Democrats had campaigned on a left-wing platform in the 1970
elections, but they began to drift more and more towards the right during
Allende's presidency, eventually forming a coalition with the right-wing
National Party. They continued to allege that Allende was leading Chile
toward a Cuban-style dictatorship and sought to overturn many of his more
radical reforms. Some members even called for the normally apolitical
Chilean military to stage a coup to "protect the constitution". Allende and
his opponents in Congress repeatedly accused each other of undermining the
Chilean Constitution and acting undemocratically.

In 1971, following a month-long visit of Cuban president Fidel Castro, with
whom he had a close friendship, Allende announced the re-establishment of
diplomatic relations with Cuba, despite a previously established
Organization of American States convention that no nation in the Western
Hemisphere would do so (the only exception being Mexico, which had refused
to adopt that convention).

Allende's increasingly bold socialist policies (partly a response to
pressure from some of the Marxists within his coalition), combined with his
close contacts with Cuba, heightened fears in Washington. The Nixon
administration began exerting economic pressure on Chile via multilateral
organizations, and continued to back his opponents in the Chilean Congress

See Chilean coup of 1973.

In 1973, partly as a result of Allende's unpopularity with many of Chile's
foreign trading partners and partly as a result of the rapidly declining
price of copper (Chile's main export), the economy took a major downturn. By
September, hyperinflation and shortages had plunged the country into near
chaos. On September 11, the Chilean military, led by General Augusto
Pinochet, staged the Chilean coup of 1973 against Allende. During the
capture of the La Moneda Presidential Palace, Allende died. The nature of
his death is unclear: His personal doctor said that he committed suicide
with a machine gun, an interpretation allegedly confirmed by autopsy, while
some of his supporters and family insist that he was killed by Pinochet's
military forces while defending the palace.

It is known that the U.S. played a role in Chilean politics prior to the
coup, but its degree of involvement in the coup itself is debated. The CIA
was notified by its Chilean contacts of the impending Pinochet coup two days
in advance, but contends it "played no direct role in" the coup. [2]
(http://cbsnews.cbs.com/stories/2000/09/11/world/main232452.shtml) After
Pinochet assumed power, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger told U.S.
President Richard Nixon that the U.S. "didn't do it" (referring to the coup
itself) but had "created the conditions as great as possible" [3]
(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB123/index.htm#chile). Recently
declassified documents show that the United States government and the CIA
had sought the overthrow of Allende in 1970, immediately after he took
office ("Project FUBELT"), but claims of their direct involvement in the
1973 coup are not proven by publicly available documentary evidence; many
potentially relevant documents still remain classified (see U.S.
intervention in Chile


Now what reason could anybody have for wanting a guy who personally ruined
the economy of a country out of office. No evidence that the US
participated in the coup so far though. Very similar to Clinton in that he
did not recieve a mjority of the vote but only a plurality of 36%.

You aren't trying to convince me that other countries don;'t get involved in
such things, are you?



>>You won't find one of our newspapers with a banner headline saying that X
>>number of your citizens are dumb.
>
> You said that to most of the countries in Europe just last year.
> Remember all of the colourful names you called the French?
>
> [...]
>>**** off you stupid little twit. Go fix your own problems and stop
>>bitching
>>about our choices. Without us, you'd be nowhere and nothing.
>
> Here's a monument to the arrogance that dooms your cause in the end.
> It is funny, considering that you're talking to the EU, a superpower
> even bigger than America--and once it pulls itself together, a more
> powerful one. You are foolish to be beckoning world war.
>
> Luke

Sorry Luke, but I don't believe the EU is going to go to war against the
U.S. and lose so many customers for it's products. The fact is that the
countries in Europe are going to always be behind the US since they can't
seem to live without their much larger welfare state.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Pete Dimsman" > wrote in message
...
>
> According to this report, all of this may be a moot point soon:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/08/globalwarming.reut/index.html
> Study: Arctic warming at twice the global rate
>
> Species, including polar bears, may go extinct as ice melts.
>
> OSLO, Norway (Reuters) -- Global warming is heating the Arctic almost
> twice as fast as the rest of the planet in a thaw that threatens millions
> of livelihoods and could wipe out polar bears by 2100, an eight-nation
> report said on Monday.
>
> The biggest survey to date of the Arctic climate, by 250 scientists, said
> the accelerating melt could be a foretaste of wider disruptions from a
> build-up of human emissions of heat-trapping gases in Earth's atmosphere.
>
>
Hysteria over normal weather patterns that have nothing to do with man's
influence, noted.

Read the article here
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/10/wo_muller101504.asp or the
web page of the authors here
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/fallupdate04/update.fall04.html

Or access it through here:http://www.acia.uaf.edu/
This will take you to the actual report.

This is worth reading:

The basic information is this: the analysis of the tree ring data that gives
the 'hockey stick' shaped heat increase curve that shows a significant
increase in global warming since the industrial revolution is seriously
flawed. The authors of the web page referenced above found that even
inputting random, meaningless, valueless data (into the analysis algorithm
used to develop the global warming graph) produced the same curve. In other
words, the apparent sudden increase in global warming since the industrial
age started might be totally false. It's a serious mistake to make national
and international policy (Kyoto protocol) based on bogus figures.

[Geoff Wood]

"Luke Kaven" > wrote in message

> It looks like a US Govt White Paper, one from the seventies. Could
> you supply the source for that?
>
> Even by 1975, it was known that the CIA had been directly involved in
> fomenting and plotting the coup.
>

Copper mining, ITT

geoff

[Luke Kaven]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote:
>"Luke Kaven" > wrote
[...]
>> There are a lot of cultural differences between Europe and the US that
>> also figure in. European education is typically higher among those
>> holding only a baccalaureate (an extra year of high school, and
>> advanced studies in undergraduate curricula). The European philosophy
>> of education involves more interdisciplinary skills, whereas the
>> American focus is on in-field competencies. There is a trade-off that
>> can go either way depending upon the problem at hand.
>
>The American focus has for some time seemed to be in keeping teachers from
>doing their job, namely imparting knowledge. Things like whole language
>reading should not have taken 10 years to get rid of as it did in
>California. That's ten years worth of students, most of whom could not read
>at grade level.

It isn't much better at the undergraduate and post-graduate level
either.

[...]
>>>[...] The GOP (still not my party) is more inclined
>>>to leave people free to earn a living and raise themselves up through hard
>>>work. The Democrats, knowingly or not, (I suspect knowingly unless they
>>>really are stupid) work against that.
>>
>> In both schemes, there are social structures required to provide for
>> needs. The major avowed difference between the parties is in the
>> difference between governmental structures (Democrats) and
>> non-governmental structures (Republicans). Again, a mix of both is
>> valuable.
>>
>I'm not so sure beyond those of protecting the rights of individuals.
>
>> Sometimes, as inefficient as the government is, it is the best place
>> to locate certain programs, because whatever faults the government has
>> in administering said programs, they are accountable in a way that
>> private industry rarely is, at least in the present scheme of things.
>
>Private industry has to provide good product and service or it goes tits up.
>Government service has no such threat over its head.

There are a couple of specious assumptions in what you say here that
are not backed up by research in the social sciences. The assumption
that industry serves the needs of its consumers is only a contingent
matter of fact, and while it is often a factor, it is by far not the
only factor, and it is not always the most important factor.
Corporations serve themselves first and foremost, and they will do
what they have to do to further their self-interests. They have a
life all of their own without any regard necessarily for anyone's
well-being except their own. Providing a good product is only a part
of that. Monopolies, political affiliations and sweetheart deals, are
often what drive corporate dominance in the marketplace.

I will not offer government agencies as a cure for this. I can
acknowledge many of the pitfalls you would no doubt cite. It is only
my assertion that there are reasons to have the government do some
things, and reasons to have private industry do some things. And
really, there is more continuity between the two things than one might
expect. We'd really have to discuss this in the context of a specific
set of functions though.

>> I'll give you an example. The Republicans would like to privatize a
>> number of civil service jobs. But this has some very serious
>> problems. For one, there is nothing to prevent the Republicans from
>> farming out government work to private industry which is de facto
>> controlled by the Republican party, and which works tirelessly to
>> further the aims of that party, and which siphons government funds
>> into the service of that party's interests.
>
>Don't farm it out at all, let people who want it done hire private firms to
>do it.

Okay, I guess this is the Libertarian viewpoint.

>> Career civil servants, by
>> and large, should not be permanently controlled by the interests of
>> the private sector.
>>
>Then get rid of those departments

Again in the context of a specific case is where I'd consider it. In
general, there is much to hate about both ways. I don't think you'd
want to suggest that we should dismantle national defense, and let
wars be fought on a profit-loss basis by whoever feels like paying for
it. Where would you draw the line? [Funny that the right-wing
doesn't think nationalized defense is socialism.]

>> Another example -- I would not like to see the government fund
>> religious charity, because there is similar potential for abuse.
>> Right now, the government funds a religious organization that teaches
>> abstinence from premarital sex.
>>
>But it does not force people to participate in the programs. There are
>choices and those are some of them. They get the funding because their
>programs work.

Or they get funding because they further the ambitions of the party in
power. Teaching abstinence while conspicuously not teaching safe sex
in the prevention of AIDS is an unrealistic dogma that does not
prevent AIDS. The most damaging flaw in your argument, as above, is
the assumption that these organizations exist to serve their clients
and that their success is measured by how "good" they are at doing
that. This is as I say only a contingent matter of fact. Serving the
investors is often the predominant factor. And serving the interests
of those who could otherwise do you great harm is also sometimes a
predominant factor. The only thing a corporation cares about is its
own survival, often no matter what the cost. The idea of serving the
good of anything else is theory that is long gone in research circles.

You might actually be interested to know some of the ground floor
concepts in altruism and social behavior. These are the assumptions
on which your notion of libertarianism rests, and the research might
tell you some things that would differ from your current views. Who
knows, you might be able to formulate a better libertarianism.

>> The one thing I think you said that oversimplified was that Democrats
>> work against leaving people free to earn a living and raise themselves
>> up through hard work. Anyone is always free to do that!
>
>Government makes it harder through the way they tax and regulate business,
>taking money away that could be used for investment.

True (and ultimately, as a small business owner, I will feel that
too). But I would not look to the wealthy to make decisions on
solving the problems of the impoverished. I can't think of a group
that would be more out of touch with those problems.

>> if the Government hadn't taken to funding AIDS research, which they did much
>> too late I might add, it would have taken much longer for private
>> industry to ever take up the slack at the cost of many lives.
>
>I disagree, I think if government were less intrusive and less confiscatory,
>it's likely that things would move faster.

In this case, you disagree, but I was there as a research associate in
a well-known AIDS research laboratory. This deserves a topic of its
own. Because from what I've seen, if research depended upon showing a
return on investment, then we would have let millions more die. As I
said before...serving the interests of the customers is not the
purpose of a corporation. Under perfect knowledge conditions, things
might be otherwise. But the market exploits ignorance.

>> In the
>> end, a number of private initiatives were seeded thanks to research
>> originally funded by the government. Also, I think government funding
>> for the arts is something the Republicans do not appreciate well
>> enough, because they view the arts as ranging from spurious to
>> subversive relative to their own causes.
>
>They, like me do not appreciate it becuase it always leads to things that
>are questionable in taste, and to funding people whose work has nmo real
>market appeal. If people wish to pursue art, let them do it at their own
>expense.

For the price of one bomber, it would be possible to seed quite a
number of efforts, many of which would result in self-sufficient
enterprises and gainful employment for many. I would not trust
private corporations to be the arbiters of artistic taste. I
certainly would not trust them to decide on the basis of artistic
value, which is intangible and wholly different than cash value. As
far as questionable tastes, you will always have that in any context.

>> In general, I do not look to
>> the captains of industry to be good at anything other than their
>> primary endeavors, and I would not trust them to act in the public
>> good when and where needed.
>>
>If it were not for private industry many things would have considerably less
>funding than they do. Many like Wal-Mart give genrouisly to a variety of
>charities.

Of course I did not say to eliminate corporate giving. I would not
bet my life on them however.

[...]
>>>> Better in my mind would be a synthesis of ideas that in the
>>>> end would (I surmise) not resemble very strongly either of the current
>>>> parties. We are young in the history of human affairs, and we have
>>>> much to learn.
>>>>
>>>It already exists. The Libertarians. They have this funny idea that the
>>>Constitution means something . Naturally, they will never gain power.
>>
>> There are about a hundred version of Libertarianism, many of which are
>> pretty far-right in their implication.
>
>I'm speaking of the Libertarian Party. They seem prety constant.

Point me to some docs, and I'll study them for a bit.

>> In the end, society still
>> needs pretty much the same sorts of social structures in order to
>> survive. The main differences, again, have to do with where those
>> structures are located, whether inside or outside the government. In
>> my mind, I'm not sure anyone's interests are served by favoring one
>> over the other in all circumstances. Each case requires special
>> consideration.
>>
>Which is best left to the individuals

I'm saying that individuals are always embedded in a multiplicity of
social groups, which influence their choices and behavior. You are
really deferring to these groups as much as to the individuals in
question. Maybe you can make an improved libertarianism out of that,
but either way, it needs to be understood. [Any version of
libertarianism (or any political philosophy) one espouses depends is
underwritten by social and psychological theory (tacitly or
otherwise), and has to be responsive to the truth or falsity of such
theory.]

[...]
>> Diplomacy is not a
>> strong suit for Bush. Bush's strong suit is playing to his base, and,
>> with Rove as architect, waging a merciless disinformation campaign on
>> his opposition, which is what makes the party so strong.
>
>Compared with whaty I've seen about the Democrats on factcheck and
>spinsanity, Rove is an amateur.
>
>> [We're both
>> aware of things Rove has done with whisper campaigns, things that make
>> Lee A****er look like a choir boy.] Somewhere, though, there is a
>> Belief Bubble that makes it all go, and like the tech bubble, it may
>> burst at some point.
>>
>Check the 2 places I mentioned and see if you still think so.

I'm not immune to correction. But note that I live in what the Bush
administration derisively calls the "reality based community". By
their own admission, they do not. Taking stock of Rove's past
history, there isn't much to respect about the man's ethics.

Luke

[Joseph Oberlander]

Michael McKelvy wrote:

> The basic information is this: the analysis of the tree ring data that gives
> the 'hockey stick' shaped heat increase curve that shows a significant
> increase in global warming since the industrial revolution is seriously
> flawed. The authors of the web page referenced above found that even
> inputting random, meaningless, valueless data (into the analysis algorithm
> used to develop the global warming graph) produced the same curve. In other
> words, the apparent sudden increase in global warming since the industrial
> age started might be totally false. It's a serious mistake to make national
> and international policy (Kyoto protocol) based on bogus figures.

Note - the magnetic field strength is also fluctuating greatly.

When the two happen at the same time, about every 10,000 years or so,
(and we're due), the Earth's magnetic poles reverse. This easily
explains the ozone holes - we're about to "flip" during the next
100-200 years.

The heat - well, that's a double-whammy. We're heading into
another ice-age. It gets hot(the thinner atmosphere form the weaker
magnetic fields as noted above make it worse as well), then
the poles and snow melts and the oceans are diluted enough to
stop the various "streams"(Gulf stream for example) from properly
flowing. The planet goes "cold" in less than 100 years.

Our pollution makes maybe a 1-2% impact on this cycle. A blip
in a much larger problem that we can do nothing about.

The cycle repeats again and again until the core runs out of heat
and the magnetic field drops to 0 - at which time the radiation belts
fail completely and the atmoshpere is ripped away. That's how Mars
died and how most planets of our type die as well. Thankfully, we're
not due for that for another 100 million years or so. Heh. Plenty
of time to escape for greener pastures.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Luke Kaven" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote:
>>"Luke Kaven" > wrote
> [...]
>>> There are a lot of cultural differences between Europe and the US that
>>> also figure in. European education is typically higher among those
>>> holding only a baccalaureate (an extra year of high school, and
>>> advanced studies in undergraduate curricula). The European philosophy
>>> of education involves more interdisciplinary skills, whereas the
>>> American focus is on in-field competencies. There is a trade-off that
>>> can go either way depending upon the problem at hand.
>>
>>The American focus has for some time seemed to be in keeping teachers from
>>doing their job, namely imparting knowledge. Things like whole language
>>reading should not have taken 10 years to get rid of as it did in
>>California. That's ten years worth of students, most of whom could not
>>read
>>at grade level.
>
> It isn't much better at the undergraduate and post-graduate level
> either.
>
It wasn't the GOP championing those kinds of instruction. If the Teachers
Union had any real desire to, as they claim, meet the needs of the studenmts
they should have been striking to get rid of this ****.


> [...]
>>>>[...] The GOP (still not my party) is more inclined
>>>>to leave people free to earn a living and raise themselves up through
>>>>hard
>>>>work. The Democrats, knowingly or not, (I suspect knowingly unless they
>>>>really are stupid) work against that.
>>>
>>> In both schemes, there are social structures required to provide for
>>> needs. The major avowed difference between the parties is in the
>>> difference between governmental structures (Democrats) and
>>> non-governmental structures (Republicans). Again, a mix of both is
>>> valuable.
>>>
>>I'm not so sure beyond those of protecting the rights of individuals.
>>
>>> Sometimes, as inefficient as the government is, it is the best place
>>> to locate certain programs, because whatever faults the government has
>>> in administering said programs, they are accountable in a way that
>>> private industry rarely is, at least in the present scheme of things.
>>
>>Private industry has to provide good product and service or it goes tits
>>up.
>>Government service has no such threat over its head.
>
> There are a couple of specious assumptions in what you say here that
> are not backed up by research in the social sciences. The assumption
> that industry serves the needs of its consumers is only a contingent
> matter of fact, and while it is often a factor, it is by far not the
> only factor, and it is not always the most important factor.
> Corporations serve themselves first and foremost, and they will do
> what they have to do to further their self-interests. They have a
> life all of their own without any regard necessarily for anyone's
> well-being except their own. Providing a good product is only a part
> of that. Monopolies, political affiliations and sweetheart deals, are
> often what drive corporate dominance in the marketplace.
>
> I will not offer government agencies as a cure for this. I can
> acknowledge many of the pitfalls you would no doubt cite. It is only
> my assertion that there are reasons to have the government do some
> things, and reasons to have private industry do some things. And
> really, there is more continuity between the two things than one might
> expect. We'd really have to discuss this in the context of a specific
> set of functions though.
>
>>> I'll give you an example. The Republicans would like to privatize a
>>> number of civil service jobs. But this has some very serious
>>> problems. For one, there is nothing to prevent the Republicans from
>>> farming out government work to private industry which is de facto
>>> controlled by the Republican party, and which works tirelessly to
>>> further the aims of that party, and which siphons government funds
>>> into the service of that party's interests.
>>
>>Don't farm it out at all, let people who want it done hire private firms
>>to
>>do it.
>
> Okay, I guess this is the Libertarian viewpoint.
>
>>> Career civil servants, by
>>> and large, should not be permanently controlled by the interests of
>>> the private sector.
>>>
>>Then get rid of those departments
>
> Again in the context of a specific case is where I'd consider it. In
> general, there is much to hate about both ways. I don't think you'd
> want to suggest that we should dismantle national defense,

Of course not, that is a logical function of government. It actually
protects people and their rights.

and let
> wars be fought on a profit-loss basis by whoever feels like paying for
> it. Where would you draw the line? [Funny that the right-wing
> doesn't think nationalized defense is socialism.]
>
Becuase it's not. It's one of the only reasons to have governmenmt at all.


>>> Another example -- I would not like to see the government fund
>>> religious charity, because there is similar potential for abuse.
>>> Right now, the government funds a religious organization that teaches
>>> abstinence from premarital sex.
>>>
>>But it does not force people to participate in the programs. There are
>>choices and those are some of them. They get the funding because their
>>programs work.
>
> Or they get funding because they further the ambitions of the party in
> power. Teaching abstinence while conspicuously not teaching safe sex
> in the prevention of AIDS is an unrealistic dogma that does not
> prevent AIDS.

By now, anybody who doesn't know about safe sex has their head up their ass.
Aids is a disease spread by particular unsafe behavior. It is not a
national crisis, it's bad manners.

The most damaging flaw in your argument, as above, is
> the assumption that these organizations exist to serve their clients
> and that their success is measured by how "good" they are at doing
> that. This is as I say only a contingent matter of fact. Serving the
> investors is often the predominant factor. And serving the interests
> of those who could otherwise do you great harm is also sometimes a
> predominant factor. The only thing a corporation cares about is its
> own survival, often no matter what the cost. The idea of serving the
> good of anything else is theory that is long gone in research circles.
>

As long as they do it without force or fraud, which we have laws for, theya
re serving the good of everybody. They serve the people they hire, they
serve stockholders if they have them, they serve the community at large by
paying taxes and often times by their own donations to charity, blood
drives, collections, etc. They also serve their customers. There is no
other claim we can make on them.

> You might actually be interested to know some of the ground floor
> concepts in altruism and social behavior. These are the assumptions
> on which your notion of libertarianism rests, and the research might
> tell you some things that would differ from your current views. Who
> knows, you might be able to formulate a better libertarianism.
>
Libertarianism rejects altruism. It is a notion that we are of value only
if we give to others, that self interest is somehow less good than self
sacrifice.



>>> The one thing I think you said that oversimplified was that Democrats
>>> work against leaving people free to earn a living and raise themselves
>>> up through hard work. Anyone is always free to do that!
>>
>>Government makes it harder through the way they tax and regulate business,
>>taking money away that could be used for investment.
>
> True (and ultimately, as a small business owner, I will feel that
> too). But I would not look to the wealthy to make decisions on
> solving the problems of the impoverished.

Yet they do it all the time by creating work for people to do. They create
work and pay people to do it, they have no other responsibilty.

I can't think of a group
> that would be more out of touch with those problems.
>
That's not their role, nor is there any reason it should be. Your argument
is that somehow at birth we are obliged to start doing things for the
benefit of others. I reject that as illogical and immoral. Whence comes
this debt that we all owe each other? What we owe is to ourselves to be
well. If one chooses to be generouis, let them, but don't imply that
everybody with less has a claim on the labor and ingenuity of those who do
better than they do, it doesn't make sense.

>>> if the Government hadn't taken to funding AIDS research, which they did
>>> much
>>> too late I might add, it would have taken much longer for private
>>> industry to ever take up the slack at the cost of many lives.
>>
>>I disagree, I think if government were less intrusive and less
>>confiscatory,
>>it's likely that things would move faster.
>
> In this case, you disagree, but I was there as a research associate in
> a well-known AIDS research laboratory. This deserves a topic of its
> own. Because from what I've seen, if research depended upon showing a
> return on investment, then we would have let millions more die.

Millions die from AIDS primarily for one reason, lack of self discipline.
It's like not putting the safety on a loaded gun and then complaining that
you shot yourself. Ever hear of bareback parties? I can'twork up a lot of
sympathy for such behavior.

As I
> said before...serving the interests of the customers is not the
> purpose of a corporation.

It is an obligation in order to serve their own interest in profit.

Under perfect knowledge conditions, things
> might be otherwise. But the market exploits ignorance.
>
It rewards industry and intelligence. It also trains and educates.
Capitalism is the reason their is a thing called the middle class.

>>> In the
>>> end, a number of private initiatives were seeded thanks to research
>>> originally funded by the government. Also, I think government funding
>>> for the arts is something the Republicans do not appreciate well
>>> enough, because they view the arts as ranging from spurious to
>>> subversive relative to their own causes.
>>
>>They, like me do not appreciate it becuase it always leads to things that
>>are questionable in taste, and to funding people whose work has no real
>>market appeal. If people wish to pursue art, let them do it at their own
>>expense.
>
> For the price of one bomber, it would be possible to seed quite a
> number of efforts, many of which would result in self-sufficient
> enterprises and gainful employment for many.

For the price of the war on poverty we could have just given people a big
wad of cash and they'd probably be better off. The market works if it's
left alone. New jobs, new products and more income to tax. Without those
bombers we leave ourselves open to people who might do us harm. The best
idea is to have a military so mighty, that nobody wants to test it.

I would not trust
> private corporations to be the arbiters of artistic taste.

I don't either, nor do I trust the government to give away money to
"deserving" artists.

I
> certainly would not trust them to decide on the basis of artistic
> value, which is intangible and wholly different than cash value. As
> far as questionable tastes, you will always have that in any context.
>
Then let it be financed by private money. I feel no special benevolence or
pride in the fact that some portion of my tax money went to pay for photos
of a guy with a whip up his ass.

>>> In general, I do not look to
>>> the captains of industry to be good at anything other than their
>>> primary endeavors, and I would not trust them to act in the public
>>> good when and where needed.
>>>
Industry is the public good. It feeds, it clothes, it educates and it
doesn't ask for any other approval than you buy it's products. If you don't
they disappear.


>>If it were not for private industry many things would have considerably
>>less
>>funding than they do. Many like Wal-Mart give genrouisly to a variety of
>>charities.
>
> Of course I did not say to eliminate corporate giving. I would not
> bet my life on them however.
>

Nor should you, you should bet on yourself and make it as safe a bet as you
can.

> [...]
>>>>> Better in my mind would be a synthesis of ideas that in the
>>>>> end would (I surmise) not resemble very strongly either of the current
>>>>> parties. We are young in the history of human affairs, and we have
>>>>> much to learn.
>>>>>
>>>>It already exists. The Libertarians. They have this funny idea that
>>>>the
>>>>Constitution means something . Naturally, they will never gain power.
>>>
>>> There are about a hundred version of Libertarianism, many of which are
>>> pretty far-right in their implication.
>>
>>I'm speaking of the Libertarian Party. They seem prety constant.
>
> Point me to some docs, and I'll study them for a bit.

Just go to their website www.libertarianparty.com


>>> In the end, society still
>>> needs pretty much the same sorts of social structures in order to
>>> survive. The main differences, again, have to do with where those
>>> structures are located, whether inside or outside the government. In
>>> my mind, I'm not sure anyone's interests are served by favoring one
>>> over the other in all circumstances. Each case requires special
>>> consideration.
>>>
>>Which is best left to the individuals
>
> I'm saying that individuals are always embedded in a multiplicity of
> social groups, which influence their choices and behavior. You are
> really deferring to these groups as much as to the individuals in
> question. Maybe you can make an improved libertarianism out of that,
> but either way, it needs to be understood. [Any version of
> libertarianism (or any political philosophy) one espouses depends is
> underwritten by social and psychological theory (tacitly or
> otherwise), and has to be responsive to the truth or falsity of such
> theory.]
>
The main truth that most seem to overlook, is what is good for humans. What
will work for all humans. Start with the nature of human beings and work
from their. Not what do they need from ujs, but what they need to do for
themselves. All actions which do not use force or fraud, are OK by me.


> [...]
>>> Diplomacy is not a
>>> strong suit for Bush. Bush's strong suit is playing to his base, and,
>>> with Rove as architect, waging a merciless disinformation campaign on
>>> his opposition, which is what makes the party so strong.
>>
>>Compared with what I've seen about the Democrats on factcheck and
>>spinsanity, Rove is an amateur.
>>
>>> [We're both
>>> aware of things Rove has done with whisper campaigns, things that make
>>> Lee A****er look like a choir boy.] Somewhere, though, there is a
>>> Belief Bubble that makes it all go, and like the tech bubble, it may
>>> burst at some point.
>>>
>>Check the 2 places I mentioned and see if you still think so.
>
> I'm not immune to correction. But note that I live in what the Bush
> administration derisively calls the "reality based community". By
> their own admission, they do not.

An oipinon you get to have. I don't share it entirely. For me they are the
lesser of 2 evils.

Taking stock of Rove's past
> history, there isn't much to respect about the man's ethics.
>
I'll take him over Terry McAuliffe or Michael Moore any day.

[Luke Kaven]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote:
>"Luke Kaven" > wrote
[...]
>> There are a couple of specious assumptions in what you say here that
>> are not backed up by research in the social sciences. The assumption
>> that industry serves the needs of its consumers is only a contingent
>> matter of fact, and while it is often a factor, it is by far not the
>> only factor, and it is not always the most important factor.
>> Corporations serve themselves first and foremost, and they will do
>> what they have to do to further their self-interests. They have a
>> life all of their own without any regard necessarily for anyone's
>> well-being except their own. Providing a good product is only a part
>> of that. Monopolies, political affiliations and sweetheart deals, are
>> often what drive corporate dominance in the marketplace.
>>
>> I will not offer government agencies as a cure for this. I can
>> acknowledge many of the pitfalls you would no doubt cite. It is only
>> my assertion that there are reasons to have the government do some
>> things, and reasons to have private industry do some things. And
>> really, there is more continuity between the two things than one might
>> expect. We'd really have to discuss this in the context of a specific
>> set of functions though.

[...]
>> Again in the context of a specific case is where I'd consider it. In
>> general, there is much to hate about both ways. I don't think you'd
>> want to suggest that we should dismantle national defense,
>
>Of course not, that is a logical function of government. It actually
>protects people and their rights.
>
>> and let wars be fought on a profit-loss basis by whoever feels like paying
>> for it. Where would you draw the line? [Funny that the right-wing
>> doesn't think nationalized defense is socialism.]
>>
>Because it's not. It's one of the only reasons to have governmenmt at all.

I'm looking at these questions from the standpoint of philosophy and
the social sciences, the body of theory on which Libertarianism rests.
Part of my gentlemanly dispute with you is that you seem to be
channeling theory from the 1930s or so, and it is at odds with much of
what has come since.

Speaking first of a "logical function of government". You're probably
using "logical" as a shorthand for something else, since your
normative claim doesn't come out of a logical entailment. And
actually, this isn't even a theory in logic, but a naturalized ethics.
All Libertarian views are based on naturalism.

I don't dispute defense as a primary function of government, as it
perpetuates the social group. But you bring up the notion of
protecting people and their rights as well. I'm friendly to that.
But the question is what is to be included in the function of
protecting people and their rights? Not just your opinion, but in
principle.

>> Or they get funding because they further the ambitions of the party in
>> power. Teaching abstinence while conspicuously not teaching safe sex
>> in the prevention of AIDS is an unrealistic dogma that does not
>> prevent AIDS.
>
>By now, anybody who doesn't know about safe sex has their head up their ass.
>Aids is a disease spread by particular unsafe behavior. It is not a
>national crisis, it's bad manners.

In Africa, India, Asia, there are a millions of people who don't know
about safe sex. But obedience to religious dogma prevents the US from
talking about anything to do with contraception. You can tell me that
those people are ignorant, and they are. But at some point, you have
to deal with people the way they actually are, and not how you'd like
them to be. Only millions of lives are at stake.

>> The most damaging flaw in your argument, as above, is
>> the assumption that these organizations exist to serve their clients
>> and that their success is measured by how "good" they are at doing
>> that. This is as I say only a contingent matter of fact. Serving the
>> investors is often the predominant factor. And serving the interests
>> of those who could otherwise do you great harm is also sometimes a
>> predominant factor. The only thing a corporation cares about is its
>> own survival, often no matter what the cost. The idea of serving the
>> good of anything else is theory that is long gone in research circles.
>>
>
>As long as they do it without force or fraud, which we have laws for, they
>are serving the good of everybody. They serve the people they hire, they
>serve stockholders if they have them, they serve the community at large by
>paying taxes and often times by their own donations to charity, blood
>drives, collections, etc. They also serve their customers. There is no
>other claim we can make on them.

Sometimes corporations serve the people they hire. Sometimes they
just exploit them. In paying taxes, they may be serving the
community. Or they may just be paying for what they get. All the
things you say are *sometimes* true. But to say there is no other
claim we can make on them is to cut short.

Tied up in what you say is the deepest part of meta-ethics: the
semantics of value terms such as "good" and "bad", and "should" and
"shouldn't". The business of naturalizing these terms (which I think
can be done, by the way) involves almost every trick in the history of
philosophy. But one principle is a little easier to get a handle on
-- it is the idea that the *only* function of anything that has a
natural function is to perpetuate itself or its kind. There is no
necessary element of serving the "good" of anything other than itself.
In practice, things often do serve the good of things other than
themselves. But just as often, they are parasitic on others.

>> You might actually be interested to know some of the ground floor
>> concepts in altruism and social behavior. These are the assumptions
>> on which your notion of libertarianism rests, and the research might
>> tell you some things that would differ from your current views. Who
>> knows, you might be able to formulate a better libertarianism.
>>
>Libertarianism rejects altruism. It is a notion that we are of value only
>if we give to others, that self interest is somehow less good than self
>sacrifice.

The modern notion of altruism in the research literature is much more
articulated than you may be aware. In reality, the notion of altruism
does figure centrally into your political philosophy. But it is a
somewhat different notion that you may be aware of.

The idea of agents (economic, moral, or otherwise) as "pure
self-interest maximizers" is a popular dogma from the 1930s that is in
serious doubt today. Note bene: Altruism is not the idea that agents
do not act in their own self-interest. What is is involves two kinds
of claims:

1) The notions of "self" and thereby of "self-interest" are expanded
to include the hierarchy of social structures that you are a
constituent functioning part of. If you are a corporate spokesperson,
you're act of speaking is simultaneously an act of yours, and an act
of yours as a part of the corporate agency. Which is the "self" here,
you, or the corporation? Answer: both. you are an agent embedded in
a multiplicity of agencies, and your actions may be coextensive with
actions of the super-agency. You may speak simultaneously for
yourself and for you-and-your-spouse as a unit. Who's self-interest
are you maximizing? Answer: either or both.

2) The notion of altruism is cashed out first in terms of the
naturalistic theory -- evolution and its associated teleology. The
quick answer: you function together with other individuals (like your
spouse) because in the past, your ancestors' fitness was enhanced by
the capacity to do so. Two heads *are* better than one. And since
reproduction favors the individual, your individual fitness does
count. But the individual is not the only thing that counts.

So the Libertarian notion of "selfishness" would be cashed out in
terms of hierarchical agencies -- the self can include any agency in
which you are a constituent functioning part. That could be your
company, your political party, or, believe it or not, you and your
automobile. So in a modified sense, your notions about the virtues of
selfishness are true; it is just that you yourself are not always what
counts in your selfish behavior. You act also on behalf of things
that you belong to.

This is a big contrast to the Ayn Rand notion that so many
Libertarians get their views from. The pat slogan "greed is good" is
vastly too simple to capture what is really a very subtle concept.

Note that so far this is neutral with respect to Libertarianism.

[...]
>> True (and ultimately, as a small business owner, I will feel that
>> too). But I would not look to the wealthy to make decisions on
>> solving the problems of the impoverished.
>
>Yet they do it all the time by creating work for people to do. They create
>work and pay people to do it, they have no other responsibilty.

For reasons I gave above, I see no necessary connection between
corporations and benevolence.

>> I can't think of a group
>> that would be more out of touch with those problems.
>>
>That's not their role, nor is there any reason it should be. Your argument
>is that somehow at birth we are obliged to start doing things for the
>benefit of others. I reject that as illogical and immoral. Whence comes
>this debt that we all owe each other? What we owe is to ourselves to be
>well. If one chooses to be generouis, let them, but don't imply that
>everybody with less has a claim on the labor and ingenuity of those who do
>better than they do, it doesn't make sense.

This drops out under the given theory. The concept of "debt" is not
the operant concept. And the notion of "ourselves" includes all those
(naturalized and abstract) social agencies that we belong to.

[...]
>> In this case, you disagree, but I was there as a research associate in
>> a well-known AIDS research laboratory. This deserves a topic of its
>> own. Because from what I've seen, if research depended upon showing a
>> return on investment, then we would have let millions more die.
>
>Millions die from AIDS primarily for one reason, lack of self discipline.
>It's like not putting the safety on a loaded gun and then complaining that
>you shot yourself. Ever hear of bareback parties? I can't work up a lot of
>sympathy for such behavior.

Out of all the things you've said, this is the only one that actually
shocked me. AIDS is everybody's problem, and we have to deal with
people the way they actually are, and not how we'd like them to be.
Consider children too, born to infected mothers. Where is their lack
of self-discipline? They too need to be raised to understand.

>> As I said before...serving the interests of the customers is not the
>> purpose of a corporation.
>
>It is an obligation in order to serve their own interest in profit.

Nothing rules out the case where the customer is hoodwinked into
believing in the product until it is too late. Again, there is no
necessary connection between a corporation and the well-being of its
customers or workers. None whatsoever.

>> Under perfect knowledge conditions, things
>> might be otherwise. But the market exploits ignorance.
>>
>It rewards industry and intelligence. It also trains and educates.
>Capitalism is the reason their is a thing called the middle class.

It can also exploit ignorance. In the best of cases, it can also do
the things you say.

[...]
>> For the price of one bomber, it would be possible to seed quite a
>> number of efforts, many of which would result in self-sufficient
>> enterprises and gainful employment for many.
>
>For the price of the war on poverty we could have just given people a big
>wad of cash and they'd probably be better off.

You might be historically right on this. Though that doesn't mean
that there weren't better ways to address poverty.

> The market works if it's
>left alone. New jobs, new products and more income to tax. Without those
>bombers we leave ourselves open to people who might do us harm. The best
>idea is to have a military so mighty, that nobody wants to test it.

One less bomber? That wouldn't bring the US to its knees.

I actually don't know how to cash out the notion of a market "left
alone".


>> I would not trust private corporations to be the arbiters of artistic taste.
>
>I don't either, nor do I trust the government to give away money to
>"deserving" artists.

These controversial artists you speak of are just the few poster kids
for right-wing causes. Look around the list of people who get NEA
grants. Most of them have displayed some special talent.

The one thing I like about steady government funding of the arts
(partial funding that is), is that it is a good seed investment for a
vibrant sector of the economy that would otherwise suffer in times of
economic downturn. Just in terms of net quality of life and economic
health, I think it is good policy. All for the price of a single
bomber.

>> I certainly would not trust them to decide on the basis of artistic
>> value, which is intangible and wholly different than cash value. As
>> far as questionable tastes, you will always have that in any context.
>>
>Then let it be financed by private money. I feel no special benevolence or
>pride in the fact that some portion of my tax money went to pay for photos
>of a guy with a whip up his ass.

You don't run an arts organization do you?

Maybe the whip-boy slipped through the cracks, so to speak. One or
two bad artists in the bunch doesn't indict the system. Golly, how
much waste and fraud do you think you'd find in the defense industry
if anyone would even allow you to look in on it? One bad arts grant
for $5000 versus billions wasted on pork-barrel politics. Hardly
fair.

>>>> In general, I do not look to
>>>> the captains of industry to be good at anything other than their
>>>> primary endeavors, and I would not trust them to act in the public
>>>> good when and where needed.
>>>>
>Industry is the public good. It feeds, it clothes, it educates and it
>doesn't ask for any other approval than you buy it's products. If you don't
>they disappear.

By this point in this morning's post, you know why I think that this
isn't correct.

[...]
>> Of course I did not say to eliminate corporate giving. I would not
>> bet my life on them however.
>>
>
>Nor should you, you should bet on yourself and make it as safe a bet as you
>can.

In the end, we do much of what we do socially. We evolved for that,
as I said above.

[...]
>> I'm saying that individuals are always embedded in a multiplicity of
>> social groups, which influence their choices and behavior. You are
>> really deferring to these groups as much as to the individuals in
>> question. Maybe you can make an improved libertarianism out of that,
>> but either way, it needs to be understood. [Any version of
>> libertarianism (or any political philosophy) one espouses depends is
>> underwritten by social and psychological theory (tacitly or
>> otherwise), and has to be responsive to the truth or falsity of such
>> theory.]
>>
>The main truth that most seem to overlook, is what is good for humans. What
>will work for all humans. Start with the nature of human beings and work
>from their. Not what do they need from ujs, but what they need to do for
>themselves. All actions which do not use force or fraud, are OK by me.

That's an empirical question, unless you have a transcendental
argument that I'm not aware of. One thing I am an expert in is that
area of theory, and you would have to go so far down the road to make
a claim like that, that it can only be called conjecture at this
point. Just to be clear, though, I still think that this is an avenue
of inquiry that should be left open. I'm not out to tear down your
thing.

Luke

[Michael McKelvy]

"Luke Kaven" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote:
>>"Luke Kaven" > wrote
> [...]
>>> There are a couple of specious assumptions in what you say here that
>>> are not backed up by research in the social sciences. The assumption
>>> that industry serves the needs of its consumers is only a contingent
>>> matter of fact, and while it is often a factor, it is by far not the
>>> only factor, and it is not always the most important factor.
>>> Corporations serve themselves first and foremost, and they will do
>>> what they have to do to further their self-interests. They have a
>>> life all of their own without any regard necessarily for anyone's
>>> well-being except their own. Providing a good product is only a part
>>> of that. Monopolies, political affiliations and sweetheart deals, are
>>> often what drive corporate dominance in the marketplace.
>>>
>>> I will not offer government agencies as a cure for this. I can
>>> acknowledge many of the pitfalls you would no doubt cite. It is only
>>> my assertion that there are reasons to have the government do some
>>> things, and reasons to have private industry do some things. And
>>> really, there is more continuity between the two things than one might
>>> expect. We'd really have to discuss this in the context of a specific
>>> set of functions though.
>
> [...]
>>> Again in the context of a specific case is where I'd consider it. In
>>> general, there is much to hate about both ways. I don't think you'd
>>> want to suggest that we should dismantle national defense,
>>
>>Of course not, that is a logical function of government. It actually
>>protects people and their rights.
>>
>>> and let wars be fought on a profit-loss basis by whoever feels like
>>> paying
>>> for it. Where would you draw the line? [Funny that the right-wing
>>> doesn't think nationalized defense is socialism.]
>>>
>>Because it's not. It's one of the only reasons to have governmenmt at
>>all.
>
> I'm looking at these questions from the standpoint of philosophy and
> the social sciences, the body of theory on which Libertarianism rests.

AFAIK Libertarianism rests on the foundations of Ayn Rand's philosophy of
Objectivism.

> Part of my gentlemanly dispute with you is that you seem to be
> channeling theory from the 1930s or so, and it is at odds with much of
> what has come since.
>
In what way?

> Speaking first of a "logical function of government". You're probably
> using "logical" as a shorthand for something else, since your
> normative claim doesn't come out of a logical entailment. And
> actually, this isn't even a theory in logic, but a naturalized ethics.
> All Libertarian views are based on naturalism.
>

I mean logical in the sense of why it makes sense to have ANY government at
all. The only logical reasons are to protect the people being governed from
those who wish to use force against them. To protect individual rights.

> I don't dispute defense as a primary function of government, as it
> perpetuates the social group.

Which is made up of individuals. All rights are individual rights. The
only commomnality they have is they are human. They need to be free form
force to allow them to pursue their own rational interests. Governments do
this through courts, police and military.

But you bring up the notion of
> protecting people and their rights as well. I'm friendly to that.
> But the question is what is to be included in the function of
> protecting people and their rights? Not just your opinion, but in
> principle.

Individuals need to free to pursue their goals and to join with other
individuals who have the same goals. They need to be secure in their lives
and their property. No one should be able to deprive people of their life
or property on a whim. There must be courts to ajudicate alledged wrongs.
There must be police to round up such people and investigate the charges.
There needs to be a military to defend against agression from other
countries.
>
>>> Or they get funding because they further the ambitions of the party in
>>> power. Teaching abstinence while conspicuously not teaching safe sex
>>> in the prevention of AIDS is an unrealistic dogma that does not
>>> prevent AIDS.
>>
>>By now, anybody who doesn't know about safe sex has their head up their
>>ass.
>>Aids is a disease spread by particular unsafe behavior. It is not a
>>national crisis, it's bad manners.
>
> In Africa, India, Asia, there are a millions of people who don't know
> about safe sex. But obedience to religious dogma prevents the US from
> talking about anything to do with contraception. You can tell me that
> those people are ignorant, and they are. But at some point, you have
> to deal with people the way they actually are, and not how you'd like
> them to be. Only millions of lives are at stake.
>
That is not a government problem, it is a medical problem and a behavior
problem. If it were me, and many of my friends and neighbors were getting
sick, I'd want to know what I could do to protect myself. I wouldn't wait
for government to tell me. AIAIK the AIDS problem in Africa is well known
and really affects those in the bigger cities who have access to information
on the subject and to medical professionals. What they most lack is
capitalism to provide them with the resources to lift themselves out of
poverty. Virtually all 3rd world governments are socialist and they not the
US or business are the real problem.

>>> The most damaging flaw in your argument, as above, is
>>> the assumption that these organizations exist to serve their clients
>>> and that their success is measured by how "good" they are at doing
>>> that. This is as I say only a contingent matter of fact. Serving the
>>> investors is often the predominant factor. And serving the interests
>>> of those who could otherwise do you great harm is also sometimes a
>>> predominant factor. The only thing a corporation cares about is its
>>> own survival, often no matter what the cost. The idea of serving the
>>> good of anything else is theory that is long gone in research circles.
>>>
You still imply that they have an obligation to something else. As long as
what they do is not force or fraud, what is the problem? What is their
obligation?
>>
>>As long as they do it without force or fraud, which we have laws for, they
>>are serving the good of everybody. They serve the people they hire, they
>>serve stockholders if they have them, they serve the community at large by
>>paying taxes and often times by their own donations to charity, blood
>>drives, collections, etc. They also serve their customers. There is no
>>other claim we can make on them.
>
> Sometimes corporations serve the people they hire. Sometimes they
> just exploit them. In paying taxes, they may be serving the
> community. Or they may just be paying for what they get. All the
> things you say are *sometimes* true. But to say there is no other
> claim we can make on them is to cut short.

I know we make claims, I just don't see where we think we have a right to.

>
> Tied up in what you say is the deepest part of meta-ethics: the
> semantics of value terms such as "good" and "bad", and "should" and
> "shouldn't". The business of naturalizing these terms (which I think
> can be done, by the way) involves almost every trick in the history of
> philosophy. But one principle is a little easier to get a handle on
> -- it is the idea that the *only* function of anything that has a
> natural function is to perpetuate itself or its kind. There is no
> necessary element of serving the "good" of anything other than itself.
> In practice, things often do serve the good of things other than
> themselves. But just as often, they are parasitic on others.
>
Which brings us back to force and fraud. I don't know of any business that
forces it's customers to buy it products or services, other than government
controlled monopolies.

>>> You might actually be interested to know some of the ground floor
>>> concepts in altruism and social behavior. These are the assumptions
>>> on which your notion of libertarianism rests, and the research might
>>> tell you some things that would differ from your current views. Who
>>> knows, you might be able to formulate a better libertarianism.
>>>
>>Libertarianism rejects altruism. It is a notion that we are of value only
>>if we give to others, that self interest is somehow less good than self
>>sacrifice.
>
> The modern notion of altruism in the research literature is much more
> articulated than you may be aware. In reality, the notion of altruism
> does figure centrally into your political philosophy.

It doesn't figure into it at all, unless as individuals may choose to be
altruistic. It doesn't involve forcefrom government.

But it is a
> somewhat different notion that you may be aware of.
>



> The idea of agents (economic, moral, or otherwise) as "pure
> self-interest maximizers" is a popular dogma from the 1930s that is in
> serious doubt today. Note bene: Altruism is not the idea that agents
> do not act in their own self-interest. What is is involves two kinds
> of claims:
>
> 1) The notions of "self" and thereby of "self-interest" are expanded
> to include the hierarchy of social structures that you are a
> constituent functioning part of. If you are a corporate spokesperson,
> you're act of speaking is simultaneously an act of yours, and an act
> of yours as a part of the corporate agency. Which is the "self" here,
> you, or the corporation? Answer: both. you are an agent embedded in
> a multiplicity of agencies, and your actions may be coextensive with
> actions of the super-agency. You may speak simultaneously for
> yourself and for you-and-your-spouse as a unit. Who's self-interest
> are you maximizing? Answer: either or both.
>

Mutually agreed on ones.

> 2) The notion of altruism is cashed out first in terms of the
> naturalistic theory -- evolution and its associated teleology. The
> quick answer: you function together with other individuals (like your
> spouse) because in the past, your ancestors' fitness was enhanced by
> the capacity to do so. Two heads *are* better than one. And since
> reproduction favors the individual, your individual fitness does
> count. But the individual is not the only thing that counts.
>

If the individuals in question agree to that. They have no inherent
obligation to take of each others needs. They may agree to do so if they
figure it's in their self interest.

> So the Libertarian notion of "selfishness" would be cashed out in
> terms of hierarchical agencies -- the self can include any agency in
> which you are a constituent functioning part.

That's what the subjectivists would like to think.

That could be your
> company, your political party, or, believe it or not, you and your
> automobile. So in a modified sense, your notions about the virtues of
> selfishness are true; it is just that you yourself are not always what
> counts in your selfish behavior. You act also on behalf of things
> that you belong to.
>
Because I choose to, beause it makes sense to protect what I value.

> This is a big contrast to the Ayn Rand notion that so many
> Libertarians get their views from. The pat slogan "greed is good" is
> vastly too simple to capture what is really a very subtle concept.
>
> Note that so far this is neutral with respect to Libertarianism.
>
> [...]
>>> True (and ultimately, as a small business owner, I will feel that
>>> too). But I would not look to the wealthy to make decisions on
>>> solving the problems of the impoverished.
>>
>>Yet they do it all the time by creating work for people to do. They
>>create
>>work and pay people to do it, they have no other responsibilty.
>
> For reasons I gave above, I see no necessary connection between
> corporations and benevolence.

Corporations are not formed for the purpose of benevelonce, they have no
obligation to be benevolent. It's purely a side benefit of the fact that
they may be successful. They employ people which is a benefit to those who
are employed.


>>> I can't think of a group
>>> that would be more out of touch with those problems.
>>>
>>That's not their role, nor is there any reason it should be. Your
>>argument
>>is that somehow at birth we are obliged to start doing things for the
>>benefit of others. I reject that as illogical and immoral. Whence comes
>>this debt that we all owe each other? What we owe is to ourselves to be
>>well. If one chooses to be generouis, let them, but don't imply that
>>everybody with less has a claim on the labor and ingenuity of those who do
>>better than they do, it doesn't make sense.
>
> This drops out under the given theory. The concept of "debt" is not
> the operant concept. And the notion of "ourselves" includes all those
> (naturalized and abstract) social agencies that we belong to.
>
That we CHOOSE to belong to.

> [...]
>>> In this case, you disagree, but I was there as a research associate in
>>> a well-known AIDS research laboratory. This deserves a topic of its
>>> own. Because from what I've seen, if research depended upon showing a
>>> return on investment, then we would have let millions more die.
>>
>>Millions die from AIDS primarily for one reason, lack of self discipline.
>>It's like not putting the safety on a loaded gun and then complaining that
>>you shot yourself. Ever hear of bareback parties? I can't work up a lot
>>of
>>sympathy for such behavior.
>
> Out of all the things you've said, this is the only one that actually
> shocked me. AIDS is everybody's problem, and we have to deal with
> people the way they actually are, and not how we'd like them to be.

AIDS is not a problem for anybody with self-discipline enough not to get it.

> Consider children too, born to infected mothers. Where is their lack
> of self-discipline? They too need to be raised to understand.
>
What is my obligation to them? Where does it come from? Why is it I don't
have a say in it?

It is a fact that people without proper self control can infect themselves
and then procreate. Where exactly do I come into the equation? Quite
simply, I don't unless I choose to be benevolent. It is not an obligation.

>>> As I said before...serving the interests of the customers is not the
>>> purpose of a corporation.
>>
>>It is an obligation in order to serve their own interest in profit.
>
> Nothing rules out the case where the customer is hoodwinked into
> believing in the product until it is too late.

See force and fraud comments.

Again, there is no
> necessary connection between a corporation and the well-being of its
> customers or workers. None whatsoever.
>

There is for those who wish to survive.

>>> Under perfect knowledge conditions, things
>>> might be otherwise. But the market exploits ignorance.
>>>
>>It rewards industry and intelligence. It also trains and educates.
>>Capitalism is the reason their is a thing called the middle class.
>
> It can also exploit ignorance. In the best of cases, it can also do
> the things you say.
>
As long as it is providing a prodcut or service that people are willing to
buy and does so in a way that doesn't use force or fraud I see nothing more
they are obliged to do.

> [...]
>>> For the price of one bomber, it would be possible to seed quite a
>>> number of efforts, many of which would result in self-sufficient
>>> enterprises and gainful employment for many.
>>
>>For the price of the war on poverty we could have just given people a big
>>wad of cash and they'd probably be better off.
>
> You might be historically right on this. Though that doesn't mean
> that there weren't better ways to address poverty.
>

I agree, the government could have gotten out of the way of those who
produce. They could have not imposed extra burdens on them which slow down
job creation.

>> The market works if it's
>>left alone. New jobs, new products and more income to tax. Without those
>>bombers we leave ourselves open to people who might do us harm. The best
>>idea is to have a military so mighty, that nobody wants to test it.
>
> One less bomber? That wouldn't bring the US to its knees.
>
But it's never one less bomber and it's never about giving the people back
the money that pays for it. It's about creating new ways to spend money on
people who can't or won't take the steps to earn more for themselves.



> I actually don't know how to cash out the notion of a market "left
> alone".
>
Stop imposing financial burdens on business that make it more difficult to
make money. Stop taxing them at all.
>
>>> I would not trust private corporations to be the arbiters of artistic
>>> taste.
>>
>>I don't either, nor do I trust the government to give away money to
>>"deserving" artists.
>
> These controversial artists you speak of are just the few poster kids
> for right-wing causes. Look around the list of people who get NEA
> grants. Most of them have displayed some special talent.
>

None of which is relevant. The government has no business in the arts. Let
artists seek funding either from sale of their works, their own outside
labor, or from people who CHOOSE to fund their endeavors.

> The one thing I like about steady government funding of the arts
> (partial funding that is), is that it is a good seed investment for a
> vibrant sector of the economy that would otherwise suffer in times of
> economic downturn. Just in terms of net quality of life and economic
> health, I think it is good policy. All for the price of a single
> bomber.
>
>>> I certainly would not trust them to decide on the basis of artistic
>>> value, which is intangible and wholly different than cash value. As
>>> far as questionable tastes, you will always have that in any context.
>>>
>>Then let it be financed by private money. I feel no special benevolence
>>or
>>pride in the fact that some portion of my tax money went to pay for photos
>>of a guy with a whip up his ass.
>
> You don't run an arts organization do you?
>
> Maybe the whip-boy slipped through the cracks, so to speak. One or
> two bad artists in the bunch doesn't indict the system. Golly, how
> much waste and fraud do you think you'd find in the defense industry
> if anyone would even allow you to look in on it? One bad arts grant
> for $5000 versus billions wasted on pork-barrel politics. Hardly
> fair.
>
Plenty. How much more of it do you suspect we might be able to stop if we
had less government to watch over? How much waste and fraud is there in
those altrusitic things government spends money on, like welfare and
medicare?

>>>>> In general, I do not look to
>>>>> the captains of industry to be good at anything other than their
>>>>> primary endeavors, and I would not trust them to act in the public
>>>>> good when and where needed.
>>>>>
>>Industry is the public good. It feeds, it clothes, it educates and it
>>doesn't ask for any other approval than you buy it's products. If you
>>don't
>>they disappear.
>
> By this point in this morning's post, you know why I think that this
> isn't correct.
>

And why I disagree.


> [...]
>>> Of course I did not say to eliminate corporate giving. I would not
>>> bet my life on them however.
>>>
>>
>>Nor should you, you should bet on yourself and make it as safe a bet as
>>you
>>can.
>
> In the end, we do much of what we do socially. We evolved for that,
> as I said above.
>
OSAF.

> [...]
>>> I'm saying that individuals are always embedded in a multiplicity of
>>> social groups, which influence their choices and behavior. You are
>>> really deferring to these groups as much as to the individuals in
>>> question.

But would I do so if given a choice to opt out? Government uses force to
keep the money rolling in.

Maybe you can make an improved libertarianism out of that,
>>> but either way, it needs to be understood. [Any version of
>>> libertarianism (or any political philosophy) one espouses depends is
>>> underwritten by social and psychological theory (tacitly or
>>> otherwise), and has to be responsive to the truth or falsity of such
>>> theory.]
>>>
>>The main truth that most seem to overlook, is what is good for humans.
>>What
>>will work for all humans. Start with the nature of human beings and work
>>from there. Not what do they need from us, but what they need to do for
>>themselves. All actions which do not use force or fraud, are OK by me.
>
> That's an empirical question, unless you have a transcendental
> argument that I'm not aware of. One thing I am an expert in is that
> area of theory, and you would have to go so far down the road to make
> a claim like that, that it can only be called conjecture at this
> point. Just to be clear, though, I still think that this is an avenue
> of inquiry that should be left open. I'm not out to tear down your
> thing.
>
> Luke

Humans need to be free to think, to learn, to earn, to trade, to own, and to
be able to protect themselves from those who might wish to deprive them of
those rights. They do not have an inherent right to other humans labor or
money. They need to be able to be free to pursue their own lives.

Government can only protect them in these endeavors, it has no business
trying to stimulate them.

[Ty Ford]

You're crossposting this crap to five different newsgroups. Pick one (or
none).

Better yet . Get a room take care of your business privately.


Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

[Randy R]

Whoa there "Spanky"! I'm an American but not Stupid.
I never voted, and for what? If you dumb *******s ever thought your measly
little vote ever counted, than I have some really good Ocean-Front property
to sell ya in the Sahara Desert. Money = Power=The Golden Rule. He who has
the gold, makes the rules. Lets just say that "Democracy" will only let you
go as far as those who are in power will let you go. As long as we are good
little sheep, we have favor amongst the Gods. Step out of bounds and
challenge them and gather a following and......Bang, you're dead. Just ask
Jesus. He will give you a pointer or two.


"Luke Kaven" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote:
> >"Luke Kaven" > wrote
> [...]
> >> There are a lot of cultural differences between Europe and the US that
> >> also figure in. European education is typically higher among those
> >> holding only a baccalaureate (an extra year of high school, and
> >> advanced studies in undergraduate curricula). The European philosophy
> >> of education involves more interdisciplinary skills, whereas the
> >> American focus is on in-field competencies. There is a trade-off that
> >> can go either way depending upon the problem at hand.
> >
> >The American focus has for some time seemed to be in keeping teachers
from
> >doing their job, namely imparting knowledge. Things like whole language
> >reading should not have taken 10 years to get rid of as it did in
> >California. That's ten years worth of students, most of whom could not
read
> >at grade level.
>
> It isn't much better at the undergraduate and post-graduate level
> either.
>
> [...]
> >>>[...] The GOP (still not my party) is more inclined
> >>>to leave people free to earn a living and raise themselves up through
hard
> >>>work. The Democrats, knowingly or not, (I suspect knowingly unless
they
> >>>really are stupid) work against that.
> >>
> >> In both schemes, there are social structures required to provide for
> >> needs. The major avowed difference between the parties is in the
> >> difference between governmental structures (Democrats) and
> >> non-governmental structures (Republicans). Again, a mix of both is
> >> valuable.
> >>
> >I'm not so sure beyond those of protecting the rights of individuals.
> >
> >> Sometimes, as inefficient as the government is, it is the best place
> >> to locate certain programs, because whatever faults the government has
> >> in administering said programs, they are accountable in a way that
> >> private industry rarely is, at least in the present scheme of things.
> >
> >Private industry has to provide good product and service or it goes tits
up.
> >Government service has no such threat over its head.
>
> There are a couple of specious assumptions in what you say here that
> are not backed up by research in the social sciences. The assumption
> that industry serves the needs of its consumers is only a contingent
> matter of fact, and while it is often a factor, it is by far not the
> only factor, and it is not always the most important factor.
> Corporations serve themselves first and foremost, and they will do
> what they have to do to further their self-interests. They have a
> life all of their own without any regard necessarily for anyone's
> well-being except their own. Providing a good product is only a part
> of that. Monopolies, political affiliations and sweetheart deals, are
> often what drive corporate dominance in the marketplace.
>
> I will not offer government agencies as a cure for this. I can
> acknowledge many of the pitfalls you would no doubt cite. It is only
> my assertion that there are reasons to have the government do some
> things, and reasons to have private industry do some things. And
> really, there is more continuity between the two things than one might
> expect. We'd really have to discuss this in the context of a specific
> set of functions though.
>
> >> I'll give you an example. The Republicans would like to privatize a
> >> number of civil service jobs. But this has some very serious
> >> problems. For one, there is nothing to prevent the Republicans from
> >> farming out government work to private industry which is de facto
> >> controlled by the Republican party, and which works tirelessly to
> >> further the aims of that party, and which siphons government funds
> >> into the service of that party's interests.
> >
> >Don't farm it out at all, let people who want it done hire private firms
to
> >do it.
>
> Okay, I guess this is the Libertarian viewpoint.
>
> >> Career civil servants, by
> >> and large, should not be permanently controlled by the interests of
> >> the private sector.
> >>
> >Then get rid of those departments
>
> Again in the context of a specific case is where I'd consider it. In
> general, there is much to hate about both ways. I don't think you'd
> want to suggest that we should dismantle national defense, and let
> wars be fought on a profit-loss basis by whoever feels like paying for
> it. Where would you draw the line? [Funny that the right-wing
> doesn't think nationalized defense is socialism.]
>
> >> Another example -- I would not like to see the government fund
> >> religious charity, because there is similar potential for abuse.
> >> Right now, the government funds a religious organization that teaches
> >> abstinence from premarital sex.
> >>
> >But it does not force people to participate in the programs. There are
> >choices and those are some of them. They get the funding because their
> >programs work.
>
> Or they get funding because they further the ambitions of the party in
> power. Teaching abstinence while conspicuously not teaching safe sex
> in the prevention of AIDS is an unrealistic dogma that does not
> prevent AIDS. The most damaging flaw in your argument, as above, is
> the assumption that these organizations exist to serve their clients
> and that their success is measured by how "good" they are at doing
> that. This is as I say only a contingent matter of fact. Serving the
> investors is often the predominant factor. And serving the interests
> of those who could otherwise do you great harm is also sometimes a
> predominant factor. The only thing a corporation cares about is its
> own survival, often no matter what the cost. The idea of serving the
> good of anything else is theory that is long gone in research circles.
>
> You might actually be interested to know some of the ground floor
> concepts in altruism and social behavior. These are the assumptions
> on which your notion of libertarianism rests, and the research might
> tell you some things that would differ from your current views. Who
> knows, you might be able to formulate a better libertarianism.
>
> >> The one thing I think you said that oversimplified was that Democrats
> >> work against leaving people free to earn a living and raise themselves
> >> up through hard work. Anyone is always free to do that!
> >
> >Government makes it harder through the way they tax and regulate
business,
> >taking money away that could be used for investment.
>
> True (and ultimately, as a small business owner, I will feel that
> too). But I would not look to the wealthy to make decisions on
> solving the problems of the impoverished. I can't think of a group
> that would be more out of touch with those problems.
>
> >> if the Government hadn't taken to funding AIDS research, which they did
much
> >> too late I might add, it would have taken much longer for private
> >> industry to ever take up the slack at the cost of many lives.
> >
> >I disagree, I think if government were less intrusive and less
confiscatory,
> >it's likely that things would move faster.
>
> In this case, you disagree, but I was there as a research associate in
> a well-known AIDS research laboratory. This deserves a topic of its
> own. Because from what I've seen, if research depended upon showing a
> return on investment, then we would have let millions more die. As I
> said before...serving the interests of the customers is not the
> purpose of a corporation. Under perfect knowledge conditions, things
> might be otherwise. But the market exploits ignorance.
>
> >> In the
> >> end, a number of private initiatives were seeded thanks to research
> >> originally funded by the government. Also, I think government funding
> >> for the arts is something the Republicans do not appreciate well
> >> enough, because they view the arts as ranging from spurious to
> >> subversive relative to their own causes.
> >
> >They, like me do not appreciate it becuase it always leads to things that
> >are questionable in taste, and to funding people whose work has nmo real
> >market appeal. If people wish to pursue art, let them do it at their own
> >expense.
>
> For the price of one bomber, it would be possible to seed quite a
> number of efforts, many of which would result in self-sufficient
> enterprises and gainful employment for many. I would not trust
> private corporations to be the arbiters of artistic taste. I
> certainly would not trust them to decide on the basis of artistic
> value, which is intangible and wholly different than cash value. As
> far as questionable tastes, you will always have that in any context.
>
> >> In general, I do not look to
> >> the captains of industry to be good at anything other than their
> >> primary endeavors, and I would not trust them to act in the public
> >> good when and where needed.
> >>
> >If it were not for private industry many things would have considerably
less
> >funding than they do. Many like Wal-Mart give genrouisly to a variety of
> >charities.
>
> Of course I did not say to eliminate corporate giving. I would not
> bet my life on them however.
>
> [...]
> >>>> Better in my mind would be a synthesis of ideas that in the
> >>>> end would (I surmise) not resemble very strongly either of the
current
> >>>> parties. We are young in the history of human affairs, and we have
> >>>> much to learn.
> >>>>
> >>>It already exists. The Libertarians. They have this funny idea that
the
> >>>Constitution means something . Naturally, they will never gain power.
> >>
> >> There are about a hundred version of Libertarianism, many of which are
> >> pretty far-right in their implication.
> >
> >I'm speaking of the Libertarian Party. They seem prety constant.
>
> Point me to some docs, and I'll study them for a bit.
>
> >> In the end, society still
> >> needs pretty much the same sorts of social structures in order to
> >> survive. The main differences, again, have to do with where those
> >> structures are located, whether inside or outside the government. In
> >> my mind, I'm not sure anyone's interests are served by favoring one
> >> over the other in all circumstances. Each case requires special
> >> consideration.
> >>
> >Which is best left to the individuals
>
> I'm saying that individuals are always embedded in a multiplicity of
> social groups, which influence their choices and behavior. You are
> really deferring to these groups as much as to the individuals in
> question. Maybe you can make an improved libertarianism out of that,
> but either way, it needs to be understood. [Any version of
> libertarianism (or any political philosophy) one espouses depends is
> underwritten by social and psychological theory (tacitly or
> otherwise), and has to be responsive to the truth or falsity of such
> theory.]
>
> [...]
> >> Diplomacy is not a
> >> strong suit for Bush. Bush's strong suit is playing to his base, and,
> >> with Rove as architect, waging a merciless disinformation campaign on
> >> his opposition, which is what makes the party so strong.
> >
> >Compared with whaty I've seen about the Democrats on factcheck and
> >spinsanity, Rove is an amateur.
> >
> >> [We're both
> >> aware of things Rove has done with whisper campaigns, things that make
> >> Lee A****er look like a choir boy.] Somewhere, though, there is a
> >> Belief Bubble that makes it all go, and like the tech bubble, it may
> >> burst at some point.
> >>
> >Check the 2 places I mentioned and see if you still think so.
>
> I'm not immune to correction. But note that I live in what the Bush
> administration derisively calls the "reality based community". By
> their own admission, they do not. Taking stock of Rove's past
> history, there isn't much to respect about the man's ethics.
>
> Luke

[Kurt Albershardt]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
> The GOP (still not my party) is more inclined to leave people
> free to earn a living and raise themselves up through hard work.

So why eliminate the estate tax? Damn near impossible to raise oneself up through hard work if most of the wealth is controlled by a few dyansties...

[Kurt Albershardt]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Luke Kaven" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Michael McKelvy" > wrote:
>>
>>>"Luke Kaven" > wrote
>>>
>>>> Better in my mind would be a synthesis of ideas that in the
>>>> end would (I surmise) not resemble very strongly either of the current
>>>> parties. We are young in the history of human affairs, and we have
>>>> much to learn.
>>>
>>>
>>> It already exists. The Libertarians. They have this funny idea that the
>>> Constitution means something . Naturally, they will never gain power.
>>
>> There are about a hundred version of Libertarianism, many of which are
>> pretty far-right in their implication.
>
>
> I'm speaking of the Libertarian Party. They seem prety constant.

And if only they would discard some of the rightmost fringes of their platform, they could well gain a pile of support from average Americans.

[Kurt Albershardt]

Luke Kaven wrote:
> "Michael McKelvy" > wrote:
>
>
>>> Sometimes, as inefficient as the government is, it is the best place
>>> to locate certain programs, because whatever faults the government has
>>> in administering said programs, they are accountable in a way that
>>> private industry rarely is, at least in the present scheme of things.
>>
>> Private industry has to provide good product and service or it goes
>> tits up. Government service has no such threat over its head.
>
>
> There are a couple of specious assumptions in what you say here that
> are not backed up by research in the social sciences. The assumption
> that industry serves the needs of its consumers is only a contingent
> matter of fact, and while it is often a factor, it is by far not the
> only factor, and it is not always the most important factor.
> Corporations serve themselves first and foremost, and they will do
> what they have to do to further their self-interests. They have a
> life all of their own without any regard necessarily for anyone's
> well-being except their own.

And until we eliminate the concept of corporate personhood, we will continue to be enslaved...

[Kurt Albershardt]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Luke Kaven" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Michael McKelvy" > wrote:
>>
>>>"Luke Kaven" > wrote
>>
>>
>>> I'm speaking of the Libertarian Party. They seem prety constant.
>>
>> Point me to some docs, and I'll study them for a bit.
>
>
> Just go to their website www.libertarianparty.com

OIr take the shortcut http://lp.org/

[Michael McKelvy]

"Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>> "Luke Kaven" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>"Michael McKelvy" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Luke Kaven" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Better in my mind would be a synthesis of ideas that in the
>>>>> end would (I surmise) not resemble very strongly either of the current
>>>>> parties. We are young in the history of human affairs, and we have
>>>>> much to learn.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It already exists. The Libertarians. They have this funny idea that
>>>> the
>>>> Constitution means something . Naturally, they will never gain power.
>>>
>>> There are about a hundred version of Libertarianism, many of which are
>>> pretty far-right in their implication.
>>
>>
>> I'm speaking of the Libertarian Party. They seem prety constant.
>
> And if only they would discard some of the rightmost fringes of their
> platform, they could well gain a pile of support from average Americans.
>
>
>
>
>
Seems to depend on who you talk to. Many people I know think they re to far
to the left.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>
>> The GOP (still not my party) is more inclined to leave people
>> free to earn a living and raise themselves up through hard work.
>
> So why eliminate the estate tax? Damn near impossible to raise oneself up
> through hard work if most of the wealth is controlled by a few
> dyansties...
>
Firstly because the government doesn't have any legitimate claim on it.
Secondly it hurts families that may be considered wealthy by the government
and really aren't. Lastly because money in private hands does more good
than in government hands.

[Kurt Albershardt]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>
>>> The GOP (still not my party) is more inclined to leave people
>>> free to earn a living and raise themselves up through hard work.
>>
>> So why eliminate the estate tax? Damn near impossible to raise oneself up
>> through hard work if most of the wealth is controlled by a few
>> dyansties...
>
>
> Firstly because the government doesn't have any legitimate claim on it.

Our Founders fought a revolution to throw off an aristocracy. The estate tax was instituted to try and slow down the formation of an American aristocracy after the robber baron era.


> Secondly it hurts families that may be considered wealthy by the government
> and really aren't.

Raise the exemption limit for the estate tax (to something like $2-3 million) and that argument falls flat (along with the samll business support base.)



> Lastly because money in private hands does more good
> than in government hands.

An arguable statement--but even if true, that money should be in many hardworking hands and not so overwhelmingly in those of the decendants of a few families.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>> "Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>
>>>> The GOP (still not my party) is more inclined to leave people
>>>> free to earn a living and raise themselves up through hard work.
>>>
>>> So why eliminate the estate tax? Damn near impossible to raise oneself
>>> up through hard work if most of the wealth is controlled by a few
>>> dyansties...
>>
>>
>> Firstly because the government doesn't have any legitimate claim on it.
>
> Our Founders fought a revolution to throw off an aristocracy. The estate
> tax was instituted to try and slow down the formation of an American
> aristocracy after the robber baron era.
>
Yes, of course, there's always some noble reason given when the state
becomes the robber. It's simple, the state has no right to the fruits of
someone else's labor.

>
>> Secondly it hurts families that may be considered wealthy by the
>> government and really aren't.
>
> Raise the exemption limit for the estate tax (to something like $2-3
> million) and that argument falls flat (along with the samll business
> support base.)
>
Why should there be a tax like this in the first place? There are already
ways around it. Why make people go through the legal hassle? Look how well
the tax worked in keeping families like the Rockefellers, Kennedy's and
Bush's from becoming dynasties.
>
>
>> Lastly because money in private hands does more good than in government
>> hands.
>
> An arguable statement--but even if true, that money should be in many
> hardworking hands and not so overwhelmingly in those of the decendants of
> a few families.
>
According to what code of vlaues? When did it become the job of government
to decide who is worthy of wealth? Why is theft OK if the government does
the stealing?
>
>
>
>

[Joseph Oberlander]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
\
> According to what code of vlaues? When did it become the job of government
> to decide who is worthy of wealth? Why is theft OK if the government does
> the stealing?

Because they have the guns and will arrest us. Simple as that.

[Joseph Oberlander]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Joseph Oberlander said:
>
>
>>>According to what code of vlaues? When did it become the job of government
>>>to decide who is worthy of wealth? Why is theft OK if the government does
>>>the stealing?
>>
>>Because they have the guns and will arrest us. Simple as that.
>
>
> You should switch careers, Obie. Such skill at dumbing-down doesn't belong
> in the Geekhood. You should be in politics, or at least teaching in public
> school.

But, gosh darn it, it's the truth. Refuse to pay your taxes this year.
Watch the IRS take your home by force. We are what we fought to
gain independance from.

[Kurt Albershardt]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
>
> Why is theft OK if the government does the stealing?

To whit, there is an interesting correspondence between the patterns of net federal tax outflows and inflows and our recent election results <http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html>

[Joseph Oberlander]

George M. Middius wrote:

>
> Joseph Oberlander said:
>
>
>>>>>According to what code of vlaues? When did it become the job of government
>>>>>to decide who is worthy of wealth? Why is theft OK if the government does
>>>>>the stealing?
>>>>
>>>>Because they have the guns and will arrest us. Simple as that.
>
>
>>>You should switch careers, Obie. Such skill at dumbing-down doesn't belong
>>>in the Geekhood. You should be in politics, or at least teaching in public
>>>school.
>>
>>But, gosh darn it, it's the truth. Refuse to pay your taxes this year.
>>Watch the IRS take your home by force. We are what we fought to
>>gain independance from.
>
>
> Yes, it's the truth. Is it the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Try not paying your taxes.

[Clyde Slick]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
>
> George M. Middius wrote:
>
>>
>> Joseph Oberlander said:
>>
>>
>>>>According to what code of vlaues? When did it become the job of
>>>>government to decide who is worthy of wealth? Why is theft OK if the
>>>>government does the stealing?
>>>
>>>Because they have the guns and will arrest us. Simple as that.
>>
>>
>> You should switch careers, Obie. Such skill at dumbing-down doesn't
>> belong
>> in the Geekhood. You should be in politics, or at least teaching in
>> public
>> school.
>
> But, gosh darn it, it's the truth. Refuse to pay your taxes this year.
> Watch the IRS take your home by force. We are what we fought to
> gain independance from.
>

We didn't fight to become independent of government.
The revolutionary effort itself was financed by the break away
colonies taxing its inhabitants.

[Clyde Slick]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>


>
> Try not paying your taxes.
>

try living in a society that has no governemnt and collects no taxes.

[Clyde Slick]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> I'm not the Bug Eater. You can stop pretending you're an idiot.
>

nice of you to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Clyde Slick wrote:

>>But, gosh darn it, it's the truth. Refuse to pay your taxes this year.
>>Watch the IRS take your home by force. We are what we fought to
>>gain independance from.
>>
>
>
> We didn't fight to become independent of government.
> The revolutionary effort itself was financed by the break away
> colonies taxing its inhabitants.

And yet we are taxed HOW MUCH MORE than back then, even
adjusted for income/inflation? And we meekly accept it.

[Joseph Oberlander]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
>
>
>
>>Try not paying your taxes.
>>
>
>
> try living in a society that has no governemnt and collects no taxes.
>

Where? Sign me up.

[play-on]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:53:22 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> wrote:

>
>
>Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
>> hlink.net...
>>
>>
>>
>>>Try not paying your taxes.
>>>
>>
>>
>> try living in a society that has no governemnt and collects no taxes.
>>
>
>Where? Sign me up.

Try Liberia, it's every man for himself.

[play-on]

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:53:04 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> wrote:

>
>
>Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>>>But, gosh darn it, it's the truth. Refuse to pay your taxes this year.
>>>Watch the IRS take your home by force. We are what we fought to
>>>gain independance from.
>>>
>>
>>
>> We didn't fight to become independent of government.
>> The revolutionary effort itself was financed by the break away
>> colonies taxing its inhabitants.
>
>And yet we are taxed HOW MUCH MORE than back then, even
>adjusted for income/inflation?

We have a hell of a lot more than we did back then too. Are you
planning to pave your own roads, maintain your local civic
infrastructure, deliver your own mail, be your own fire and police
deptartment, and fight your very own "war on terror"?

Al

[Clyde Slick]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
>
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>>>But, gosh darn it, it's the truth. Refuse to pay your taxes this year.
>>>Watch the IRS take your home by force. We are what we fought to
>>>gain independance from.
>>>
>>
>>
>> We didn't fight to become independent of government.
>> The revolutionary effort itself was financed by the break away
>> colonies taxing its inhabitants.
>
> And yet we are taxed HOW MUCH MORE than back then, even
> adjusted for income/inflation? And we meekly accept it.
>

As a society, we do more than accept higher taxes,
we demand them! Look at the derision tax cuts
engender.

It's not a problem of a repressive government, high taxes
are the will of the people.

[Clyde Slick]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
> Clyde Slick wrote:
>
>> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
>> hlink.net...
>>
>>
>>
>>>Try not paying your taxes.
>>>
>>
>>
>> try living in a society that has no governemnt and collects no taxes.
>
> Where? Sign me up.
>

Does Haiti qaulify?

[George Gleason]

Clyde Slick wrote:
> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>But, gosh darn it, it's the truth. Refuse to pay your taxes this year.
>>>>Watch the IRS take your home by force. We are what we fought to
>>>>gain independance from.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>We didn't fight to become independent of government.
>>>The revolutionary effort itself was financed by the break away
>>>colonies taxing its inhabitants.
>>
>>And yet we are taxed HOW MUCH MORE than back then, even
>>adjusted for income/inflation? And we meekly accept it.
>>
>
>
> As a society, we do more than accept higher taxes,
> we demand them! Look at the derision tax cuts
> engender.
>
> It's not a problem of a repressive government, high taxes
> are the will of the people.
>
>

We simple want to pay for what we do
not dump the burden on our children
my unborn grandchildren will be doing without to pay down GW's spending
spree

[GeoSynch]

George Gleason wrote:

> We simple want to pay for what we do not dump the burden on our children
> my unborn grandchildren will be doing without to pay down GW's spending spree

Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social Security,
the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.


GeoSynch

[George Gleason]

GeoSynch wrote:
> George Gleason wrote:
>
>
>>We simple want to pay for what we do not dump the burden on our children
>>my unborn grandchildren will be doing without to pay down GW's spending spree
>
>
> Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social Security,
> the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.
>
>
> GeoSynch
>
>
The repubs have been in the white house for the majority of the last 50
years why has nothing been done
even Reagan didn't touch it

[GeoSynch]

George Gleason feigns disingenuousness:

>>>We simple want to pay for what we do not dump the burden on our children
>>>my unborn grandchildren will be doing without to pay down GW's spending spree

>> Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social Security,
>> the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.

> The repubs have been in the white house for the majority of the last 50 years why has nothing been
> done even Reagan didn't touch it

And whenever election time rolls around, which party invariably attempts to scare
senior citizens with the old canard 'they're going to take your Social Security
benefits away'?

Reality-check time, George: is Social Security a massive, forced wealth-redistribution
from current and future contributors to retirees with little to no fiduciary guarantee
that said contributors will receive the principal back let alone normal interest on that
investment?

Once again, which party is the perennial champions of this egregious Ponzi scheme?


GeoSynch

[Schizoid Man]

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message

> George Gleason wrote:
>
> > We simple want to pay for what we do not dump the burden on our children
> > my unborn grandchildren will be doing without to pay down GW's spending
spree
>
> Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social Security,
> the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.

Excuse the Democrats for actually trying to help people while the
Republicans are super busy covering their own hides.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/20041118/ap_on_go_co/dela
y

[Nmm]

"GeoSynch" > wrote in message et>...
> George Gleason feigns disingenuousness:
>
> >>>We simple want to pay for what we do not dump the burden on our children
> >>>my unborn grandchildren will be doing without to pay down GW's spending spree
>
> >> Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social Security,
> >> the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.
>
> > The repubs have been in the white house for the majority of the last 50 years why has nothing been
> > done even Reagan didn't touch it
>
> And whenever election time rolls around, which party invariably attempts to scare
> senior citizens with the old canard 'they're going to take your Social Security
> benefits away'?
>
> Reality-check time, George: is Social Security a massive, forced wealth-redistribution
> from current and future contributors to retirees with little to no fiduciary guarantee
> that said contributors will receive the principal back let alone normal interest on that
> investment?
>
> Once again, which party is the perennial champions of this egregious Ponzi scheme?
>
>
> GeoSynch


As opposed to investing in such great Republican Ponzi scemes like the
Savings & Loans, Enron, etc.

[Joseph Oberlander]

play-on wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:53:04 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Clyde Slick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>But, gosh darn it, it's the truth. Refuse to pay your taxes this year.
>>>>Watch the IRS take your home by force. We are what we fought to
>>>>gain independance from.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>We didn't fight to become independent of government.
>>>The revolutionary effort itself was financed by the break away
>>>colonies taxing its inhabitants.
>>
>>And yet we are taxed HOW MUCH MORE than back then, even
>>adjusted for income/inflation?
>
>
> We have a hell of a lot more than we did back then too. Are you
> planning to pave your own roads, maintain your local civic
> infrastructure, deliver your own mail, be your own fire and police
> deptartment, and fight your very own "war on terror"?

The last three, certainly.

[Joseph Oberlander]

George Gleason wrote:

> GeoSynch wrote:
>
>> George Gleason wrote:
>>
>>
>>> We simple want to pay for what we do not dump the burden on our children
>>> my unborn grandchildren will be doing without to pay down GW's
>>> spending spree
>>
>>
>>
>> Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social Security,
>> the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.
>>
>>
>> GeoSynch
>>
> The repubs have been in the white house for the majority of the last 50
> years why has nothing been done
> even Reagan didn't touch it

I love to bring this up. In fact, Carter and Clinton did more to
try to help the working person than most of them, but they were
all but pacifists, so they aren't your typical "politician".

Excluding Clinton and Carter, you get exactly how many Democrats
in the last 50 years?

[Clyde Slick]

"Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
ink.net...

>>
>>
>> We have a hell of a lot more than we did back then too. Are you
>> planning to pave your own roads, maintain your local civic
>> infrastructure, deliver your own mail, be your own fire and police
>> deptartment, and fight your very own "war on terror"?
>
> The last three, certainly.
>

You are planning to deliver your own mail, be your own police and fire
fighting
departments and fight the war on terror all by yourself ????
I guess that means you won't have any time to be posting
here any more. When will this commence?

[Joseph Oberlander]

Clyde Slick wrote:

> "Joseph Oberlander" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>
>>>
>>>We have a hell of a lot more than we did back then too. Are you
>>>planning to pave your own roads, maintain your local civic
>>>infrastructure, deliver your own mail, be your own fire and police
>>>deptartment, and fight your very own "war on terror"?
>>
>>The last three, certainly.
>>
>
>
> You are planning to deliver your own mail, be your own police and fire
> fighting
> departments and fight the war on terror all by yourself ????
> I guess that means you won't have any time to be posting
> here any more. When will this commence?

Actually, four. Thanks for reminding me.

- I pay all of my bills in person or via online banking. 99% of my
current mail is junk/spam anyways. I get all of my important mail
online.
- Fire - no problem. I can live without it, since 90% of all fire
are electrical-related and I make sure that mine work perfectly.
The others - if you don't have sprinkler systems in your house,
you are way behind the times. I do.
- Police? Their job is always to clean up after the fact. The
truth is only YOU can protect your family and self. Read the
laws - the police are charged with protecting the *public*,
not individuals. 1-2 hours response time for a 911 call is
the norm here.
- War on Terror? The chances of me ever having to deal with it
in Los Angeles are zero. Nobody takes this city seriously,
so it's the least likely target in the U.S.(one advantage of
living here). Plus, it has the largest foriegn population
in the U.S., so again, attack here and you just **** off your
own people.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>
>> Why is theft OK if the government does the stealing?
>
> To whit, there is an interesting correspondence between the patterns of
> net federal tax outflows and inflows and our recent election results
> <http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html>
>
>
All the more reason to stop the theft.

[Schizoid Man]

"Michael McKelvy" > wrote in message

> If those lovely leftists were so concerned with trying to help people, why
> did they set the age for collection of benefits at the age when most
people
> were dead?

I can't believe you're defending Republicans, the same lot who changed their
rules so that even if a person is indicted for a crime, he can still be the
leader of the House.

What a joke. This time, Ethics has truly left the building.

OT, it's my birthday today.

[Kurt Albershardt]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>
>>> Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social Security,
>>> the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.
>>
>> Excuse the Democrats for actually trying to help people while the
>> Republicans are super busy covering their own hides.
>>
>
> Those *******s! They actually think that you ought to be responsible for
> your own fate. I don't know of a retirement that returns a worse return
> than SSI.

My 401(k) with its former tech and Enron investments?

[Michael McKelvy]

"George Gleason" > wrote in message
...
> GeoSynch wrote:
>> George Gleason wrote:
>>
>>
>>>We simple want to pay for what we do not dump the burden on our children
>>>my unborn grandchildren will be doing without to pay down GW's spending
>>>spree
>>
>>
>> Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social Security,
>> the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.
>>
>>
>> GeoSynch
> The repubs have been in the white house for the majority of the last 50
> years why has nothing been done
> even Reagan didn't touch it

Explain what it is you think Presidents can do about such things.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social
>>>> Security,
>>>> the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.
>>>
>>> Excuse the Democrats for actually trying to help people while the
>>> Republicans are super busy covering their own hides.
>>>
>>
>> Those *******s! They actually think that you ought to be responsible for
>> your own fate. I don't know of a retirement that returns a worse return
>> than SSI.
>
> My 401(k) with its former tech and Enron investments?
>
>
My condolences, but I'm assuming you followed the golden rule of investing,
DIVERSIFY!

[Kurt Albershardt]

Michael McKelvy wrote:
> "Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>
>>>>> Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social
>>>>> Security,
>>>>> the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist Democrats.
>>>>
>>>> Excuse the Democrats for actually trying to help people while the
>>>> Republicans are super busy covering their own hides.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Those *******s! They actually think that you ought to be responsible for
>>> your own fate. I don't know of a retirement that returns a worse return
>>> than SSI.
>>
>> My 401(k) with its former tech and Enron investments?
>
>
>
> My condolences, but I'm assuming you followed the golden rule of investing,
> DIVERSIFY!


Me? Yes.

The fund managers? Not enough.

[Michael McKelvy]

"Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
...
> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>> "Kurt Albershardt" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> Michael McKelvy wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Then justify that bloated Democratic sacred cow known as Social
>>>>>> Security,
>>>>>> the greatest Ponzi scheme ever concocted by those socialist
>>>>>> Democrats.
>>>>>
>>>>> Excuse the Democrats for actually trying to help people while the
>>>>> Republicans are super busy covering their own hides.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Those *******s! They actually think that you ought to be responsible
>>>> for your own fate. I don't know of a retirement that returns a worse
>>>> return than SSI.
>>>
>>> My 401(k) with its former tech and Enron investments?
>>
>>
>>
>> My condolences, but I'm assuming you followed the golden rule of
>> investing, DIVERSIFY!
>
>
> Me? Yes.
>
> The fund managers? Not enough.
>
>
Not been a good 2 years for our investments either. Gotta go for the along
haul.

I've listened to a few of Jim Cramer's Real Money radio shows, and he seems
to have a decent record. Might have to check out www.thestreet.com .

[Lee]

Ty Ford wrote:

> You're crossposting this crap to five different newsgroups. Pick one (or
> none).
>
> Better yet . Get a room take care of your business privately.
>
>
> Ty Ford
>
>
> -- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
> stuff are at www.tyford.com
>

why don't you stop uni-posting?