Re: Bush's definition of where life begins...

[John Neiberger]

> But President Bush said the American foreign policy of 50 years, of
> tolerating autocracies and Dictatorships for the sake of stability was a total
> failure, and he changed official American foreign policy to one that works in
> the long run for the Democratization of the entire World.

Our policy has not been one of 'tolerating' autocracies and
dictatorships; to the contrary, our interventionist policies in the
Middle East and our unflagging support for Israel is what has gotten us
into this mess.

The 'terrorists' do not hate us because of our freedoms. That's baloney,
and anyone who says it is full of crap. They hate us because of our
foreign policy that constantly sides with and arms their enemies.

Besides, it's not our job to violently force our form of government (not
democracy) on the rest of the world. It's that sort of wrong-headed
thinking that has gotten us into this much trouble already.

John

[Pete Dimsman]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/08/05/ny.missile.sting/index.html

Two men arrested in missile sting operation

WASHINGTON, D.C. (CNN) -- The imam and the founder of an Albany, New
York, mosque are being held after an FBI sting operation in which the
suspects believed they were helping a terrorist launder money, federal
law enforcement sources said Thursday.

They were apprehended when they allegedly agreed to launder the money
from the sale of a shoulder-fired missile, the criminal complaint says.

The men are charged with money laundering and conspiring to conceal
support and resources "knowing and intending that they are to be used in
preparation for, and in carrying out a violation of" a U.S. law banning
unlawful use of weapons of mass destruction."
_____________

BUT, looking deeper into this story:

_____________

"The complaint says an undercover FBI informant told the two men he
would use a missile against Pakistan's ambassador to the United Nations
in retaliation for that country's support of the U.S.-led war on terrorism.

The informant gave the men thousands of dollars in checks and cash,
saying the funds to be laundered were proceeds from the purported
importation of a missile and that they could keep some money in exchange
for their help, according to the complaint.

The informant told the two men that the attack would take place at an
address that fronts the U.N. headquarters in New York, the complaint said.

At a news conference, federal officials would not say what information
led them to suspect Aref and Hossain.

The investigation began a year ago, and was conducted by the Joint
Terrorism Task Force, which includes federal, state and local authorities."
_________________________________

Ok, so who is this "imformant"?
_________________________________

"The informant had previously pleaded guilty to document fraud, a
felony, and agreed to work with authorities, the complaint said."
__________________________________

D'oh!
__________________________________

"Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Comey told reporters the undercover
informant struck up a relationship with the two men, and Hossain asked
the informant's help in fraudulently securing a New York driver's permit
for his brother.

Hossain told the informant that he believed now is not the time for
"violent jihad," Comey said.

But when the informant proposed the laundering scheme, Hossain agreed,
and suggested that Aref assist, Comey said."
____________________________________


Sounds a bit like entrapment to me.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Romeo Rondeau" > wrote in message ...
>
> >
> > > You mean a country that *shops* at "The Gap", right Scott?
> >
> >
> > There is no "Gap" in downtown Baghdad ?!?!
>
> I'll bet you there will be by next year :-)

You mean that television will cease to omit such topics from their reporting?

[Scott Dorsey]

playon <playonATcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>It's a reasonable cause, but it's wrong. The data shows that the
>middle class is eroding because people are sliding towards poverty,
>not becuase people are getting rich. This is fairly well known.
>People are losing jobs and there are no comparable jobs to replace
>them, people are moving down the ladder, not up. People are also
>losing health insurance along with their jobs.

I'm willing to believe that you're both right. A lot of people _are_
getting poorer. A lot of other people are getting richer. And the
split is not a good one.

Around here I am seeing lots of people who are out of work and have been
out of work long enough that they have given up even looking for jobs.
On the other hand, I also see an increasing number of upwardly mobile
folks driving huge SUVs, and I am seeing that most of the houses being
built in town are in the >$250k range. And what I am seeing is that
these two groups are becoming increasingly hostile toward one another.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Neiberger]

S O'Neill wrote:
> Don't forget that "middle class" didn't used to require two incomes.
>
>

And don't forget that it's primarily taxes that cause this. Thankfully,
my wife and I were finally able to arrange our finances so she could
leave her job and stay home with our son, but if our taxes were not so
high and if less were taken out of my paycheck, it would have been much
easier for her to stay home sooner.

If we had dramatically lower taxes, she probably could have quit her job
a year earlier.

[WillStG]

>To continue to cast aspertions about my intelligence and education
>rather than refuting my points is "adolescent, insincere, and it makes
>it very hard to take your arguments seriously".

I did not make a comment on your intelligence nor on your education. My
point was if you would be a little more thoughtful and less knee jerk, if you
would research the facts and check yourself on occasion you would demonstrate a
greater sincerity and have fewer public gaffs. When you do things like insist
that because in *your mind* Saddam Hussein was right wing he must be, it is
obvious really that you do not deal well with public mistakes. So I am saying
the best way to avoid them is to check your facts before you shoot from the
hip.

And when one is commenting of matters where the lives and freedoms of
millions of people arguably hang in the balance, is thoughtfulness and fact
checking so extreme a request? But if you haven't time for that, you could
also try qualifying your remarks.

But you go ahead and have last word, I have to stop with this discussion
now before Ty totally gives up on me.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Pete Dimsman]

WillStG wrote:


> Given that alone, you are quite the hypocrite Pete Dimsman, or whatever
> your *real* name is.


You are the one claiming to get on Ty's good side, not me. Duh. So how
does that make ME a hypocrite? And anybody can see that you are failing
miserably.

[George]

In article <nlXRc.233084$%_6.7011@attbi_s01>,
John Neiberger > wrote:

> >>>Except for the poor -- since they must spend a much larger percentage
> >>>of their income on neccessities than the wealthy. But hey, that's
> >>>their fault anyway.
> >>
> >>That's actually probably not true, depending on the type of system
> >>instituted. The price of products are inflated 20-30% because of income
> >>taxes.
> >
> >
> > This makes no sense to me.
>
> Here's an example to explain:
>
> Imagine that you need a pencil so you go to the store to buy one. Stop
> to think about how that pencil may have come to be.
>
> First, there is the eraser. Let's suppose that an American company goes
> to the Amazon to extract latex from trees. It then sells it's product to
> another company who will actually manufacture the erasers. The first
> come has to pay income tax on that transaction, and it therefore raises
> its price to cover the taxes.
>
> The eraser company then sells its erasers to the pencil company. Yet
> again, an income tax is incurred so the eraser company raises it price
> to cover the tax.
>
> Next comes the graphite. Let's suppose that an American company mines
> the graphite and sells it to the pencil company. Again, an income tax
> applies so they raise their price to cover the taxes they will owe.
>
> Then you have the wood. Someone has to cut down trees and sell the
> prepared wood to the pencil company. Once again, another income tax is
> incurred so they raise the price appropriately.
>
> Oh, I almost forgot. Someone has to mine the metal used to make the
> metal piece that holds the eraser to the wood. That company will also
> raise their prices to account for the income tax incurred when they sell
> their product to the pencil making company.
>
> Finally, the pencil-making company assembles the pencil and sells it to
> you. Once again, yet another income tax is incurred! Of course, just
> like everyone else, they will raise the price to cover the taxes.
>
> As you can see, much of the final price of a pencil is caused by income
> taxes. Remove the income tax entirely and prices will drop dramatically.
>
> It's a common misconception that businesses pay any income tax. They
> don't! They simply raise their prices and the taxes are paid by the
> consumers. So, the consumer not only pays income taxes on their own
> wages, they pay sales tax on their purchase and further pay the income
> tax of the company that made the product they purchased! Some system, huh?

and seeing how the pencil is a business expense for you , you reduce
your gross taxable income by the amount the pencil costs so you don't
pay any of the taxes associated with that pencil. in fact in buying the
pencil you reduce your tax liability
George

[George]

In article <nlXRc.233084$%_6.7011@attbi_s01>,
John Neiberger > wrote:

> >>>Except for the poor -- since they must spend a much larger percentage
> >>>of their income on neccessities than the wealthy. But hey, that's
> >>>their fault anyway.
> >>
> >>That's actually probably not true, depending on the type of system
> >>instituted. The price of products are inflated 20-30% because of income
> >>taxes.
> >
> >
> > This makes no sense to me.
>
> Here's an example to explain:
>
> Imagine that you need a pencil so you go to the store to buy one. Stop
> to think about how that pencil may have come to be.
>
> First, there is the eraser. Let's suppose that an American company goes
> to the Amazon to extract latex from trees. It then sells it's product to
> another company who will actually manufacture the erasers. The first
> come has to pay income tax on that transaction, and it therefore raises
> its price to cover the taxes.
>
> The eraser company then sells its erasers to the pencil company. Yet
> again, an income tax is incurred so the eraser company raises it price
> to cover the tax.
>
> Next comes the graphite. Let's suppose that an American company mines
> the graphite and sells it to the pencil company. Again, an income tax
> applies so they raise their price to cover the taxes they will owe.
>
> Then you have the wood. Someone has to cut down trees and sell the
> prepared wood to the pencil company. Once again, another income tax is
> incurred so they raise the price appropriately.
>
> Oh, I almost forgot. Someone has to mine the metal used to make the
> metal piece that holds the eraser to the wood. That company will also
> raise their prices to account for the income tax incurred when they sell
> their product to the pencil making company.
>
> Finally, the pencil-making company assembles the pencil and sells it to
> you. Once again, yet another income tax is incurred! Of course, just
> like everyone else, they will raise the price to cover the taxes.
>
> As you can see, much of the final price of a pencil is caused by income
> taxes. Remove the income tax entirely and prices will drop dramatically.
>
> It's a common misconception that businesses pay any income tax. They
> don't! They simply raise their prices and the taxes are paid by the
> consumers. So, the consumer not only pays income taxes on their own
> wages, they pay sales tax on their purchase and further pay the income
> tax of the company that made the product they purchased! Some system, huh?

and all the money the companys spend on raw materials and labor reduce
thier gross taxable income as well
George

[Scott Dorsey]

John Neiberger > wrote:
>> Absolutely, but that's not my point. My point is the distribution of that
>> wealth, which is in some ways more important than the overall degree of
>> wealth.
>
>That's probably true, but how do you fix it? Simply redistributing
>wealth by force is not the solution--it just does not work. People who
>know how to make money or know how to make products that people want
>will always end up with more money. That is the nature of the game and
>it cannot be changed.
>
>The *only* permanent way to fix the problem is to re-introduce natural
>incentives for people to educate themselves and become better at
>creating their own wealth. No other solution is tenable or is, in fact,
>even a solution at all. Anything else is a band-aid that doesn't address
>the issue at hand.

I haven't got to the point of arguing about _solutions_ here. I'm not even
sure there is a good long-term solution other than better education and
a more evenly-applied tax system and a whole lot of waiting. At this point
I am just trying to get Will to see that there is a problem.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

John Neiberger > wrote:
>
>There is no right to go to college, first of all. Why should we ever
>expect that everyone who wants to go should be able to go? Sure, it
>would be a wonderful world where everyone gets whatever they want, but I
>live in the real world and it doesn't operate that way.

This is true, but good universal education always pays off in the end,
in terms of benefit to the society a few decades later.

You hear folks complaining about all the computer jobs currently being
farmed out to India, but most of them don't seem to want to point out
that in part this is because the IIT offers some of the best computer
science education in the world at minimal or no cost to students, and has
for a couple decades. It took a while for the explosion in industry and
consequent explosion in jobs to take place, but it happened.

>There is no such thing as equality of opportunity or equality of
>outcome. There never has been and there never will be. The only equality
>we can truly reach--and what the Founders had in mind--is equal
>treatment under the law. In other words, the government will work to
>protect everyone's natural rights regardless of gender, race, or creed.

This is true, but you might wish to read Jefferson on the subject of
universal education. It's not everyone's _right_, but it will help
society far more than it costs us.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Neiberger]

playonATcomcast.net wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 03:56:11 GMT, John Neiberger
> > wrote:
>
>
>>playonATcomcast.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Libertarianism = A celebration of the unfairness of life.
>>
>>That is incorrect, and demonstrates that you misunderstand it. If you
>>knew anything about it--and really understood it--you would realize that
>>that one philosophy has more common sense in it that the two major
>>political parties combined. And, libertarian solutions are REAL
>>solutions, not the simple band-aids of socialism and income redistribution.
>
>
> You forgot to say, "in my opinion".

Fair point.

>
>
>
>>Almost without exception the founders of this country were libertarian
>>in their thinking.
>
>
> They were also slave owners who designed the US government so that the
> wealth elite would always be able to remain in control.

Like I said, they weren't perfect. I've also never said that
Libertarianism is perfect. It is my opinion that in a country like ours,
Libertarianism is the best system of which I'm aware.

You seem pretty concerned about one group exerting undo control over
other groups. One of the nicer aspects of libertarianism is that it
dramatically limits the amount of control anyone could exert over another.

[Scott Dorsey]

John Neiberger > wrote:
>
>I believe in education, and I'm firmly behind getting as many people to
>good colleges as possible. In my mind, the issue is who gets to pay for
>it. I don't believe that the end justifies the means, and forcing one
>group to pay for the education of another group is just not an
>acceptable solution, despite any good motives and the potential for
>positive outcomes.

That's okay. But I don't want to live in a place full of illiterates, and
I certainly don't want to try and run a business in a place full of
illiterates, so I'll vote for increased spending on education.

>Unfortunately, I think the quality of education in America is going
>downhill fast. I would love to send my kids to a private school but it's
>just a little too pricey. The mortgage alone is pretty tough in Denver.
>No where near as bad as CA, but it's still way too high. If I didn't
>have to pay so much in taxes I'd have plenty left over to send them to
>the school of my choice.

Yes, but what about everyone else? Like the kids that you're going to have
to be hiring in a few years, or the kids who you'll be doing business with
in a few years?

Have you _tried_ to hire a decent electronics technician today? Pretty much
all of the good ones out there are older folks who got military electronics
training, something that doesn't really exist any longer. What is going to
happen when that pool of people dries up? Don't even talk to me about finding
competent fine machinists. We aren't making new ones.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[georgeh]

John Neiberger > writes:

>Scott Dorsey wrote:

>> This is true, but you might wish to read Jefferson on the subject of
>> universal education. It's not everyone's _right_, but it will help
>> society far more than it costs us.

>I believe in education, and I'm firmly behind getting as many people to
>good colleges as possible. In my mind, the issue is who gets to pay for
>it. I don't believe that the end justifies the means, and forcing one
>group to pay for the education of another group is just not an
>acceptable solution, despite any good motives and the potential for
>positive outcomes.

I didn't see where Scott was asking non-Americans to pay for the education
of Amercians.

[Scott Dorsey]

georgeh > wrote:
>John Neiberger > writes:
>
>>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>>> This is true, but you might wish to read Jefferson on the subject of
>>> universal education. It's not everyone's _right_, but it will help
>>> society far more than it costs us.
>
>>I believe in education, and I'm firmly behind getting as many people to
>>good colleges as possible. In my mind, the issue is who gets to pay for
>>it. I don't believe that the end justifies the means, and forcing one
>>group to pay for the education of another group is just not an
>>acceptable solution, despite any good motives and the potential for
>>positive outcomes.
>
>I didn't see where Scott was asking non-Americans to pay for the education
>of Amercians.

It would sure be nice, though. I'd spend a year in Heidelburg given the
chance...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Romeo Rondeau]

> That's okay. But I don't want to live in a place full of illiterates, and
> I certainly don't want to try and run a business in a place full of
> illiterates, so I'll vote for increased spending on education.

You make some good points here Scott. But leading a horse to water is a lot
easier than making him drink.

[Scott Dorsey]

Romeo Rondeau > wrote:
>> That's okay. But I don't want to live in a place full of illiterates, and
>> I certainly don't want to try and run a business in a place full of
>> illiterates, so I'll vote for increased spending on education.
>
>You make some good points here Scott. But leading a horse to water is a lot
>easier than making him drink.

Absolutely. All you can do is make it available and hope for the best.

I went to Georgia Tech, which at the time was required to accept a certain
number of in-state students very cheaply, and which even for out of state
students was extremely inexpensive. As a result, just about anyone in
Georgia who wanted to go to Tech (or any state school) could. The response
to this on the part of the school was to make the first two years extremely
difficult and to flunk out as many students as possible as quickly as
possible. From one perspective this is a good thing, from the point of
the student is is not so much fun and leads to some bizarre competitive
practices. If you don't weed students out based on economic concerns, you
have to weed them out some other way.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[George]

In article >,
"Romeo Rondeau" > wrote:

> > That's okay. But I don't want to live in a place full of illiterates, and
> > I certainly don't want to try and run a business in a place full of
> > illiterates, so I'll vote for increased spending on education.
>
> You make some good points here Scott. But leading a horse to water is a lot
> easier than making him drink.
>
>

If we don't fill the trough, no horse can drink, no matter how motivated
George

[Blind Joni]

>What I'm concerned about is the control that the wealthy have over
>everyone else. How does your philosophy deal with that?

Ummm?..that's the way it's always been?
Money is power?
Seems pretty normal to me. How else could it possibly be?


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[so what]

Blind Joni wrote:

> Ummm?..that's the way it's always been?
> Money is power?
> Seems pretty normal to me. How else could it possibly be?


So you're not a libertarian, obviously. What he was responding to was
the statement "One of the nicer aspects of libertarianism is that it
dramatically limits the amount of control anyone could exert over another."


Libertarianism is a nice idea, but they always forget two important
things. One is the one you mentioned, the other is the fact that most
folks get where they are by the efforts of a *lot* of people they are
indebted to but libertarians are unwilling to acknowledge; they seem to
think they did it all themselves.

[Blind Joni]

> Ummm?..that's the way it's always been?
>> Money is power?
>> Seems pretty normal to me. How else could it possibly be?
>
>
>So you're not a libertarian, obviously. What he was responding to was
>the statement "One of the nicer aspects of libertarianism is that it
>dramatically limits the amount of control anyone could exert over another."
>
>
>Libertarianism is a nice idea, but they always forget two important
>things. One is the one you mentioned, the other is the fact that most
>folks get where they are by the efforts of a *lot* of people they are
>indebted to but libertarians are unwilling to acknowledge; they seem to
>think they did it all themselves.

I was commenting off the cuff..I knew he was questioning Libertarianism. I
agree with you. True libertarianism can only exist in a vacuum.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>>>What I'm concerned about is the control that the wealthy have over
>>>everyone else. How does your philosophy deal with that?
>>
>>Ummm?..that's the way it's always been?
>>Money is power?
>>Seems pretty normal to me. How else could it possibly be?
>
>Like any other abusive behavior, this can be compensated somewhat by
>rule of law.

Could be true..can you give examples?


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[John Neiberger]

georgeh wrote:

> John Neiberger > writes:
>
>
>>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>
>>>This is true, but you might wish to read Jefferson on the subject of
>>>universal education. It's not everyone's _right_, but it will help
>>>society far more than it costs us.
>
>
>>I believe in education, and I'm firmly behind getting as many people to
>>good colleges as possible. In my mind, the issue is who gets to pay for
>>it. I don't believe that the end justifies the means, and forcing one
>>group to pay for the education of another group is just not an
>>acceptable solution, despite any good motives and the potential for
>>positive outcomes.
>
>
> I didn't see where Scott was asking non-Americans to pay for the education
> of Amercians.

Me either. :) I'm saying that it's wrong to forcefully take money from
one person only to spend it on someone else, no matter how good your
motives are.

Let's say I own a store and you come in a rob me at gunpoint. Is it no
longer theft if you turn around and donate that money to charity? Of
course it is theft. The mere act of forcefully taking away my property
makes it theft no matter what you choose to do with the money.

Education is extremely important, but I think there are far more
efficient ways to go about doing it that would produce far greater
results for a greater percentage of the population.

The current system regularly graduates illiterates. Is that the system
we really want to stick with??

[John Neiberger]

playonATcomcast.net wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 07:20:23 GMT, John Neiberger
> > wrote:
>
>
>>You seem pretty concerned about one group exerting undo control over
>>other groups. One of the nicer aspects of libertarianism is that it
>>dramatically limits the amount of control anyone could exert over another.
>
>
> What I'm concerned about is the control that the wealthy have over
> everyone else. How does your philosophy deal with that?

Name some specific examples and I'll tell you, where I'm able.

Generally speaking, our government was formed as a republic--NOT a
democracy--in order to protect the rights of the individual, even if the
majority votes to impinge on those rights. If you treat the wealthy and
the non-wealthy exactly the same under the law then you ensure that the
rights of the non-wealthy are not violated.

Beyond that, if the market is allowed to function without impedance it
will take care of much of this on its own. However, specific examples
would be nice so I could point out specific solutions.

[John Neiberger]

playonATcomcast.net wrote:

> On 11 Aug 2004 19:04:59 GMT, (Blind Joni) wrote:
>
>
>>>What I'm concerned about is the control that the wealthy have over
>>>everyone else. How does your philosophy deal with that?
>>
>>Ummm?..that's the way it's always been?
>>Money is power?
>>Seems pretty normal to me. How else could it possibly be?
>
>
> Like any other abusive behavior, this can be compensated somewhat by
> rule of law.

Exactly! The rule of law that treats everyone equally no matter how much
money they have.

[S O'Neill]

John Neiberger wrote:
>> Libertarianism is a nice idea, but they always forget two important
>> things. One is the one you mentioned, the other is the fact that most
>> folks get where they are by the efforts of a *lot* of people they are
>> indebted to but libertarians are unwilling to acknowledge; they seem
>> to think they did it all themselves.
>
>
> This is completely untrue! Good grief...where you do you people get your
> information? If most people think like you guys do, no wonder people are
> suspicious of libertarian thinking. In reality, you've been buying into
> the lies told about libertarians by those who follow other philosophies.

Listening to the Libertarians.

[S O'Neill]

John Neiberger wrote:


>> What I'm concerned about is the control that the wealthy have over
>> everyone else. How does your philosophy deal with that?
>
>
> Name some specific examples and I'll tell you, where I'm able.
>
> Generally speaking, our government was formed as a republic--NOT a
> democracy--in order to protect the rights of the individual, even if the
> majority votes to impinge on those rights. If you treat the wealthy and
> the non-wealthy exactly the same under the law then you ensure that the
> rights of the non-wealthy are not violated.


Rush Limbaugh is in jail now, right? ;-/

[John Neiberger]

While we're on the topic, here are some interesting articles and papers
for those of you who might want to read them.

"Free" Education and Literacy
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1425

Competition and Higher Education
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1159

Libertarian Solutions: Chapter 2, Education
http://www.amatecon.com/etext/lpls/lpls-ch2.html

Ten Ethical Objections to the Market Economy (Not necessarily about
education)
http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1469

A Lesson in Waste: Where does all the Federal Education money go? (LONG)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa518.pdf

Only Freedom of Education Can Solve America
Bureaucratic Crisis of Education (LONG)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-155.html

An FAQ on Libertarianism
http://theadvocates.org/library/libertarian-faq.html

[Bob Cain]

John Neiberger wrote:


>> Like any other abusive behavior, this can be compensated somewhat by
>> rule of law.
>
>
> Exactly! The rule of law that treats everyone equally no matter how much
> money they have.

Should that include educating them?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[John Neiberger]

S O'Neill wrote:

> John Neiberger wrote:
>
>>> Libertarianism is a nice idea, but they always forget two important
>>> things. One is the one you mentioned, the other is the fact that
>>> most folks get where they are by the efforts of a *lot* of people
>>> they are indebted to but libertarians are unwilling to acknowledge;
>>> they seem to think they did it all themselves.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is completely untrue! Good grief...where you do you people get
>> your information? If most people think like you guys do, no wonder
>> people are suspicious of libertarian thinking. In reality, you've been
>> buying into the lies told about libertarians by those who follow other
>> philosophies.
>
>
> Listening to the Libertarians.

Well, I think you've been listening to the wrong ones.

[John Neiberger]

>>> Like any other abusive behavior, this can be compensated somewhat by
>>> rule of law.
>>
>> Exactly! The rule of law that treats everyone equally no matter how
>> much money they have.
>
>
> Should that include educating them?

What does equality under the law have to do with education?

[S O'Neill]

John Neiberger wrote:
> S O'Neill wrote:
>
>> John Neiberger wrote:
>>
>>>> Libertarianism is a nice idea, but they always forget two important
>>>> things. One is the one you mentioned, the other is the fact that
>>>> most folks get where they are by the efforts of a *lot* of people
>>>> they are indebted to but libertarians are unwilling to acknowledge;
>>>> they seem to think they did it all themselves.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is completely untrue! Good grief...where you do you people get
>>> your information? If most people think like you guys do, no wonder
>>> people are suspicious of libertarian thinking. In reality, you've
>>> been buying into the lies told about libertarians by those who follow
>>> other philosophies.
>>
>>
>>
>> Listening to the Libertarians.
>
>
> Well, I think you've been listening to the wrong ones.


They're in the voter handbook and the newspaper; if they're the wrong
ones maybe it's time the Libertarians took back their party. But that's
been the party line as long as they've been around.

I originally thought Libertarian was a good idea until I heard the
self-absorbed rhetoric.

[John Neiberger]

> I originally thought Libertarian was a good idea until I heard the
> self-absorbed rhetoric.

What do the actions or words of some hardcore Libertarians have to do
with the actual philosophy of libertarianism? Besides, I don't think
Libertarians are any more self-absorbed than anyone else, but they do
tend to be more idealistic and prone to debate.

We want the same basic things that everyone wants (with some variation):

* equality under the law (no special privileges for anyone, equal
treatment for everyone)
* protection of liberty and individual rights
* a better educational system that produces more, better-educated
children than the current system
* more jobs with higher wages and better benefits
* affordable health care
* sensible foreign policy
* lower crime rates
* a strong, stable economy and currency
* lower taxes and more disposable income for workers and their families
* sensible military spending and a strong national defense (not a strong
national *offense*)

Usenet or Internet forums are awful places to discuss this sort of
thing. Here's a quote about this that is just too true:

"One problem with political debate on Usenet is that it lends itself
well to short, oversimplified arguments. There simply isn't enough time
or space in net postings to fully explore the ideas behind all the
assertions being made. When defending a given position a poster
inevitably has to make some assumptions about what the other guy already
knows in order to avoid boring him to death."

If anyone is truly interested in libertarian thinking (and I use a
lower-case L to distinguish between that and the Libertarian Party)
there is no substitute for reading a book on the subject. I would
recommend "Libertarianism: A Primer" or "Libertarianism in One Lesson".

If you're a total glutton for punishment and you really enjoyed your
philosophy classes in college, you could also read "Anarchy, State, and
Utopia" by Robert Nozick.

There's plenty to read on the web, as well. You can try www.cato.org or
www.mises.org for starters.

[John Neiberger]

>>>Rush Limbaugh is in jail now, right? ;-/
>>
>>He might be if everyone were treated equally under the law like we suggest!
>>
>>Look, you will never achieve the type of equality many of you seem to
>>seek. The only type of equality that is achievable--and the only type
>>our founders believed in--was equality under the law, and that means no
>>special treatment for anyone.
>
>
> Let's start with corporations then. They get a lot of special
> treatment.

Corporations, in general, are not a bad thing. A tiny shop with four
employees could be a corporation.

However, you're right in that this is a good place to start. No entity
should receive any special treatment from government, and that includes
corporations.

In another post you mentioned the problem of the wealthy having greater
political access. I would agree that this is a problem but I probably
look at it from a different direction. The reason it is a problem is
because government has too much power to begin with. If our
government--the Federal government, specifically--were restricted to its
Constitutional limits there would be no reason for the wealthy to throw
millions of dollars to their favorite candidates in order to buy
favors--the favors wouldn't exist!

As it is right now, Congress and the Presidency can be bought for a
price and they dole out favors to their largest supporters. If you
restrict their ability to hand out those favors there would be far less
incentive for the wealthy to spend so much money on political issues.

[John Neiberger]

playonATcomcast.net wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 04:26:55 GMT, John Neiberger
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Like any other abusive behavior, this can be compensated somewhat by
>>>>>rule of law.
>>>>
>>>>Exactly! The rule of law that treats everyone equally no matter how
>>>>much money they have.
>>>
>>>
>>>Should that include educating them?
>>
>>What does equality under the law have to do with education?
>
>
> Jesus, how can you be so obtuse? Isn't it obvious to you that those
> less educated inherently must be unequal to those who are educated?

No, it's not obvious and you are deliberately missing the point. I said
equality under the law. That means very simply that everyone is treated
the same under the law, no one gets special treatment regardless of
income, race, gender, sexual preference, level of education, geographic
location, ancestry, religion, etc.

Our country was founded on this ideal [with a couple of obvious
exceptions that we've corrected since then]. In the past 100 years we've
allowed the word 'equality' to come to mean equality of opportunity or
equality of outcome, neither of which is possible to achieve, ever. I
understand the good motives behind those who promote such ideas but
they're just not possible in the real world.

Since our definitions of equality are different we'll never agree on
this issue. It's certainly your right to promote agendas that attempt to
provide equality of outcome and opportunity. It's my opinion that you're
only hope of reaching that goal would be to move the rest of the way
toward a totalitarian government, and we both know how well that works.

You simply cannot legislate equality of opportunity or equality of
outcome. You are free to try but history, the real world, and human
nature stand against you.

[John Neiberger]

>>Well, I think you've been listening to the wrong ones.
>
>
> So, it's kind of like Christianity then?

If you mean that you can get vastly different views of that religion
depending on who you talk to then yes, you're probably right. However, I
think there is less variability with libertarian ideals than with
Christian ideals. Libertarians tend to have very similar approaches to
solving problems. Christianity, on the other hand, has much larger
variations between geographic areas, cultures, and denominations.

It's no different than any other group or organization. They all have
their nutballs and wackjobs, and they're the ones who tend to be the
most vocal. The Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, and Greens have
their fair share of boneheads and loons, as well. That doesn't mean
they're all boneheads and loons, though.

[John Neiberger]

playonATcomcast.net wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 05:07:26 GMT, John Neiberger
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>I originally thought Libertarian was a good idea until I heard the
>>>self-absorbed rhetoric.
>>
>>What do the actions or words of some hardcore Libertarians have to do
>>with the actual philosophy of libertarianism? Besides, I don't think
>>Libertarians are any more self-absorbed than anyone else, but they do
>>tend to be more idealistic and prone to debate.
>>
>>We want the same basic things that everyone wants (with some variation):
>>
>>* equality under the law (no special privileges for anyone, equal
>>treatment for everyone)
>
>
> What about special educational priviledges? Like how Bush got into
> Harvard with Cs... you are arguing for equality, but not equal access
> to education??? Do you think it's as easy for some poor kid from a
> bad neighborhood with ****ty schools, to get into college as it is for
> the son of a US Senator?

Again, our definition of equality is different. You're trying to reach
equality of opportunity and equality of outcomes, and I believe those
are impossible to achieve.

The answer to your question is obvious. Life has always been easier for
those with greater access to resources. I would argue that we should
spend our time on making access to education easier for the poor, not
for making it harder for the wealthy.

[Blind Joni]

>Jesus, how can you be so obtuse? Isn't it obvious to you that those
>less educated inherently must be unequal to those who are educated?
>

It's not obvious to me because some will always be uneduacted. And is someones
education always completely the gov'ts responsibility?
John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>In the past 100 years we've
>allowed the word 'equality' to come to mean equality of opportunity or
>equality of outcome, neither of which is possible to achieve, ever. I
>understand the good motives behind those who promote such ideas but
>they're just not possible in the real world.

I find this in the studio too. Clients..inexperienced ones...think that because
they pay equally they should get the same results as others..never happens.
John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[S O'Neill]

John Neiberger wrote:


This:

> You're trying to reach equality of opportunity and equality of
> outcomes, and I believe those are impossible to achieve.


seems to be in conflict with this:

> I would argue that we should spend our time on making access to
> education easier for the poor,

[S O'Neill]

John Neiberger wrote:




> Corporations, in general, are not a bad thing. A tiny shop with four
> employees could be a corporation.


You mean an institution designed to amass personal wealth without
personal responsibility? Sorry. Union Carbide should, but won't, get
the death penalty for Bhopal.

[Blind Joni]

>> Listening to the Libertarians.
>>
>>Well, I think you've been listening to the wrong ones.
>
>So, it's kind of like Christianity then?
>

Or kind of like being a music lover and listening to a salesman rave about the
latest Bose system.

John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>It's no different than any other group or organization. They all have
>their nutballs and wackjobs, and they're the ones who tend to be the
>most vocal. The Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, and Greens have
>their fair share of boneheads and loons, as well. That doesn't mean
>they're all boneheads and loons, though.

Don't be spouting that logical, rational viewpoint around here..<g>
John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

> You're trying to reach equality of opportunity and equality of
>> outcomes, and I believe those are impossible to achieve.
>
>
>seems to be in conflict with this:
>
>> I would argue that we should spend our time on making access to
>> education easier for the poor,

What???
John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>> I was commenting off the cuff..I knew he was questioning Libertarianism. I
>>> agree with you. True libertarianism can only exist in a vacuum.
>>
>>How do you define 'true' libertarianism and what do you mean by vacuum?
>
>not in the real world...
>

I think what I meant was that it can only exist if everyone goes along and I
don't see that ever happening.
John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

> Corporations, in general, are not a bad thing. A tiny shop with four
>> employees could be a corporation.
>
>
>You mean an institution designed to amass personal wealth without
>personal responsibility?

This isn't even the case..many times the individuals are penalized for the
corporations wrongs...at least smaller ones.


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[John Neiberger]

Blind Joni wrote:
>>In the past 100 years we've
>>allowed the word 'equality' to come to mean equality of opportunity or
>>equality of outcome, neither of which is possible to achieve, ever. I
>>understand the good motives behind those who promote such ideas but
>>they're just not possible in the real world.
>
>
> I find this in the studio too. Clients..inexperienced ones...think that because
> they pay equally they should get the same results as others..never happens.

That's an excellent analogy.

Equality under the law means that anyone who wants to use your studio
can pay for your studio. You may offer your services for free if you
choose, you may grant credit if you choose, and you can accept money
from a third-party on behalf of your client.

Equality of opportunity means that anyone can walk in off the street and
demand the use of your studio and your time and they only have to pay
what they can, even if it's substantially below your usual rates. You
don't have a choice in the matter and it's up to you to make up the
difference elsewhere or by charging other clients more. (And don't think
they won't notice!)

Equality of outcome means that all those screechy, out-of-tune, American
Idol wannabes will leave your studio sounding like Aretha Franklin,
Celine Dion, and Whitney Houston. :-) If they suck, doesn't that mean
you just try a different mic or preamp, and throw on some AutoTune?

I'd like to be a combination of Dann Huff, Robben Ford, Roscoe Beck,
Nathan East, Tommy Sims, and Jack Joseph Puig...but I'm not.

[John Neiberger]

Blind Joni wrote:
>>In the past 100 years we've
>>allowed the word 'equality' to come to mean equality of opportunity or
>>equality of outcome, neither of which is possible to achieve, ever. I
>>understand the good motives behind those who promote such ideas but
>>they're just not possible in the real world.
>
>
> I find this in the studio too. Clients..inexperienced ones...think that because
> they pay equally they should get the same results as others..never happens.

That's an excellent analogy.

Equality under the law means that anyone who wants to use your studio
can pay for your studio. You may offer your services for free if you
choose, you may grant credit if you choose, and you can accept money
from a third-party on behalf of your client.

Equality of opportunity means that anyone can walk in off the street and
demand the use of your studio and your time and they only have to pay
what they can, even if it's substantially below your usual rates. You
don't have a choice in the matter and it's up to you to make up the
difference elsewhere or by charging other clients more. (And don't think
they won't notice!)

Equality of outcome means that all those screechy, out-of-tune, American
Idol wannabes will leave your studio sounding like Aretha Franklin,
Celine Dion, and Whitney Houston. :-) If they suck, doesn't that mean
you just try a different mic or preamp, and throw on some AutoTune?

I'd like to be a combination of Dann Huff, Robben Ford, Roscoe Beck,
Nathan East, Tommy Sims, and Jack Joseph Puig...but I'm not.

[John Neiberger]

playonATcomcast.net wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:24:37 GMT, John Neiberger
> > wrote:
>
>
>>exceptions that we've corrected since then]. In the past 100 years we've
>>allowed the word 'equality' to come to mean equality of opportunity or
>>equality of outcome, neither of which is possible to achieve, ever. I
>>understand the good motives behind those who promote such ideas but
>>they're just not possible in the real world
>
>
> I'm not talking about perfect equality, which indeed is impossible.
> However it is possible to give people who are disadvantaged a better
> start or a leg up on opportunity.

I absolutely agree with that statement. I think you and I want many of
the same things, but perhaps we just disagree about how to get there. I
think we all want better schools; easier access to education for the
disadvantaged; more jobs that pay higher wages and have better benefits;
affordable higher education; affordable, high-quality healthcare.

I would also add to that list the following: dramatically lower taxes; a
sensible, non-interventionist foreign policy that doesn't **** off the
rest of the world; real free trade, not horrid crap foisted upon us like
NAFTA and GATT; sane defense spending (our military should be for our
national defense, not everyone else's); equal rights for everyone,
including the right to marry whomever you choose; legalization of
victimless crimes (consensual sex, smoking pot, etc.); a government that
protects the rights of everyone equally no matter what their economic
status, age, gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation.

[John Neiberger]

playonATcomcast.net wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:24:37 GMT, John Neiberger
> > wrote:
>
>
>>exceptions that we've corrected since then]. In the past 100 years we've
>>allowed the word 'equality' to come to mean equality of opportunity or
>>equality of outcome, neither of which is possible to achieve, ever. I
>>understand the good motives behind those who promote such ideas but
>>they're just not possible in the real world
>
>
> I'm not talking about perfect equality, which indeed is impossible.
> However it is possible to give people who are disadvantaged a better
> start or a leg up on opportunity.

I absolutely agree with that statement. I think you and I want many of
the same things, but perhaps we just disagree about how to get there. I
think we all want better schools; easier access to education for the
disadvantaged; more jobs that pay higher wages and have better benefits;
affordable higher education; affordable, high-quality healthcare.

I would also add to that list the following: dramatically lower taxes; a
sensible, non-interventionist foreign policy that doesn't **** off the
rest of the world; real free trade, not horrid crap foisted upon us like
NAFTA and GATT; sane defense spending (our military should be for our
national defense, not everyone else's); equal rights for everyone,
including the right to marry whomever you choose; legalization of
victimless crimes (consensual sex, smoking pot, etc.); a government that
protects the rights of everyone equally no matter what their economic
status, age, gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation.

[John Neiberger]

S O'Neill wrote:

> John Neiberger wrote:
>
>
> This:
>
>> You're trying to reach equality of opportunity and equality of
>> outcomes, and I believe those are impossible to achieve.
>
>
>
> seems to be in conflict with this:
>
>> I would argue that we should spend our time on making access to
>> education easier for the poor,

Why? They are not mutually exclusive.

I think we'd all agree on the first statement. Does that mean we should
not do what we can to help those who are less fortunate? I believe in
charity where it is necessary, but I don't believe in coercive and
compulsory charity.

[John Neiberger]

S O'Neill wrote:

> John Neiberger wrote:
>
>
> This:
>
>> You're trying to reach equality of opportunity and equality of
>> outcomes, and I believe those are impossible to achieve.
>
>
>
> seems to be in conflict with this:
>
>> I would argue that we should spend our time on making access to
>> education easier for the poor,

Why? They are not mutually exclusive.

I think we'd all agree on the first statement. Does that mean we should
not do what we can to help those who are less fortunate? I believe in
charity where it is necessary, but I don't believe in coercive and
compulsory charity.

[John Neiberger]

playonATcomcast.net wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:31:54 GMT, John Neiberger
> > wrote:
>
> I would argue that we should
>
>>spend our time on making access to education easier for the poor, not
>>for making it harder for the wealthy.
>
>
> ???When did I argue this???

Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. I should have used a different
word than 'argue'. Perhaps I should have said 'agree', instead.

[John Neiberger]

playonATcomcast.net wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:31:54 GMT, John Neiberger
> > wrote:
>
> I would argue that we should
>
>>spend our time on making access to education easier for the poor, not
>>for making it harder for the wealthy.
>
>
> ???When did I argue this???

Sorry, poor choice of words on my part. I should have used a different
word than 'argue'. Perhaps I should have said 'agree', instead.

[S O'Neill]

John Neiberger wrote:

> S O'Neill wrote:
>
>> John Neiberger wrote:
>>
>>
>> This:
>>
>>> You're trying to reach equality of opportunity and equality of
>>> outcomes, and I believe those are impossible to achieve.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> seems to be in conflict with this:
>>
>>> I would argue that we should spend our time on making access to
>>> education easier for the poor,
>
>
> Why? They are not mutually exclusive.
>
> I think we'd all agree on the first statement. Does that mean we should
> not do what we can to help those who are less fortunate? I believe in
> charity where it is necessary, but I don't believe in coercive and
> compulsory charity.


The latter sounds like an attempt to acheive the former.

Your stated goals (in other posts) are fine, but you'll never get past
the fact that money IS power. Attempting to actively and directly
compensate for that is behind what used to be called leftism. I think
Libertarianism needs to have a more realistic approach than just "we'll
enforce all the laws equally"; that's just Pollyana stuff.

[S O'Neill]

John Neiberger wrote:

> S O'Neill wrote:
>
>> John Neiberger wrote:
>>
>>
>> This:
>>
>>> You're trying to reach equality of opportunity and equality of
>>> outcomes, and I believe those are impossible to achieve.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> seems to be in conflict with this:
>>
>>> I would argue that we should spend our time on making access to
>>> education easier for the poor,
>
>
> Why? They are not mutually exclusive.
>
> I think we'd all agree on the first statement. Does that mean we should
> not do what we can to help those who are less fortunate? I believe in
> charity where it is necessary, but I don't believe in coercive and
> compulsory charity.


The latter sounds like an attempt to acheive the former.

Your stated goals (in other posts) are fine, but you'll never get past
the fact that money IS power. Attempting to actively and directly
compensate for that is behind what used to be called leftism. I think
Libertarianism needs to have a more realistic approach than just "we'll
enforce all the laws equally"; that's just Pollyana stuff.

[Bob Cain]

playonATcomcast.net wrote:


>>What does equality under the law have to do with education?
>
>
> Jesus, how can you be so obtuse? Isn't it obvious to you that those
> less educated inherently must be unequal to those who are educated?

Hey, isn't it the American Way that we only get the
education that our parent's can afford? Note the sarcasm.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Bob Cain]

playonATcomcast.net wrote:


>>What does equality under the law have to do with education?
>
>
> Jesus, how can you be so obtuse? Isn't it obvious to you that those
> less educated inherently must be unequal to those who are educated?

Hey, isn't it the American Way that we only get the
education that our parent's can afford? Note the sarcasm.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Bob Cain]

Blind Joni wrote:

>>Jesus, how can you be so obtuse? Isn't it obvious to you that those
>>less educated inherently must be unequal to those who are educated?
>>
>
>
> It's not obvious to me because some will always be uneduacted. And is someones
> education always completely the gov'ts responsibility?

Some of us believe that accessability should not depend on
the wealth of the parents. So to us, yes.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Bob Cain]

Blind Joni wrote:

>>Jesus, how can you be so obtuse? Isn't it obvious to you that those
>>less educated inherently must be unequal to those who are educated?
>>
>
>
> It's not obvious to me because some will always be uneduacted. And is someones
> education always completely the gov'ts responsibility?

Some of us believe that accessability should not depend on
the wealth of the parents. So to us, yes.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Bob Cain]

John Neiberger wrote:

> I think we'd all agree on the first statement. Does that mean we should
> not do what we can to help those who are less fortunate? I believe in
> charity where it is necessary, but I don't believe in coercive and
> compulsory charity.

So do you think the way to do that is all get together and
volunteer to pay for equal accessability to education?
That's an idea. Not a good one, but practice is a good thing.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Bob Cain]

John Neiberger wrote:

> I think we'd all agree on the first statement. Does that mean we should
> not do what we can to help those who are less fortunate? I believe in
> charity where it is necessary, but I don't believe in coercive and
> compulsory charity.

So do you think the way to do that is all get together and
volunteer to pay for equal accessability to education?
That's an idea. Not a good one, but practice is a good thing.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[George]

>
> I'd like to be a combination of Dann Huff, Robben Ford, Roscoe Beck,
> Nathan East, Tommy Sims, and Jack Joseph Puig...but I'm not.

I'd like to be a combination of James Bond, Bill Gates and John Holmes,
with perhaps a little Marvin hagler thrown in :-)
George

[George]

>
> I'd like to be a combination of Dann Huff, Robben Ford, Roscoe Beck,
> Nathan East, Tommy Sims, and Jack Joseph Puig...but I'm not.

I'd like to be a combination of James Bond, Bill Gates and John Holmes,
with perhaps a little Marvin hagler thrown in :-)
George

[Scott Dorsey]

George > wrote:
Kludge wrote:
>>
>> On the other hand, a military that is dependant entirely on the draft has
>> a lot of retention problems. This is especially a problem in technical
>> fields; by the time someone is properly trained for a highly technical job,
>> their 2-year hitch is over.
>
>Quiet now! or they will go to 6 year rides

Wasn't MACV pushing for that?

I know the Backporch troposcatter network in Vietnam was basically operated
by civilian contractors most of the time because the military was just flat
out unable to get guys up to speed on microwave systems during a short hitch.
The attempts to turn it over completely lead to kids blowing klystrons up by
not watching the screen voltage, or replacing klystrons at phenomenal prices
because poor atmospheric conditions lead them to see high reflected power.
And the contractors were pulling their hair out because they hadn't really
expected to spend any real time in country. This was one of the big reasons
for a push to longer hitches at that time.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

George > wrote:
Kludge wrote:
>>
>> On the other hand, a military that is dependant entirely on the draft has
>> a lot of retention problems. This is especially a problem in technical
>> fields; by the time someone is properly trained for a highly technical job,
>> their 2-year hitch is over.
>
>Quiet now! or they will go to 6 year rides

Wasn't MACV pushing for that?

I know the Backporch troposcatter network in Vietnam was basically operated
by civilian contractors most of the time because the military was just flat
out unable to get guys up to speed on microwave systems during a short hitch.
The attempts to turn it over completely lead to kids blowing klystrons up by
not watching the screen voltage, or replacing klystrons at phenomenal prices
because poor atmospheric conditions lead them to see high reflected power.
And the contractors were pulling their hair out because they hadn't really
expected to spend any real time in country. This was one of the big reasons
for a push to longer hitches at that time.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Blind Joni]

>Some of us believe that accessability should not depend on
>the wealth of the parents. So to us, yes.
>

I don't disagree. My personal observations seem to say that there are many who
are not seeking anything regardless of accessability. I see a lot of young,
urban men and the last thing on their mind is learning anything..sadly.
John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[Blind Joni]

>Some of us believe that accessability should not depend on
>the wealth of the parents. So to us, yes.
>

I don't disagree. My personal observations seem to say that there are many who
are not seeking anything regardless of accessability. I see a lot of young,
urban men and the last thing on their mind is learning anything..sadly.
John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

[S O'Neill]

Bob Cain wrote:
>
>
> John Neiberger wrote:
>
>> I think we'd all agree on the first statement. Does that mean we
>> should not do what we can to help those who are less fortunate? I
>> believe in charity where it is necessary, but I don't believe in
>> coercive and compulsory charity.
>
>
> So do you think the way to do that is all get together and volunteer to
> pay for equal accessability to education? That's an idea. Not a good
> one, but practice is a good thing.
>


That's remarkably like a public school system! We all got together and
decided (through our elected representatives) that we would do this.

[S O'Neill]

Bob Cain wrote:
>
>
> John Neiberger wrote:
>
>> I think we'd all agree on the first statement. Does that mean we
>> should not do what we can to help those who are less fortunate? I
>> believe in charity where it is necessary, but I don't believe in
>> coercive and compulsory charity.
>
>
> So do you think the way to do that is all get together and volunteer to
> pay for equal accessability to education? That's an idea. Not a good
> one, but practice is a good thing.
>


That's remarkably like a public school system! We all got together and
decided (through our elected representatives) that we would do this.

[Bob Cain]

S O'Neill wrote:

> That's remarkably like a public school system! We all got together and
> decided (through our elected representatives) that we would do this.

Yes, via "imposed" taxation. While I can certainly find
flaw with the basis of that taxation, I cannot, in public
interest, find flaw with the imposition itself.

I would say the same for health care as for education but we
(the U.S.) don't generally seem that enlightened yet as a
culture.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[Bob Cain]

S O'Neill wrote:

> That's remarkably like a public school system! We all got together and
> decided (through our elected representatives) that we would do this.

Yes, via "imposed" taxation. While I can certainly find
flaw with the basis of that taxation, I cannot, in public
interest, find flaw with the imposition itself.

I would say the same for health care as for education but we
(the U.S.) don't generally seem that enlightened yet as a
culture.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

[John Neiberger]

> John Neiberger wrote:
>
>> I think we'd all agree on the first statement. Does that mean we
>> should not do what we can to help those who are less fortunate? I
>> believe in charity where it is necessary, but I don't believe in
>> coercive and compulsory charity.
>
>
> So do you think the way to do that is all get together and volunteer to
> pay for equal accessability to education? That's an idea. Not a good
> one, but practice is a good thing.

No, that's an oversimplification on my position. To be honest, a forum
like this is the wrong place to present this sort of information. It's
simply too difficult to present an entire cohesive position in threaded
communications with this many participants. If you really are curious
about a libertarian viewpoint there's plenty of stuff on the web that
would explain it in further detail.

If you oversimplify it and mistate as you have done, then I would agree
that it sounds silly.

[John Neiberger]

> John Neiberger wrote:
>
>> I think we'd all agree on the first statement. Does that mean we
>> should not do what we can to help those who are less fortunate? I
>> believe in charity where it is necessary, but I don't believe in
>> coercive and compulsory charity.
>
>
> So do you think the way to do that is all get together and volunteer to
> pay for equal accessability to education? That's an idea. Not a good
> one, but practice is a good thing.

No, that's an oversimplification on my position. To be honest, a forum
like this is the wrong place to present this sort of information. It's
simply too difficult to present an entire cohesive position in threaded
communications with this many participants. If you really are curious
about a libertarian viewpoint there's plenty of stuff on the web that
would explain it in further detail.

If you oversimplify it and mistate as you have done, then I would agree
that it sounds silly.

[John Neiberger]

> I'd like to be a combination of James Bond, Bill Gates and John Holmes,
> with perhaps a little Marvin hagler thrown in :-)
> George

Nice choices! LOL

[John Neiberger]

> I'd like to be a combination of James Bond, Bill Gates and John Holmes,
> with perhaps a little Marvin hagler thrown in :-)
> George

Nice choices! LOL

[John Neiberger]

> On the whole, I think this is a good idea. Circulating the general population
> through government service both makes for a population that understands
> the military and the civilian agencies, and it makes for a military and for
> civilian agencies that are in better touch with the population.
>
> On the other hand, a military that is dependant entirely on the draft has
> a lot of retention problems. This is especially a problem in technical
> fields; by the time someone is properly trained for a highly technical job,
> their 2-year hitch is over.

You seriously don't have a problem with government forcing you into
service against your will? If you want to volunteer for that sort of
thing, more power to you.

I forget... isn't there a term for when one person or group forces
another person or group into servitude?

[John Neiberger]

> On the whole, I think this is a good idea. Circulating the general population
> through government service both makes for a population that understands
> the military and the civilian agencies, and it makes for a military and for
> civilian agencies that are in better touch with the population.
>
> On the other hand, a military that is dependant entirely on the draft has
> a lot of retention problems. This is especially a problem in technical
> fields; by the time someone is properly trained for a highly technical job,
> their 2-year hitch is over.

You seriously don't have a problem with government forcing you into
service against your will? If you want to volunteer for that sort of
thing, more power to you.

I forget... isn't there a term for when one person or group forces
another person or group into servitude?

[WillStG]

<< John Neiberger >>
<< Usenet or Internet forums are awful places to discuss this sort of
thing. Here's a quote about this that is just too true:

"One problem with political debate on Usenet is that it lends itself
well to short, oversimplified arguments. There simply isn't enough time
or space in net postings to fully explore the ideas behind all the
assertions being made. When defending a given position a poster
inevitably has to make some assumptions about what the other guy already
knows in order to avoid boring him to death." >>

Hmmm - I like this quote myself...

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
-- Gene Spafford, 1992



Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

<< S O'Neill >>
<< Rush Limbaugh is in jail now, right? ;-/ >>

For what he is being accused of - "Doctor shopping" - no one, rich or poor
has ever been put in jail in Florida. So that's not a good example of the law
being "unequal" for the wealthy.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles]

On 28 Aug 2004 17:49:54 GMT, WillStG > wrote:
>
> "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
> difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
> mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it."
> -- Gene Spafford, 1992
>

"We're really just an infinite number of monkeys typing on infinitely
many keyboards failing miserably in our attempt to replicate the works
of Shakespear, while hoping that five billion years is sufficiently
close to an infinite amount of time to ensure success." -- Me on
rec.woodworking just the other day.

"On USENET, no one knows that you're really a St. Bernard" -- Unknown,
but a longtime fave of mine.

*woofs and chases the cat*

[EganMedia]

> For what he is being accused of - "Doctor shopping" - no one, rich or poor
>has ever been put in jail in Florida. So that's not a good example of the
>law
>being "unequal" for the wealthy.

I think the point is that Rush hasn't been charged with anything else.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com