PDA

View Full Version : Re: Another article on job loss to "offshore"


silvasurfa
July 1st 03, 11:13 AM
"Edgar S." > wrote in message
om...
> "silvasurfa" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Childfree Scott" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > > There's still plenty of wealth in America, if you guys can't work
out
> > how to
> > > > distribute it more fairly then that's something you need to handle
> > > > yourselves. Those jobs that are going to India, Pakistan etc are
needed
> > > > urgently in those countries to get them out of poverty.
> > >
> > > As long as thirld world counrty people continue to reproudce like
> > > rabbits, then they will never get out of poverty. We cna export 100%
> > > of our exportable jobs to them and it won't make a bit of difference
> > > unless they start using birth control.
> >
> > They won't stop breeding like rabbits until they have an economy that is
> > developed enough that it is practical to save money for retirement
rather
> > than have 10 kids and hope that at least some of them will help them in
> > their old age.
>
> The chinese created a one child policy. They started doing better
> economically the very first year. Just THINK of all that resource that
> had been going into making new babies being diverted to other places.

Yes, but they also have a totalitarian regime that provides everyone with a
crappy job or a crappy pension until the day they die... and they were also
willing to give parents a welfare package deal for their one and only child
that craps all over anything I could imagine a non-communist regime being
willing to afford. So yeah, you can go straight to low birthrate/high
prosperity and skip the one-off population boom that usually happens until
people get used to prosperity, but the country has to be willing and able to
pay for it, and the only way enough money to pay for expensive social
measures like that can be accumulated in a country without much economic
infrastructure is to socialise practically everything.

IleneB
July 1st 03, 03:03 PM
In article >, Edgar S.
> wrote:

> The chinese created a one child policy


Most societies wouldn't tolerate forcible abortion/sterilization and
widespread female infanticide. Well, two out of three, anyway.

Ilene B

IleneB
July 1st 03, 03:03 PM
In article >, Edgar S.
> wrote:

> The chinese created a one child policy


Most societies wouldn't tolerate forcible abortion/sterilization and
widespread female infanticide. Well, two out of three, anyway.

Ilene B

July 1st 03, 03:28 PM
"silvasurfa" > wrote:

>> The chinese created a one child policy. They started doing better
>> economically the very first year. Just THINK of all that resource that
>> had been going into making new babies being diverted to other places.
>
>Yes, but they also have a totalitarian regime that provides everyone with a
>crappy job or a crappy pension until the day they die... and they were also
>willing to give parents a welfare package deal for their one and only child
>that craps all over anything I could imagine a non-communist regime being
>willing to afford. So yeah, you can go straight to low birthrate/high
>prosperity and skip the one-off population boom that usually happens until
>people get used to prosperity, but the country has to be willing and able to
>pay for it, and the only way enough money to pay for expensive social
>measures like that can be accumulated in a country without much economic
>infrastructure is to socialise practically everything.


Didn't watch the special last year of China, did you? Your response flies in
the face of facts. There are no guaranteed jobs in China anymore, no
guaranteed pensions except for the rich (read influential party members), riots
in towns where major industries have closed, continuing corruption of
government at many levels, and a cadre of economists calling many of the shots.
China learned from the collapse of the Soviet Union and from Nixon's visits
showing how to develop the economy. I suspect the differences between China
and the U.S. are shrinking in both countries.

July 1st 03, 03:28 PM
"silvasurfa" > wrote:

>> The chinese created a one child policy. They started doing better
>> economically the very first year. Just THINK of all that resource that
>> had been going into making new babies being diverted to other places.
>
>Yes, but they also have a totalitarian regime that provides everyone with a
>crappy job or a crappy pension until the day they die... and they were also
>willing to give parents a welfare package deal for their one and only child
>that craps all over anything I could imagine a non-communist regime being
>willing to afford. So yeah, you can go straight to low birthrate/high
>prosperity and skip the one-off population boom that usually happens until
>people get used to prosperity, but the country has to be willing and able to
>pay for it, and the only way enough money to pay for expensive social
>measures like that can be accumulated in a country without much economic
>infrastructure is to socialise practically everything.


Didn't watch the special last year of China, did you? Your response flies in
the face of facts. There are no guaranteed jobs in China anymore, no
guaranteed pensions except for the rich (read influential party members), riots
in towns where major industries have closed, continuing corruption of
government at many levels, and a cadre of economists calling many of the shots.
China learned from the collapse of the Soviet Union and from Nixon's visits
showing how to develop the economy. I suspect the differences between China
and the U.S. are shrinking in both countries.

silvasurfa
July 1st 03, 04:54 PM
> wrote in message
...
> "silvasurfa" > wrote:
>
> >> The chinese created a one child policy. They started doing better
> >> economically the very first year. Just THINK of all that resource that
> >> had been going into making new babies being diverted to other places.
> >
> >Yes, but they also have a totalitarian regime that provides everyone with
a
> >crappy job or a crappy pension until the day they die... and they were
also
> >willing to give parents a welfare package deal for their one and only
child
> >that craps all over anything I could imagine a non-communist regime being
> >willing to afford. So yeah, you can go straight to low birthrate/high
> >prosperity and skip the one-off population boom that usually happens
until
> >people get used to prosperity, but the country has to be willing and able
to
> >pay for it, and the only way enough money to pay for expensive social
> >measures like that can be accumulated in a country without much economic
> >infrastructure is to socialise practically everything.
>
>
> Didn't watch the special last year of China, did you? Your response flies
in
> the face of facts. There are no guaranteed jobs in China anymore, no
> guaranteed pensions except for the rich (read influential party members),
riots
> in towns where major industries have closed, continuing corruption of
> government at many levels, and a cadre of economists calling many of the
shots.
> China learned from the collapse of the Soviet Union and from Nixon's
visits
> showing how to develop the economy. I suspect the differences between
China
> and the U.S. are shrinking in both countries.

Yes, but when they launched the one child policy a couple of decades ago,
and for many years after whilst the populace got used to it, the iron
ricebowl was pretty much just that. And the package of spiffy welfare
benefits for the first and only child is still being delivered.

silvasurfa
July 1st 03, 04:54 PM
> wrote in message
...
> "silvasurfa" > wrote:
>
> >> The chinese created a one child policy. They started doing better
> >> economically the very first year. Just THINK of all that resource that
> >> had been going into making new babies being diverted to other places.
> >
> >Yes, but they also have a totalitarian regime that provides everyone with
a
> >crappy job or a crappy pension until the day they die... and they were
also
> >willing to give parents a welfare package deal for their one and only
child
> >that craps all over anything I could imagine a non-communist regime being
> >willing to afford. So yeah, you can go straight to low birthrate/high
> >prosperity and skip the one-off population boom that usually happens
until
> >people get used to prosperity, but the country has to be willing and able
to
> >pay for it, and the only way enough money to pay for expensive social
> >measures like that can be accumulated in a country without much economic
> >infrastructure is to socialise practically everything.
>
>
> Didn't watch the special last year of China, did you? Your response flies
in
> the face of facts. There are no guaranteed jobs in China anymore, no
> guaranteed pensions except for the rich (read influential party members),
riots
> in towns where major industries have closed, continuing corruption of
> government at many levels, and a cadre of economists calling many of the
shots.
> China learned from the collapse of the Soviet Union and from Nixon's
visits
> showing how to develop the economy. I suspect the differences between
China
> and the U.S. are shrinking in both countries.

Yes, but when they launched the one child policy a couple of decades ago,
and for many years after whilst the populace got used to it, the iron
ricebowl was pretty much just that. And the package of spiffy welfare
benefits for the first and only child is still being delivered.

silvasurfa
July 1st 03, 05:18 PM
"Edgar S." > wrote in message
om...

> The statement was: "They won't stop breeding like rabbits until they
> have an economy that is developed"
>
> I stated the Chinese had reduced population growth, but didn't have a
> developed economy first.
>
> > they also have a totalitarian regime that
>
> Ok...I'm certainly not going to try to justify the entire nation of
> China rite here this instant. Just disprove the erronious statement
> that economic development HAS to come first.
>
> shame on your lazy and inaccurate reasoning skills.
>
>

They did have a developed economy... just not a capitalist one.

silvasurfa
July 1st 03, 05:18 PM
"Edgar S." > wrote in message
om...

> The statement was: "They won't stop breeding like rabbits until they
> have an economy that is developed"
>
> I stated the Chinese had reduced population growth, but didn't have a
> developed economy first.
>
> > they also have a totalitarian regime that
>
> Ok...I'm certainly not going to try to justify the entire nation of
> China rite here this instant. Just disprove the erronious statement
> that economic development HAS to come first.
>
> shame on your lazy and inaccurate reasoning skills.
>
>

They did have a developed economy... just not a capitalist one.

Edgar S.
July 1st 03, 08:31 PM
IleneB > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Edgar S.
> > wrote:
>
> > The chinese created a one child policy
>
>
> Most societies wouldn't tolerate


Again, out of the scope of the statement. HOW they accomplish it was
not the question.

People "tolerate" reamarkable things when they HAVE to.


forcible abortion/sterilization and
> widespread female infanticide. Well, two out of three, anyway.
>
> Ilene B

Edgar S.
July 1st 03, 08:31 PM
IleneB > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Edgar S.
> > wrote:
>
> > The chinese created a one child policy
>
>
> Most societies wouldn't tolerate


Again, out of the scope of the statement. HOW they accomplish it was
not the question.

People "tolerate" reamarkable things when they HAVE to.


forcible abortion/sterilization and
> widespread female infanticide. Well, two out of three, anyway.
>
> Ilene B

IleneB
July 2nd 03, 03:50 PM
In article >, Edgar S.
> wrote:

> People "tolerate" reamarkable things when they HAVE to.

Well, yes, of course. I just think it's unlikely that the Chinese
method of enforcing one-child policy is likely to be (excuse the
expression) reproduced in too many places.

Ilene B

IleneB
July 2nd 03, 03:50 PM
In article >, Edgar S.
> wrote:

> People "tolerate" reamarkable things when they HAVE to.

Well, yes, of course. I just think it's unlikely that the Chinese
method of enforcing one-child policy is likely to be (excuse the
expression) reproduced in too many places.

Ilene B

Edgar S.
July 2nd 03, 06:28 PM
IleneB > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Edgar S.
> > wrote:
>
> > People "tolerate" reamarkable things when they HAVE to.
>
> Well, yes, of course. I just think it's unlikely that the Chinese
> method of enforcing one-child policy is likely to be (excuse the
> expression) reproduced in too many places.
>
> Ilene B

Obviously, you are correct. One way or another, the world has a way of
regulating population.

Overpopulation is a self correcting problem. Things get TOO out of
hand, and something WILL happen: be it war, plague, or intentionally
biting the bullet for a few generations to intentionally reduce
population.

I figure it's our choice.

Edgar S.
July 2nd 03, 06:28 PM
IleneB > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Edgar S.
> > wrote:
>
> > People "tolerate" reamarkable things when they HAVE to.
>
> Well, yes, of course. I just think it's unlikely that the Chinese
> method of enforcing one-child policy is likely to be (excuse the
> expression) reproduced in too many places.
>
> Ilene B

Obviously, you are correct. One way or another, the world has a way of
regulating population.

Overpopulation is a self correcting problem. Things get TOO out of
hand, and something WILL happen: be it war, plague, or intentionally
biting the bullet for a few generations to intentionally reduce
population.

I figure it's our choice.

Albert Wagner
July 2nd 03, 10:45 PM
On 3 Jul 2003 01:47:18 GMT
(Frank White) wrote:
<snip>
> The long term social implications of China's one child policy -
> which has resulted in a mainly male generation used to being
> pampered by parents and grandparents as the sole scion of the
> family - is going to be VERY interesting to watch over the next
> few decades...
>

Not only are there no siblings; in the next generation there are no
uncles, aunts or cousins.

Albert Wagner
July 2nd 03, 10:45 PM
On 3 Jul 2003 01:47:18 GMT
(Frank White) wrote:
<snip>
> The long term social implications of China's one child policy -
> which has resulted in a mainly male generation used to being
> pampered by parents and grandparents as the sole scion of the
> family - is going to be VERY interesting to watch over the next
> few decades...
>

Not only are there no siblings; in the next generation there are no
uncles, aunts or cousins.

Frank White
July 3rd 03, 03:47 AM
In article >,
says...
>
>In article >, Edgar S.
> wrote:
>
>> The chinese created a one child policy
>
>
>Most societies wouldn't tolerate forcible abortion/sterilization and
>widespread female infanticide. Well, two out of three, anyway.
>
>Ilene B

The long term social implications of China's one child policy -
which has resulted in a mainly male generation used to being
pampered by parents and grandparents as the sole scion of the
family - is going to be VERY interesting to watch over the next
few decades...

FW

Frank White
July 3rd 03, 03:47 AM
In article >,
says...
>
>In article >, Edgar S.
> wrote:
>
>> The chinese created a one child policy
>
>
>Most societies wouldn't tolerate forcible abortion/sterilization and
>widespread female infanticide. Well, two out of three, anyway.
>
>Ilene B

The long term social implications of China's one child policy -
which has resulted in a mainly male generation used to being
pampered by parents and grandparents as the sole scion of the
family - is going to be VERY interesting to watch over the next
few decades...

FW

IleneB
July 3rd 03, 04:37 AM
In article >, Edgar S.
> wrote:

> Things get TOO out of
> hand, and something WILL happen: be it war, plague, or intentionally
> biting the bullet


Well, it already is, in many places (and the well-offs' countries are
running on empty in resource over-use). The cost in pain and suffering
is unlimited if "nature takes its course." It does appear that more
educated people are limiting reproduction dramatically (witness
birthrates in Europe and among higher education in U.S.) and many are
skipping it entirely. An improvement in women's status and education
has been the only consistent marker for lower birthrates anywhere, not
to mention health status of families, etc.

Ilene B

IleneB
July 3rd 03, 04:37 AM
In article >, Edgar S.
> wrote:

> Things get TOO out of
> hand, and something WILL happen: be it war, plague, or intentionally
> biting the bullet


Well, it already is, in many places (and the well-offs' countries are
running on empty in resource over-use). The cost in pain and suffering
is unlimited if "nature takes its course." It does appear that more
educated people are limiting reproduction dramatically (witness
birthrates in Europe and among higher education in U.S.) and many are
skipping it entirely. An improvement in women's status and education
has been the only consistent marker for lower birthrates anywhere, not
to mention health status of families, etc.

Ilene B

Edgar S.
July 3rd 03, 08:10 AM
IleneB > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Edgar S.
> > wrote:
>
> > Things get TOO out of
> > hand, and something WILL happen: be it war, plague, or intentionally
> > biting the bullet
>
>
> Well, it already is, in many places (and the well-offs' countries are
> running on empty in resource over-use). The cost in pain and suffering
> is unlimited if "nature takes its course." It does appear that more
> educated people are limiting reproduction dramatically (witness
> birthrates in Europe and among higher education in U.S.) and many are
> skipping it entirely. An improvement in women's status and education
> has been the only consistent marker for lower birthrates anywhere

Again...ur putting the cart before the horse. In China, they
definitely cut the birthrate. As a result, pple began to have more
resources and live better the very next year.


, not
> to mention health status of families, etc.
>
> Ilene B

Edgar S.
July 3rd 03, 08:10 AM
IleneB > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Edgar S.
> > wrote:
>
> > Things get TOO out of
> > hand, and something WILL happen: be it war, plague, or intentionally
> > biting the bullet
>
>
> Well, it already is, in many places (and the well-offs' countries are
> running on empty in resource over-use). The cost in pain and suffering
> is unlimited if "nature takes its course." It does appear that more
> educated people are limiting reproduction dramatically (witness
> birthrates in Europe and among higher education in U.S.) and many are
> skipping it entirely. An improvement in women's status and education
> has been the only consistent marker for lower birthrates anywhere

Again...ur putting the cart before the horse. In China, they
definitely cut the birthrate. As a result, pple began to have more
resources and live better the very next year.


, not
> to mention health status of families, etc.
>
> Ilene B

IleneB
July 3rd 03, 05:29 PM
In article >, Pat Meadows
> wrote:

> I'm an only child. It's not good, you wind up
> having NO family when you have outlived the older
> generation.

Most (U.S.) couples, if they have kids at all, have no more than two.
Extrapolate that, and you have very little extended or future family
for anyone. For instance, I have one sister. I have no kids by choice.
My sister has two grown sons. They have no cousins. Their father
abandoned them. Their aunt (me) is ****poor as a relative- I don't seem
to "get" family connections at all. And even people who are more family
oriented, two kids per couple doesn't make for much connection. People
don't tend to stay in the same area if they're ambitious or educated,
and that sibling or few cousins could be all over the country or the
world.

Which is my way of saying that I think we all need (I certainly need)
to find ways of being/feeling connected without breeding or being
related to those who have reproduced. Community. Friends. Joining
things. Belonging in a larger sense. And after all, family is one big
(or small) genetic blind date with wildly varying results and
satisfactions.

I'm not very far along in my own thinking or acting about how to
accomplish the above. But genetic family is a diminishing proposition,
and a losing one for many of us.

llene B

IleneB
July 3rd 03, 05:29 PM
In article >, Pat Meadows
> wrote:

> I'm an only child. It's not good, you wind up
> having NO family when you have outlived the older
> generation.

Most (U.S.) couples, if they have kids at all, have no more than two.
Extrapolate that, and you have very little extended or future family
for anyone. For instance, I have one sister. I have no kids by choice.
My sister has two grown sons. They have no cousins. Their father
abandoned them. Their aunt (me) is ****poor as a relative- I don't seem
to "get" family connections at all. And even people who are more family
oriented, two kids per couple doesn't make for much connection. People
don't tend to stay in the same area if they're ambitious or educated,
and that sibling or few cousins could be all over the country or the
world.

Which is my way of saying that I think we all need (I certainly need)
to find ways of being/feeling connected without breeding or being
related to those who have reproduced. Community. Friends. Joining
things. Belonging in a larger sense. And after all, family is one big
(or small) genetic blind date with wildly varying results and
satisfactions.

I'm not very far along in my own thinking or acting about how to
accomplish the above. But genetic family is a diminishing proposition,
and a losing one for many of us.

llene B

Karen Wheless
July 3rd 03, 06:17 PM
> This is the thing that churchgoers have - at least our
> friends here do. It seems hypocritical to go to church for
> the sense of belonging and to meet people only, but I'm
> mulling it in my mind.

I've been thinking about this too. I'm also an only child, not married,
no children, and that "community" effect is much harder to get when
you're not a church goer and don't have family nearby (or at all in my
case). Groups that are centered around other interests seem to be much
less permanent and fall apart quickly, unfortunately.

You would think that as more people grow up with few or no siblings,
moving away from their hometowns, becoming less religious and a certain
number not having children or not marrying, that these kinds of
community social groups would become more prevalent and long standing.
But I don't really see it happening so far.

As far as being an only child - I see good things and bad things about
it. Growing up, it didn't really bother me that much - there were times
I would have liked a sibling, but I had plenty of friends and I was
always happy with solitary pursuits. And I think it made me closer to
my parents in some ways, I was always considered one of the grown-ups
instead of being shuttled off to be with "the children", as I see in
many other families. But I miss having siblings as an adult. Even if
they didn't live nearby, it's a connection that is hard to replace even
with good friends (who understandably put their own families before
their friends).

Karen



--
---
Books for Sale!
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze234sc/pages/booksforsale.html

Karen Wheless
July 3rd 03, 06:17 PM
> This is the thing that churchgoers have - at least our
> friends here do. It seems hypocritical to go to church for
> the sense of belonging and to meet people only, but I'm
> mulling it in my mind.

I've been thinking about this too. I'm also an only child, not married,
no children, and that "community" effect is much harder to get when
you're not a church goer and don't have family nearby (or at all in my
case). Groups that are centered around other interests seem to be much
less permanent and fall apart quickly, unfortunately.

You would think that as more people grow up with few or no siblings,
moving away from their hometowns, becoming less religious and a certain
number not having children or not marrying, that these kinds of
community social groups would become more prevalent and long standing.
But I don't really see it happening so far.

As far as being an only child - I see good things and bad things about
it. Growing up, it didn't really bother me that much - there were times
I would have liked a sibling, but I had plenty of friends and I was
always happy with solitary pursuits. And I think it made me closer to
my parents in some ways, I was always considered one of the grown-ups
instead of being shuttled off to be with "the children", as I see in
many other families. But I miss having siblings as an adult. Even if
they didn't live nearby, it's a connection that is hard to replace even
with good friends (who understandably put their own families before
their friends).

Karen



--
---
Books for Sale!
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze234sc/pages/booksforsale.html

Elizabeth
July 3rd 03, 06:46 PM
> I've been thinking about this too. I'm also an only child, not married,
> no children, and that "community" effect is much harder to get when
> you're not a church goer and don't have family nearby (or at all in my
> case). Groups that are centered around other interests seem to be much
> less permanent and fall apart quickly, unfortunately.
>

My grandmother moved to a senior citizens apartment complex (low income)
and found a lot of friends there. They all seemed to help each other and
local churches often helped out with shopping trips and monthly birthday
parties. Just recently my aunt moved to a lovely seniors condo near Bowie,
Maryland. She loves it but it was quite expensive. She loves having no
worries about house maintenance. She will be 95 in August and is in very
good shape.

EBBY

Elizabeth
July 3rd 03, 06:46 PM
> I've been thinking about this too. I'm also an only child, not married,
> no children, and that "community" effect is much harder to get when
> you're not a church goer and don't have family nearby (or at all in my
> case). Groups that are centered around other interests seem to be much
> less permanent and fall apart quickly, unfortunately.
>

My grandmother moved to a senior citizens apartment complex (low income)
and found a lot of friends there. They all seemed to help each other and
local churches often helped out with shopping trips and monthly birthday
parties. Just recently my aunt moved to a lovely seniors condo near Bowie,
Maryland. She loves it but it was quite expensive. She loves having no
worries about house maintenance. She will be 95 in August and is in very
good shape.

EBBY

Chloe
July 3rd 03, 08:21 PM
"IleneB" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Pat Meadows
> > wrote:
>
> > I'm an only child. It's not good, you wind up
> > having NO family when you have outlived the older
> > generation.
>
> Most (U.S.) couples, if they have kids at all, have no more than two.
> Extrapolate that, and you have very little extended or future family
> for anyone. For instance, I have one sister. I have no kids by choice.
> My sister has two grown sons. They have no cousins. Their father
> abandoned them. Their aunt (me) is ****poor as a relative- I don't seem
> to "get" family connections at all. And even people who are more family
> oriented, two kids per couple doesn't make for much connection. People
> don't tend to stay in the same area if they're ambitious or educated,
> and that sibling or few cousins could be all over the country or the
> world.
>
> Which is my way of saying that I think we all need (I certainly need)
> to find ways of being/feeling connected without breeding or being
> related to those who have reproduced. Community. Friends. Joining
> things. Belonging in a larger sense. And after all, family is one big
> (or small) genetic blind date with wildly varying results and
> satisfactions.
>
> I'm not very far along in my own thinking or acting about how to
> accomplish the above. But genetic family is a diminishing proposition,
> and a losing one for many of us.
>
> llene B

Thoughtful post. I'm an only child, too, with the added factor of being born
to parents who were the youngest of their siblings and were in their early
40s when I came along. I've spent my whole life watching my older relatives
gradually die off. The few first cousins I have are a lot older than I am
and were living far away all the time I was growing up. IOW, I'm on cordial
terms but I barely know them.

I absolutely agree with you about finding ways to be connected other than by
blood, genetics, or whatever you want to call it. So far, though, I've
observed no substitute for family at the point a person reaches a crisis
point of aging or ill health. This is not to say that one can always trust
one's relatives when one has to depend on someone else, but it is to say
that it can be very difficult to find a sufficiently trustworthy nonrelative
who will voluntarily take on the hard, depressing work of dealing with a
person's final illness, disposing of their assets, and settling their
estate. At any rate, in my little slice of society it's a blood relative who
gets the call to come thousands of miles to check Great-Aunt Sally (whom she
hasn't seen in maybe 20 years) into a nursing home, straighten out the
checkbook and start clearing out the house.

If you have any thoughts on this that don't involve the "hire a lawyer you
trust" oxymoron I'd love to hear them. There's a good chance I will leave
this world entirely alone, although both my husband's grandfathers did see
their 90th birthdays with clear minds and reasonable good health.

Chloe
July 3rd 03, 08:21 PM
"IleneB" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Pat Meadows
> > wrote:
>
> > I'm an only child. It's not good, you wind up
> > having NO family when you have outlived the older
> > generation.
>
> Most (U.S.) couples, if they have kids at all, have no more than two.
> Extrapolate that, and you have very little extended or future family
> for anyone. For instance, I have one sister. I have no kids by choice.
> My sister has two grown sons. They have no cousins. Their father
> abandoned them. Their aunt (me) is ****poor as a relative- I don't seem
> to "get" family connections at all. And even people who are more family
> oriented, two kids per couple doesn't make for much connection. People
> don't tend to stay in the same area if they're ambitious or educated,
> and that sibling or few cousins could be all over the country or the
> world.
>
> Which is my way of saying that I think we all need (I certainly need)
> to find ways of being/feeling connected without breeding or being
> related to those who have reproduced. Community. Friends. Joining
> things. Belonging in a larger sense. And after all, family is one big
> (or small) genetic blind date with wildly varying results and
> satisfactions.
>
> I'm not very far along in my own thinking or acting about how to
> accomplish the above. But genetic family is a diminishing proposition,
> and a losing one for many of us.
>
> llene B

Thoughtful post. I'm an only child, too, with the added factor of being born
to parents who were the youngest of their siblings and were in their early
40s when I came along. I've spent my whole life watching my older relatives
gradually die off. The few first cousins I have are a lot older than I am
and were living far away all the time I was growing up. IOW, I'm on cordial
terms but I barely know them.

I absolutely agree with you about finding ways to be connected other than by
blood, genetics, or whatever you want to call it. So far, though, I've
observed no substitute for family at the point a person reaches a crisis
point of aging or ill health. This is not to say that one can always trust
one's relatives when one has to depend on someone else, but it is to say
that it can be very difficult to find a sufficiently trustworthy nonrelative
who will voluntarily take on the hard, depressing work of dealing with a
person's final illness, disposing of their assets, and settling their
estate. At any rate, in my little slice of society it's a blood relative who
gets the call to come thousands of miles to check Great-Aunt Sally (whom she
hasn't seen in maybe 20 years) into a nursing home, straighten out the
checkbook and start clearing out the house.

If you have any thoughts on this that don't involve the "hire a lawyer you
trust" oxymoron I'd love to hear them. There's a good chance I will leave
this world entirely alone, although both my husband's grandfathers did see
their 90th birthdays with clear minds and reasonable good health.

Elizabeth
July 3rd 03, 08:55 PM
"Pat Meadows" > wrote in message >
> When we get to be ancient crones (well...more ancient) maybe
> a bunch of us here could team up and live in a huge
> Victorian house. :)
>

http://www.seniorresource.com/house.htm
The site talks about housing options for seniors including shared housing.

EBBY

Elizabeth
July 3rd 03, 08:55 PM
"Pat Meadows" > wrote in message >
> When we get to be ancient crones (well...more ancient) maybe
> a bunch of us here could team up and live in a huge
> Victorian house. :)
>

http://www.seniorresource.com/house.htm
The site talks about housing options for seniors including shared housing.

EBBY

Chloe
July 3rd 03, 09:41 PM
"Pat Meadows" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:21:02 GMT, "Chloe"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >If you have any thoughts on this that don't involve the "hire a lawyer
you
> >trust" oxymoron I'd love to hear them. There's a good chance I will leave
> >this world entirely alone, although both my husband's grandfathers did
see
> >their 90th birthdays with clear minds and reasonable good health.
> >
>
> When we get to be ancient crones (well...more ancient) maybe
> a bunch of us here could team up and live in a huge
> Victorian house. :)
>
> Pat

Good idea. It's already happening in a lot of places, and has been for a
while, where a slighly less elderly woman with a big old house takes in
older "roomers." Or the nifty mostly-female nonprofit organization formed to
adaptively reuse an old school building for senior condo/apartments in an
urban neighborhood near where I live.

BTW, a think a lot of people don't realize that the definition of crone is
simply a woman who is past her reproductive years. (Bring it on, I say <g>.)

I had an acquaintance in the town I moved from who actually had her surname
legally changed to Crone.

Chloe
July 3rd 03, 09:41 PM
"Pat Meadows" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 18:21:02 GMT, "Chloe"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >If you have any thoughts on this that don't involve the "hire a lawyer
you
> >trust" oxymoron I'd love to hear them. There's a good chance I will leave
> >this world entirely alone, although both my husband's grandfathers did
see
> >their 90th birthdays with clear minds and reasonable good health.
> >
>
> When we get to be ancient crones (well...more ancient) maybe
> a bunch of us here could team up and live in a huge
> Victorian house. :)
>
> Pat

Good idea. It's already happening in a lot of places, and has been for a
while, where a slighly less elderly woman with a big old house takes in
older "roomers." Or the nifty mostly-female nonprofit organization formed to
adaptively reuse an old school building for senior condo/apartments in an
urban neighborhood near where I live.

BTW, a think a lot of people don't realize that the definition of crone is
simply a woman who is past her reproductive years. (Bring it on, I say <g>.)

I had an acquaintance in the town I moved from who actually had her surname
legally changed to Crone.

silvasurfa
July 4th 03, 12:35 PM
"IleneB" > wrote in message
...

> Which is my way of saying that I think we all need (I certainly need)
> to find ways of being/feeling connected without breeding or being
> related to those who have reproduced. Community. Friends. Joining
> things. Belonging in a larger sense. And after all, family is one big
> (or small) genetic blind date with wildly varying results and
> satisfactions.
>
> I'm not very far along in my own thinking or acting about how to
> accomplish the above. But genetic family is a diminishing proposition,
> and a losing one for many of us.
>
> llene B

You could go with the Australian Aboriginal kinship model, where you get
given a skin name at birth and that automatically defines your relationship
to everyone else... thus from the moment you are born you have many parents,
children, cousins, grandparents, children etc. Thus it doesn't matter
whether you have kids or not, you are automatically fitted into a role
within your tribe. This is good, in that you will always have a place within
the kinship system, but it is bad for precisely the same reason... there is
no electing not to have children because even if you don't biologically
produce kids, you are credited with that relationship with a proportion of
the population anyway. There is no-one with whom you do not have a
well-defined family relationship.

silvasurfa
July 4th 03, 12:35 PM
"IleneB" > wrote in message
...

> Which is my way of saying that I think we all need (I certainly need)
> to find ways of being/feeling connected without breeding or being
> related to those who have reproduced. Community. Friends. Joining
> things. Belonging in a larger sense. And after all, family is one big
> (or small) genetic blind date with wildly varying results and
> satisfactions.
>
> I'm not very far along in my own thinking or acting about how to
> accomplish the above. But genetic family is a diminishing proposition,
> and a losing one for many of us.
>
> llene B

You could go with the Australian Aboriginal kinship model, where you get
given a skin name at birth and that automatically defines your relationship
to everyone else... thus from the moment you are born you have many parents,
children, cousins, grandparents, children etc. Thus it doesn't matter
whether you have kids or not, you are automatically fitted into a role
within your tribe. This is good, in that you will always have a place within
the kinship system, but it is bad for precisely the same reason... there is
no electing not to have children because even if you don't biologically
produce kids, you are credited with that relationship with a proportion of
the population anyway. There is no-one with whom you do not have a
well-defined family relationship.

Albert Wagner
July 4th 03, 02:59 PM
On 4 Jul 2003 11:16:57 -0700
(Edgar S.) wrote:
<snip>
> They shouldn't. Gov should not try to force business to do things.
> Eventually, competition will either force them out of business, or
> force them to go somewhere else to make their required profit margin.
<snip>

Tell me about this magical thing: unrestrained competition. Do you have
any proof that laissez faire capitalism does not ultimately self
destruct? Why shouldn't government enforce regulations against abuses.
Or is your premise that profit is, and should be, the only motive
driving mankind?

Albert Wagner
July 4th 03, 02:59 PM
On 4 Jul 2003 11:16:57 -0700
(Edgar S.) wrote:
<snip>
> They shouldn't. Gov should not try to force business to do things.
> Eventually, competition will either force them out of business, or
> force them to go somewhere else to make their required profit margin.
<snip>

Tell me about this magical thing: unrestrained competition. Do you have
any proof that laissez faire capitalism does not ultimately self
destruct? Why shouldn't government enforce regulations against abuses.
Or is your premise that profit is, and should be, the only motive
driving mankind?

July 4th 03, 03:57 PM
In article >,
(Gary) wrote:

> Ok can someone tell me why this is such an issue? Why should a
> company be forced to pay higher wages when lower cost help is
> available.

The issue isn't wages. It's corporate national identity. Why in the
world should any company "based" in the US but really benefitting
foreign nations receive special tax treatment (i.e., importing their
manufactured goods into the US without having to pay the same tariffs
that foreign-based manufacturers of the same items have to pay and
other favorable tax status domestic producers enjoy)?

Why should a "domestic" corporation which has all/most of its offices
offshore, all its production facilities offshore, conducts all its
banking offshore; why should such a "domestic" corporation enjoy the
free use of a massive, very expensive infrastructure into which
construction and maintenance it contributed/contributes little or
nothing, neither directly through corporate taxes nor indirectly
through payroll taxes?

There should be an obligation to support the nation that supports the
existence of the company. Those who don't see that will eventually wind
up sending their sons to die in wars for those companies. Free marketers
will claim a victory, because hey! It's a job, isn't it?

July 4th 03, 03:57 PM
In article >,
(Gary) wrote:

> Ok can someone tell me why this is such an issue? Why should a
> company be forced to pay higher wages when lower cost help is
> available.

The issue isn't wages. It's corporate national identity. Why in the
world should any company "based" in the US but really benefitting
foreign nations receive special tax treatment (i.e., importing their
manufactured goods into the US without having to pay the same tariffs
that foreign-based manufacturers of the same items have to pay and
other favorable tax status domestic producers enjoy)?

Why should a "domestic" corporation which has all/most of its offices
offshore, all its production facilities offshore, conducts all its
banking offshore; why should such a "domestic" corporation enjoy the
free use of a massive, very expensive infrastructure into which
construction and maintenance it contributed/contributes little or
nothing, neither directly through corporate taxes nor indirectly
through payroll taxes?

There should be an obligation to support the nation that supports the
existence of the company. Those who don't see that will eventually wind
up sending their sons to die in wars for those companies. Free marketers
will claim a victory, because hey! It's a job, isn't it?

JoelnCaryn
July 4th 03, 05:33 PM
>>So what do you want, high wages or high prices. They only way to have
>>lower prices is to stop paying high salaries to american workers.
>>
>
>Of course what will ultimately happen is that the standard
>of living in the USA (UK, Canada, Western Europe) will
>eventually be dragged down to that of the countries with the
>lowest standard of living.
>
>*OR* ultimately, the developed countries will wake up and
>will enforce laws that restore the conditions under which
>capitalism thrived: that the labor was drawn from the same
>economic universe in which the goods were sold.

Or we'll end up with a world government with a rule of law enforced evenly
everywhere -- the problem here is partly that the cost of doing business is
more expensive in the US because we have labor and environmental laws.

Or we'll end up with a de facto world government where all the decisions are
made by corporations.

Or we'll stop giving subsidies to corporations based in the US (and therefore
expecting subsidies for doing business from US taxpayers) but exporting most of
their jobs overseas, and place stricter controls on their activities.

The third one I mention is least likely, I I think.

JoelnCaryn
July 4th 03, 05:33 PM
>>So what do you want, high wages or high prices. They only way to have
>>lower prices is to stop paying high salaries to american workers.
>>
>
>Of course what will ultimately happen is that the standard
>of living in the USA (UK, Canada, Western Europe) will
>eventually be dragged down to that of the countries with the
>lowest standard of living.
>
>*OR* ultimately, the developed countries will wake up and
>will enforce laws that restore the conditions under which
>capitalism thrived: that the labor was drawn from the same
>economic universe in which the goods were sold.

Or we'll end up with a world government with a rule of law enforced evenly
everywhere -- the problem here is partly that the cost of doing business is
more expensive in the US because we have labor and environmental laws.

Or we'll end up with a de facto world government where all the decisions are
made by corporations.

Or we'll stop giving subsidies to corporations based in the US (and therefore
expecting subsidies for doing business from US taxpayers) but exporting most of
their jobs overseas, and place stricter controls on their activities.

The third one I mention is least likely, I I think.

Albert Wagner
July 4th 03, 07:22 PM
On 4 Jul 2003 16:12:41 -0700
(Edgar S.) wrote:
<snip>
> can u translate it for me?

Until you learn to spell and punctuate it would do you no good.

Albert Wagner
July 4th 03, 07:22 PM
On 4 Jul 2003 16:12:41 -0700
(Edgar S.) wrote:
<snip>
> can u translate it for me?

Until you learn to spell and punctuate it would do you no good.

Albert Wagner
July 4th 03, 07:23 PM
On 4 Jul 2003 16:11:56 -0700
(Edgar S.) wrote:
<snip>
> Whoa. Call me retarded, but I can't ingest a sentence that long. ever
> hear of a handly little device called a PERIOD or maybe a new
> paragraph to increase legibility?

LOL. YOU presume to lecture anyone else on legibility?

Albert Wagner
July 4th 03, 07:23 PM
On 4 Jul 2003 16:11:56 -0700
(Edgar S.) wrote:
<snip>
> Whoa. Call me retarded, but I can't ingest a sentence that long. ever
> hear of a handly little device called a PERIOD or maybe a new
> paragraph to increase legibility?

LOL. YOU presume to lecture anyone else on legibility?

Albert Wagner
July 4th 03, 08:02 PM
On 4 Jul 2003 16:29:32 -0700
(Edgar S.) wrote:

I know who you are "Edgar", and I shouldn't respond at all. but this is
just too much bull**** to kick under the rug.
<snip>
> the cost of doing business in the US is more expensive because of
> government.

As well it should be.

> Government spending has doubled since GW came to office.
> Yet millions of jobs have been either forced overseas, or destroyed
> entirely.

Agreed.

>
> Remember that ALL money comes from private industry.

ALL money comes from labor. The profits of private industry are stolen
from the workers.

> Government
> doesn't HAVE any money, nor any way to earn any.

That's easily fixed (easy concept, hard to get passed). Simply make the
government a 50% shareholder in all corporations. After all,
corporations and their capital are useless without the public
infrastructure paid for by the government. Don't think so? Then try to
set up your business in some backwards African nation: there are no
roads so you have to build them, there are no trained workers so you
have to train them, there are no utilities so you have to build them,
etc.,etc. ad nauseum.

> The entire burden of
> the growing government is layed on the shoulders of the remaining
> businesses.

As well it should.

>
> As government breaks more businesses, the burden is being carried by
> fewer and fewer people.

Bull****!

Albert Wagner
July 4th 03, 08:02 PM
On 4 Jul 2003 16:29:32 -0700
(Edgar S.) wrote:

I know who you are "Edgar", and I shouldn't respond at all. but this is
just too much bull**** to kick under the rug.
<snip>
> the cost of doing business in the US is more expensive because of
> government.

As well it should be.

> Government spending has doubled since GW came to office.
> Yet millions of jobs have been either forced overseas, or destroyed
> entirely.

Agreed.

>
> Remember that ALL money comes from private industry.

ALL money comes from labor. The profits of private industry are stolen
from the workers.

> Government
> doesn't HAVE any money, nor any way to earn any.

That's easily fixed (easy concept, hard to get passed). Simply make the
government a 50% shareholder in all corporations. After all,
corporations and their capital are useless without the public
infrastructure paid for by the government. Don't think so? Then try to
set up your business in some backwards African nation: there are no
roads so you have to build them, there are no trained workers so you
have to train them, there are no utilities so you have to build them,
etc.,etc. ad nauseum.

> The entire burden of
> the growing government is layed on the shoulders of the remaining
> businesses.

As well it should.

>
> As government breaks more businesses, the burden is being carried by
> fewer and fewer people.

Bull****!

Edgar S.
July 4th 03, 08:12 PM
"silvasurfa" > wrote in message >...
> "IleneB" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Which is my way of saying that I think we all need (I certainly need)
> > to find ways of being/feeling connected without breeding or being
> > related to those who have reproduced. Community. Friends. Joining
> > things. Belonging in a larger sense. And after all, family is one big
> > (or small) genetic blind date with wildly varying results and
> > satisfactions.
> >
> > I'm not very far along in my own thinking or acting about how to
> > accomplish the above. But genetic family is a diminishing proposition,
> > and a losing one for many of us.
> >
> > llene B
>
> You could go with the Australian Aboriginal kinship model, where you get
> given a skin name at birth and that automatically defines your relationship
> to everyone else... thus from the moment you are born you have many parents,
> children, cousins, grandparents, children etc. Thus it doesn't matter
> whether you have kids or not, you are automatically fitted into a role
> within your tribe. This is good, in that you will always have a place within
> the kinship system, but it is bad for precisely the same reason... there is
> no electing not to have children because even if you don't biologically
> produce kids, you are credited with that relationship with a proportion of
> the population anyway. There is no-one with whom you do not have a
> well-defined family relationship.

What u just described is the natural human family system: The extended
family. It's how humans evolved to live. The nuclear family is a
fractured, inadequate truncated group that forever struggles with
roles and identity.

Now, that's just the NUCLEAR family of mom, dad, and a few kids. Not
even going into the can of worms that is single "parenting".

We are not meant to wear too many "hats" that is, to assume the duties
that are supposed to be spread out among up to 20 people.
It will mean trouble sooner or later when one man and one woman have
to also fill the roles of all the aunts, uncles, older siblings,
grandparents, and adult friends.

Edgar S.
July 4th 03, 08:12 PM
"silvasurfa" > wrote in message >...
> "IleneB" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Which is my way of saying that I think we all need (I certainly need)
> > to find ways of being/feeling connected without breeding or being
> > related to those who have reproduced. Community. Friends. Joining
> > things. Belonging in a larger sense. And after all, family is one big
> > (or small) genetic blind date with wildly varying results and
> > satisfactions.
> >
> > I'm not very far along in my own thinking or acting about how to
> > accomplish the above. But genetic family is a diminishing proposition,
> > and a losing one for many of us.
> >
> > llene B
>
> You could go with the Australian Aboriginal kinship model, where you get
> given a skin name at birth and that automatically defines your relationship
> to everyone else... thus from the moment you are born you have many parents,
> children, cousins, grandparents, children etc. Thus it doesn't matter
> whether you have kids or not, you are automatically fitted into a role
> within your tribe. This is good, in that you will always have a place within
> the kinship system, but it is bad for precisely the same reason... there is
> no electing not to have children because even if you don't biologically
> produce kids, you are credited with that relationship with a proportion of
> the population anyway. There is no-one with whom you do not have a
> well-defined family relationship.

What u just described is the natural human family system: The extended
family. It's how humans evolved to live. The nuclear family is a
fractured, inadequate truncated group that forever struggles with
roles and identity.

Now, that's just the NUCLEAR family of mom, dad, and a few kids. Not
even going into the can of worms that is single "parenting".

We are not meant to wear too many "hats" that is, to assume the duties
that are supposed to be spread out among up to 20 people.
It will mean trouble sooner or later when one man and one woman have
to also fill the roles of all the aunts, uncles, older siblings,
grandparents, and adult friends.

Edgar S.
July 4th 03, 08:16 PM
(Gary) wrote in message >...
> Ok can someone tell me why this is such an issue? Why should a company
> be forced to pay higher wages when lower cost help is available.

They shouldn't. Gov should not try to force business to do things.
Eventually, competition will either force them out of business, or
force them to go somewhere else to make their required profit margin.


> Unions have tried to drive into peoples minds they have a right to
> work and be the best paid. Buyers on the other hand want to shop for
> the cheapest prices.

> So what do you want, high wages or high prices. They only way to have
> lower prices is to stop paying high salaries to american workers.

Yes.



> wrote in message >...
> > Fortune tuned in to offshore job loss.
> >
> > > <http://www.fortune.com/fortune/careers/articles/0,15114,457284,00.html>

Edgar S.
July 4th 03, 08:16 PM
(Gary) wrote in message >...
> Ok can someone tell me why this is such an issue? Why should a company
> be forced to pay higher wages when lower cost help is available.

They shouldn't. Gov should not try to force business to do things.
Eventually, competition will either force them out of business, or
force them to go somewhere else to make their required profit margin.


> Unions have tried to drive into peoples minds they have a right to
> work and be the best paid. Buyers on the other hand want to shop for
> the cheapest prices.

> So what do you want, high wages or high prices. They only way to have
> lower prices is to stop paying high salaries to american workers.

Yes.



> wrote in message >...
> > Fortune tuned in to offshore job loss.
> >
> > > <http://www.fortune.com/fortune/careers/articles/0,15114,457284,00.html>

Albert Wagner
July 4th 03, 10:22 PM
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:37:55 GMT
wrote:

> Albert Wagner > wrote:
>
> >> Remember that ALL money comes from private industry.
> >
> >ALL money comes from labor. The profits of private industry are
> >stolen from the workers.
>
> To use your words, bull****.
>
> Profits come from intellect and labor. If a laborer has no intellect,
> he has no profit. If an intellectual provides no labor, he has no
> profit.
>
> The profits of private industry are from using both intellect and
> labor.

If I understand you correctly we don't disagree. I was using "labor" to
mean the labor of both mind and body. I do NOT use the term in the
sense that some economists do, however, to mean labor that produces a
product, as well as management that simply functions as a proxy for the
capitalist. There is no market for the product of management except
capitalists. The product produced by labor is the only thing that can
be sold in the marketplace. Where else could the salaries of management
and the profits of the capitalist come from?

Albert Wagner
July 4th 03, 10:22 PM
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:37:55 GMT
wrote:

> Albert Wagner > wrote:
>
> >> Remember that ALL money comes from private industry.
> >
> >ALL money comes from labor. The profits of private industry are
> >stolen from the workers.
>
> To use your words, bull****.
>
> Profits come from intellect and labor. If a laborer has no intellect,
> he has no profit. If an intellectual provides no labor, he has no
> profit.
>
> The profits of private industry are from using both intellect and
> labor.

If I understand you correctly we don't disagree. I was using "labor" to
mean the labor of both mind and body. I do NOT use the term in the
sense that some economists do, however, to mean labor that produces a
product, as well as management that simply functions as a proxy for the
capitalist. There is no market for the product of management except
capitalists. The product produced by labor is the only thing that can
be sold in the marketplace. Where else could the salaries of management
and the profits of the capitalist come from?

Albert Wagner
July 4th 03, 11:38 PM
On 05 Jul 2003 02:56:15 GMT
(JoelnCaryn) wrote:
<snip>
> >We were simply following suit. You ranked the third yourself.
>
> Read it again. I ranked "likelihood", not "desireability".

Picky.

>
> I'm not convinced that "desireability" is highest in the case where we
> protect the market. That limits the number of goods and services that
> can be sold, which limits profits, which limits the amount a
> government intent on altruism can collect in taxes.

Can I assume that this paragraph is still refering to the third of your
options, where you said: "Or we'll stop giving subsidies to corporations
based in the US (and therefore expecting subsidies for doing business
from US taxpayers) but exporting most of their jobs overseas, and place
stricter controls on their activities."

If so, then I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Number
three made no mention protecting the market or a government intent on
altruism. It spoke only of stopping subsidies and stricter controls on
corporations based in the US but exporting jobs.

Albert Wagner
July 4th 03, 11:38 PM
On 05 Jul 2003 02:56:15 GMT
(JoelnCaryn) wrote:
<snip>
> >We were simply following suit. You ranked the third yourself.
>
> Read it again. I ranked "likelihood", not "desireability".

Picky.

>
> I'm not convinced that "desireability" is highest in the case where we
> protect the market. That limits the number of goods and services that
> can be sold, which limits profits, which limits the amount a
> government intent on altruism can collect in taxes.

Can I assume that this paragraph is still refering to the third of your
options, where you said: "Or we'll stop giving subsidies to corporations
based in the US (and therefore expecting subsidies for doing business
from US taxpayers) but exporting most of their jobs overseas, and place
stricter controls on their activities."

If so, then I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Number
three made no mention protecting the market or a government intent on
altruism. It spoke only of stopping subsidies and stricter controls on
corporations based in the US but exporting jobs.

JoelnCaryn
July 5th 03, 12:29 AM
>>Or we'll end up with a world government with a rule of law enforced evenly
>>everywhere -- the problem here is partly that the cost of doing business is
>>more expensive in the US because we have labor and environmental laws.
>>
>>Or we'll end up with a de facto world government where all the decisions are
>>made by corporations.
>
>This is the most likely scenario, IMHO. I'd say we already
>have this in the USA. (Others would disagree, of course.)
>
>>Or we'll stop giving subsidies to corporations based in the US (and
>therefore
>>expecting subsidies for doing business from US taxpayers) but exporting most
>of
>>their jobs overseas, and place stricter controls on their activities.
>>
>>The third one I mention is least likely, I I think.
>
>But the one that's most desirable, IMHO.

Forgive me for wording this this way -- I know it is going to come out sounding
a tad bitchy, and I'm not intending to mean that -- but what, exactly, does
putting them in rank order of desireability to USAians accomplish?

Since the capitalist (welfare liberals included) argument relies on the
existence of a market of people who want to buy any given product, and since
the market for computers and cars and such is much greater overseas than it is
in the US, it isn't surprising at all that the corporations which produce
things like computers and cars want to move the bulk of their operations
overseas, as it reduces shipping costs among other things.

What do USAians *need* that someone can manufacture here and sell to us? Well,
housing, food, utilities, education, medical care, and any brand spanking new
technologies. Everything that we *desperately* need we pretty much already
have. So they have to *create the market*, via advertising, as well as create
the product. The only reason anyone needs to sell anything to us is that we
have more money than anyone else, at the moment. If that ceases to be true, no
one will be selling anything to us.

(This is, of course, why funding education and R&D is a Good Idea. And wrt
education the best money right now is in educating the Third World, where they
are so starved for education that they are willing to learn English, and pay
English-speaking instructors to live like kings in Singapore etc., until they
get a critical mass of their *own* instructors.)

JoelnCaryn
July 5th 03, 12:29 AM
>>Or we'll end up with a world government with a rule of law enforced evenly
>>everywhere -- the problem here is partly that the cost of doing business is
>>more expensive in the US because we have labor and environmental laws.
>>
>>Or we'll end up with a de facto world government where all the decisions are
>>made by corporations.
>
>This is the most likely scenario, IMHO. I'd say we already
>have this in the USA. (Others would disagree, of course.)
>
>>Or we'll stop giving subsidies to corporations based in the US (and
>therefore
>>expecting subsidies for doing business from US taxpayers) but exporting most
>of
>>their jobs overseas, and place stricter controls on their activities.
>>
>>The third one I mention is least likely, I I think.
>
>But the one that's most desirable, IMHO.

Forgive me for wording this this way -- I know it is going to come out sounding
a tad bitchy, and I'm not intending to mean that -- but what, exactly, does
putting them in rank order of desireability to USAians accomplish?

Since the capitalist (welfare liberals included) argument relies on the
existence of a market of people who want to buy any given product, and since
the market for computers and cars and such is much greater overseas than it is
in the US, it isn't surprising at all that the corporations which produce
things like computers and cars want to move the bulk of their operations
overseas, as it reduces shipping costs among other things.

What do USAians *need* that someone can manufacture here and sell to us? Well,
housing, food, utilities, education, medical care, and any brand spanking new
technologies. Everything that we *desperately* need we pretty much already
have. So they have to *create the market*, via advertising, as well as create
the product. The only reason anyone needs to sell anything to us is that we
have more money than anyone else, at the moment. If that ceases to be true, no
one will be selling anything to us.

(This is, of course, why funding education and R&D is a Good Idea. And wrt
education the best money right now is in educating the Third World, where they
are so starved for education that they are willing to learn English, and pay
English-speaking instructors to live like kings in Singapore etc., until they
get a critical mass of their *own* instructors.)

Edgar S.
July 5th 03, 01:11 AM
wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Gary) wrote:
>
> > Ok can someone tell me why this is such an issue? Why should a
> > company be forced to pay higher wages when lower cost help is
> > available.
>
> The issue isn't wages.

Says who?

> It's corporate national identity.

I have NO idea what that means.

> Why in the
> world should any company "based" in the US but really benefitting
> foreign nations receive special tax treatment (i.e., importing their
> manufactured goods into the US without having to pay the same tariffs
> that foreign-based manufacturers of the same items have to pay and
> other favorable tax status domestic producers enjoy)?

Whoa. Call me retarded, but I can't ingest a sentence that long. ever
hear of a handly little device called a PERIOD or maybe a new
paragraph to increase legibility?

Edgar S.
July 5th 03, 01:11 AM
wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (Gary) wrote:
>
> > Ok can someone tell me why this is such an issue? Why should a
> > company be forced to pay higher wages when lower cost help is
> > available.
>
> The issue isn't wages.

Says who?

> It's corporate national identity.

I have NO idea what that means.

> Why in the
> world should any company "based" in the US but really benefitting
> foreign nations receive special tax treatment (i.e., importing their
> manufactured goods into the US without having to pay the same tariffs
> that foreign-based manufacturers of the same items have to pay and
> other favorable tax status domestic producers enjoy)?

Whoa. Call me retarded, but I can't ingest a sentence that long. ever
hear of a handly little device called a PERIOD or maybe a new
paragraph to increase legibility?

July 5th 03, 02:37 AM
Albert Wagner > wrote:

>> Remember that ALL money comes from private industry.
>
>ALL money comes from labor. The profits of private industry are stolen
>from the workers.

To use your words, bull****.

Profits come from intellect and labor. If a laborer has no intellect, he has
no profit. If an intellectual provides no labor, he has no profit.

The profits of private industry are from using both intellect and labor.

July 5th 03, 02:37 AM
Albert Wagner > wrote:

>> Remember that ALL money comes from private industry.
>
>ALL money comes from labor. The profits of private industry are stolen
>from the workers.

To use your words, bull****.

Profits come from intellect and labor. If a laborer has no intellect, he has
no profit. If an intellectual provides no labor, he has no profit.

The profits of private industry are from using both intellect and labor.

July 5th 03, 02:39 AM
"Chloe" > wrote:

>ROTFL. Let the games begin.


Ooooh! Fight, fight! :-)

July 5th 03, 02:39 AM
"Chloe" > wrote:

>ROTFL. Let the games begin.


Ooooh! Fight, fight! :-)

root
July 5th 03, 04:30 AM
Albert Wagner > wrote:
>
> That's easily fixed (easy concept, hard to get passed). Simply make the
> government a 50% shareholder in all corporations. After all,
> corporations and their capital are useless without the public
> infrastructure paid for by the government. Don't think so? Then try to
> set up your business in some backwards African nation: there are no
> roads so you have to build them, there are no trained workers so you
> have to train them, there are no utilities so you have to build them,
> etc.,etc. ad nauseum.
>

AW you might find it interesting to connect up to two threads generated
by Someone named Steve Walz. The threads are:
New Hope For The Working Engineer: sci.electronics.repair
and
Democratic Communism: sci.econ

You might find a kindred soul.

root
July 5th 03, 04:30 AM
Albert Wagner > wrote:
>
> That's easily fixed (easy concept, hard to get passed). Simply make the
> government a 50% shareholder in all corporations. After all,
> corporations and their capital are useless without the public
> infrastructure paid for by the government. Don't think so? Then try to
> set up your business in some backwards African nation: there are no
> roads so you have to build them, there are no trained workers so you
> have to train them, there are no utilities so you have to build them,
> etc.,etc. ad nauseum.
>

AW you might find it interesting to connect up to two threads generated
by Someone named Steve Walz. The threads are:
New Hope For The Working Engineer: sci.electronics.repair
and
Democratic Communism: sci.econ

You might find a kindred soul.

linda-renee
July 5th 03, 04:36 AM
"Chloe" > wrote in message

> BTW, a think a lot of people don't realize that the definition of crone is
> simply a woman who is past her reproductive years.

Ouch.

linda-renee
July 5th 03, 04:36 AM
"Chloe" > wrote in message

> BTW, a think a lot of people don't realize that the definition of crone is
> simply a woman who is past her reproductive years.

Ouch.

The Real Bev
July 5th 03, 04:55 AM
linda-renee wrote:
>
> "Chloe" > wrote in message
>
> > BTW, a think a lot of people don't realize that the definition of crone is
> > simply a woman who is past her reproductive years.
>
> Ouch.

Hey, at least we don't have to get our teeth snaggled. And think of all
the money we'll save by not getting those hairy-wart implants.

--
Cheers,
Bev
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All bleeding eventually stops.

The Real Bev
July 5th 03, 04:55 AM
linda-renee wrote:
>
> "Chloe" > wrote in message
>
> > BTW, a think a lot of people don't realize that the definition of crone is
> > simply a woman who is past her reproductive years.
>
> Ouch.

Hey, at least we don't have to get our teeth snaggled. And think of all
the money we'll save by not getting those hairy-wart implants.

--
Cheers,
Bev
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All bleeding eventually stops.

JoelnCaryn
July 5th 03, 04:56 AM
>> Forgive me for wording this this way -- I know it is going to come out
>> sounding a tad bitchy, and I'm not intending to mean that -- but what,
>> exactly, does putting them in rank order of desireability to USAians
>> accomplish?
><snip>
>
>We were simply following suit. You ranked the third yourself.

Read it again. I ranked "likelihood", not "desireability".

I'm not convinced that "desireability" is highest in the case where we protect
the market. That limits the number of goods and services that can be sold,
which limits profits, which limits the amount a government intent on altruism
can collect in taxes.

JoelnCaryn
July 5th 03, 04:56 AM
>> Forgive me for wording this this way -- I know it is going to come out
>> sounding a tad bitchy, and I'm not intending to mean that -- but what,
>> exactly, does putting them in rank order of desireability to USAians
>> accomplish?
><snip>
>
>We were simply following suit. You ranked the third yourself.

Read it again. I ranked "likelihood", not "desireability".

I'm not convinced that "desireability" is highest in the case where we protect
the market. That limits the number of goods and services that can be sold,
which limits profits, which limits the amount a government intent on altruism
can collect in taxes.

JoelnCaryn
July 5th 03, 09:10 AM
>> >We were simply following suit. You ranked the third yourself.
>>
>> Read it again. I ranked "likelihood", not "desireability".
>
>Picky.

Well, yes. I have a specific intent in mind when I write things, and I try to
use words deliberatively not for emotive content but for meaning. Don't you?

>> I'm not convinced that "desireability" is highest in the case where we
>> protect the market. That limits the number of goods and services that
>> can be sold, which limits profits, which limits the amount a
>> government intent on altruism can collect in taxes.
>
>Can I assume that this paragraph is still refering to the third of your
>options, where you said: "Or we'll stop giving subsidies to corporations
>based in the US (and therefore expecting subsidies for doing business
>from US taxpayers) but exporting most of their jobs overseas, and place
>stricter controls on their activities."
>
>If so, then I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Number
>three made no mention protecting the market or a government intent on
>altruism. It spoke only of stopping subsidies and stricter controls on
>corporations based in the US but exporting jobs.

Protecting the *labor* market, of course. Seems to be mostly welfare liberals
(who are, by definition, intent on more altruistic intent than pure
laissez-faire capitalists) who wish to prevent globalization, no?

I don't see how unionizing is going to help, unless USAians form a union with
Pakistanis etc.

JoelnCaryn
July 5th 03, 09:10 AM
>> >We were simply following suit. You ranked the third yourself.
>>
>> Read it again. I ranked "likelihood", not "desireability".
>
>Picky.

Well, yes. I have a specific intent in mind when I write things, and I try to
use words deliberatively not for emotive content but for meaning. Don't you?

>> I'm not convinced that "desireability" is highest in the case where we
>> protect the market. That limits the number of goods and services that
>> can be sold, which limits profits, which limits the amount a
>> government intent on altruism can collect in taxes.
>
>Can I assume that this paragraph is still refering to the third of your
>options, where you said: "Or we'll stop giving subsidies to corporations
>based in the US (and therefore expecting subsidies for doing business
>from US taxpayers) but exporting most of their jobs overseas, and place
>stricter controls on their activities."
>
>If so, then I don't understand what point you are trying to make. Number
>three made no mention protecting the market or a government intent on
>altruism. It spoke only of stopping subsidies and stricter controls on
>corporations based in the US but exporting jobs.

Protecting the *labor* market, of course. Seems to be mostly welfare liberals
(who are, by definition, intent on more altruistic intent than pure
laissez-faire capitalists) who wish to prevent globalization, no?

I don't see how unionizing is going to help, unless USAians form a union with
Pakistanis etc.

Albert Wagner
July 5th 03, 09:54 AM
On 05 Jul 2003 07:10:10 GMT
(JoelnCaryn) wrote:

<snip>
> Well, yes. I have a specific intent in mind when I write things, and
> I try to use words deliberatively not for emotive content but for
> meaning. Don't you?

Actually, I aspire more to becoming a rhetorician than a technical
writer. Emotive content is one of my tools :)

>
> >> I'm not convinced that "desireability" is highest in the case where
> >we> protect the market. That limits the number of goods and services
> >that> can be sold, which limits profits, which limits the amount a
> >> government intent on altruism can collect in taxes.
> >
> >Can I assume that this paragraph is still refering to the third of
> >your options, where you said: "Or we'll stop giving subsidies to
> >corporations based in the US (and therefore expecting subsidies for
> >doing business from US taxpayers) but exporting most of their jobs
> >overseas, and place stricter controls on their activities."
> >
> >If so, then I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
> >Number three made no mention protecting the market or a government
> >intent on altruism. It spoke only of stopping subsidies and stricter
> >controls on corporations based in the US but exporting jobs.
>
> Protecting the *labor* market, of course. Seems to be mostly welfare
> liberals(who are, by definition, intent on more altruistic intent than
> pure laissez-faire capitalists) who wish to prevent globalization, no?

I wouldn't know. "Welfare liberal" is a term you have applied to me on
several occasions, not a term I apply to myself. And we might as well
get the term "altruism" put in its proper place also. Altruism is not
required for anything that I advocate or have advocated, only pragmatism
is required. Going all the way back to tit-for-tat and the Prisoner's
Dilemma, "pragmatism" more accurately describes what is required than
"altruism." Tit-for-tat is a very pragmatic long term strategy.
Altruism can neither survive nor defend itself from invasion, and
therefore can only survive in a large population of pragmatic
tit-for-tat players. I think you referred to such pragmatism when you
argued for long-term self interest rather than short-term self interest.

>
> I don't see how unionizing is going to help, unless USAians form a
> union with Pakistanis etc.

I think that Pat made a good analysis of this in earlier posts. Unions
in one country cannot survive when competeing with wage slaves in
another country. I see this as one of the primary forces driving
globalization: an attempt to permanently and irrevocably destroy
collective bargaining of workers.

Albert Wagner
July 5th 03, 09:54 AM
On 05 Jul 2003 07:10:10 GMT
(JoelnCaryn) wrote:

<snip>
> Well, yes. I have a specific intent in mind when I write things, and
> I try to use words deliberatively not for emotive content but for
> meaning. Don't you?

Actually, I aspire more to becoming a rhetorician than a technical
writer. Emotive content is one of my tools :)

>
> >> I'm not convinced that "desireability" is highest in the case where
> >we> protect the market. That limits the number of goods and services
> >that> can be sold, which limits profits, which limits the amount a
> >> government intent on altruism can collect in taxes.
> >
> >Can I assume that this paragraph is still refering to the third of
> >your options, where you said: "Or we'll stop giving subsidies to
> >corporations based in the US (and therefore expecting subsidies for
> >doing business from US taxpayers) but exporting most of their jobs
> >overseas, and place stricter controls on their activities."
> >
> >If so, then I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
> >Number three made no mention protecting the market or a government
> >intent on altruism. It spoke only of stopping subsidies and stricter
> >controls on corporations based in the US but exporting jobs.
>
> Protecting the *labor* market, of course. Seems to be mostly welfare
> liberals(who are, by definition, intent on more altruistic intent than
> pure laissez-faire capitalists) who wish to prevent globalization, no?

I wouldn't know. "Welfare liberal" is a term you have applied to me on
several occasions, not a term I apply to myself. And we might as well
get the term "altruism" put in its proper place also. Altruism is not
required for anything that I advocate or have advocated, only pragmatism
is required. Going all the way back to tit-for-tat and the Prisoner's
Dilemma, "pragmatism" more accurately describes what is required than
"altruism." Tit-for-tat is a very pragmatic long term strategy.
Altruism can neither survive nor defend itself from invasion, and
therefore can only survive in a large population of pragmatic
tit-for-tat players. I think you referred to such pragmatism when you
argued for long-term self interest rather than short-term self interest.

>
> I don't see how unionizing is going to help, unless USAians form a
> union with Pakistanis etc.

I think that Pat made a good analysis of this in earlier posts. Unions
in one country cannot survive when competeing with wage slaves in
another country. I see this as one of the primary forces driving
globalization: an attempt to permanently and irrevocably destroy
collective bargaining of workers.

jitney
July 5th 03, 10:10 AM
On 3 Jul 2003 01:47:18 GMT
(Frank White) wrote:
<snip>
> The long term social implications of China's one child policy -
> which has resulted in a mainly male generation used to being
> pampered by parents and grandparents as the sole scion of the
> family - is going to be VERY interesting to watch over the next
> few decades...
>

Not only are there no siblings; in the next generation there are no
uncles, aunts or cousins.

-And not enough wives, either. A war to obtain fertile females, perhaps?-Jitney

jitney
July 5th 03, 10:10 AM
On 3 Jul 2003 01:47:18 GMT
(Frank White) wrote:
<snip>
> The long term social implications of China's one child policy -
> which has resulted in a mainly male generation used to being
> pampered by parents and grandparents as the sole scion of the
> family - is going to be VERY interesting to watch over the next
> few decades...
>

Not only are there no siblings; in the next generation there are no
uncles, aunts or cousins.

-And not enough wives, either. A war to obtain fertile females, perhaps?-Jitney

Albert Wagner
July 5th 03, 01:07 PM
On 05 Jul 2003 15:17:49 GMT
(JoelnCaryn) wrote:
<snip>
> >> Protecting the *labor* market, of course. Seems to be mostly
> >welfare> liberals(who are, by definition, intent on more altruistic
> >intent than> pure laissez-faire capitalists) who wish to prevent
> >globalization, no?
> >
> >I wouldn't know. "Welfare liberal" is a term you have applied to me
> >on several occasions, not a term I apply to myself.
>
> Well, your other choices are "laissez-faire capitalist" (I thought
> not),"totalitarian", and "believer in magic". At least, so far. If
> you expect the government to have responsibility for some things
> rather than making caveat emptor the rule of the day, but you expect
> the government to refer back to some basic rules about liberty and
> equality in the process, you're a welfare liberal.

Those are my only choices? If so, then my choice would have to be
something between "welfare liberal" and "believer in magic."
Laissez-faire capitalism can not help but evolve into totalitarianism.
Currently I've been reading up on anarchy; I find many useful ideas
there, though I wouldn't call myself an anarchist yet. In "Small is
Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered," E. F. Schumacher presented
a handy table where he shows the simplist cases (not all possible
cases):

I. Freedom
A. Market Economy
1. Private ownership
2. Collectivised ownership
B. Planning
1. Private ownership
2. Collectivised ownership
II. Totalitarianism
A. Market Economy
1. Private ownership
2. Collectivised ownership
B. Planning
1. Private ownership
2. Collectivised ownership

Keep in mind that Market Economy is not necessarily a capitalist
economy, not is Collectivised ownership necessarily state ownership.

<snip>

Albert Wagner
July 5th 03, 01:07 PM
On 05 Jul 2003 15:17:49 GMT
(JoelnCaryn) wrote:
<snip>
> >> Protecting the *labor* market, of course. Seems to be mostly
> >welfare> liberals(who are, by definition, intent on more altruistic
> >intent than> pure laissez-faire capitalists) who wish to prevent
> >globalization, no?
> >
> >I wouldn't know. "Welfare liberal" is a term you have applied to me
> >on several occasions, not a term I apply to myself.
>
> Well, your other choices are "laissez-faire capitalist" (I thought
> not),"totalitarian", and "believer in magic". At least, so far. If
> you expect the government to have responsibility for some things
> rather than making caveat emptor the rule of the day, but you expect
> the government to refer back to some basic rules about liberty and
> equality in the process, you're a welfare liberal.

Those are my only choices? If so, then my choice would have to be
something between "welfare liberal" and "believer in magic."
Laissez-faire capitalism can not help but evolve into totalitarianism.
Currently I've been reading up on anarchy; I find many useful ideas
there, though I wouldn't call myself an anarchist yet. In "Small is
Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered," E. F. Schumacher presented
a handy table where he shows the simplist cases (not all possible
cases):

I. Freedom
A. Market Economy
1. Private ownership
2. Collectivised ownership
B. Planning
1. Private ownership
2. Collectivised ownership
II. Totalitarianism
A. Market Economy
1. Private ownership
2. Collectivised ownership
B. Planning
1. Private ownership
2. Collectivised ownership

Keep in mind that Market Economy is not necessarily a capitalist
economy, not is Collectivised ownership necessarily state ownership.

<snip>

IleneB
July 5th 03, 04:46 PM
In article >, Edgar S.
> wrote:

>
> What u just described is the natural human family system: The extended
> family

I do think that we are somewhat hard-wired to live in tribal groups
with some defined limited number of people identified as members of the
group-- 200? 50? However, since it isn't going to happen (can't get
that pesky Pandora's Box closed) I still ponder how to belong, to what,
for what, to what extent, etc.

Ilene B

IleneB
July 5th 03, 04:46 PM
In article >, Edgar S.
> wrote:

>
> What u just described is the natural human family system: The extended
> family

I do think that we are somewhat hard-wired to live in tribal groups
with some defined limited number of people identified as members of the
group-- 200? 50? However, since it isn't going to happen (can't get
that pesky Pandora's Box closed) I still ponder how to belong, to what,
for what, to what extent, etc.

Ilene B

JoelnCaryn
July 5th 03, 04:51 PM
>>Forgive me for wording this this way -- I know it is going to come out
>sounding
>>a tad bitchy, and I'm not intending to mean that -- but what, exactly, does
>>putting them in rank order of desireability to USAians accomplish?
>
>I don't actually think anything we discuss here accomplishes
>much. :)

I mean "accomplishes towards supporting the argument". :-) I end up returning
to what are stock phrases in philosophy and realizing after the fact why it is
that they sound normal to me only in some contexts... why they sound bitchy
when I mean to use them here, that is.

<snip>

>ISTM that in a world market, no country that produces
>nothing of value can long stay prosperous. <Backwards
>sentence, try again.> Countries need to produce something
>of value to stay prosperous in a world market.

That's why I pointed out that no one would be selling much of anything to us if
we didn't have money. :-)

I think it is even less likely that just because it is unpleasant for us, the
capitalist argument is wrong. If markets are protected (in this case labor
markets), it is a matter of historical record that those products manufactured
by those companies end up costing more, doing poorly in competition, and
causing those companies to fail. Unions only succeed if you can enroll
*everyone* -- and the unions know that; it's why they worry about scabs.

JoelnCaryn
July 5th 03, 04:51 PM
>>Forgive me for wording this this way -- I know it is going to come out
>sounding
>>a tad bitchy, and I'm not intending to mean that -- but what, exactly, does
>>putting them in rank order of desireability to USAians accomplish?
>
>I don't actually think anything we discuss here accomplishes
>much. :)

I mean "accomplishes towards supporting the argument". :-) I end up returning
to what are stock phrases in philosophy and realizing after the fact why it is
that they sound normal to me only in some contexts... why they sound bitchy
when I mean to use them here, that is.

<snip>

>ISTM that in a world market, no country that produces
>nothing of value can long stay prosperous. <Backwards
>sentence, try again.> Countries need to produce something
>of value to stay prosperous in a world market.

That's why I pointed out that no one would be selling much of anything to us if
we didn't have money. :-)

I think it is even less likely that just because it is unpleasant for us, the
capitalist argument is wrong. If markets are protected (in this case labor
markets), it is a matter of historical record that those products manufactured
by those companies end up costing more, doing poorly in competition, and
causing those companies to fail. Unions only succeed if you can enroll
*everyone* -- and the unions know that; it's why they worry about scabs.

Chloe
July 5th 03, 05:05 PM
"IleneB" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Pat Meadows
> > wrote:
>
> > It seems hypocritical to go to church for
> > the sense of belonging and to meet people only, but I'm
> > mulling it in my mind.
>
>
> That's what Unitarians are for!
>
> I got all ready to make my big effort to go to U.U. last Sunday, only
> to find out that it's closed until September.
>
> Ilene B

I think Pat has considered this angle but that there is no UU church within
reasonable distance of where she lives. I do hope you make it back in
September. Closing down for the summer is relatively common except in the
case of larger congregations. My urban congregation of about 250 members
goes to a scaled back summer schedule with informal services--mostly
conducted by lay people and utilizing guest speakers--in the church
fellowship hall. It's different from regular church but still enjoyable--and
uplifting <g>.

I must, however, take mild exception if you are suggesting that UU churches
are for "a sense of belonging and to meet people only" as Pat said in her
post. Although we are characterized by our lack of a requirement that
members subscribe to a single creed, and although we welcome people with a
broad diversity of religious beliefs, we do have a set of principles and
purposes that outline what we as individuals and our member congregations
consider worthwhile and valuable. We are still a religious organization
first and foremost. People who are looking only for the benefits of a purely
social organization would probably be better served by joining some sort of
club.

There's more information at www.uua.org and specifically about the
principles at http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html

Chloe
July 5th 03, 05:05 PM
"IleneB" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Pat Meadows
> > wrote:
>
> > It seems hypocritical to go to church for
> > the sense of belonging and to meet people only, but I'm
> > mulling it in my mind.
>
>
> That's what Unitarians are for!
>
> I got all ready to make my big effort to go to U.U. last Sunday, only
> to find out that it's closed until September.
>
> Ilene B

I think Pat has considered this angle but that there is no UU church within
reasonable distance of where she lives. I do hope you make it back in
September. Closing down for the summer is relatively common except in the
case of larger congregations. My urban congregation of about 250 members
goes to a scaled back summer schedule with informal services--mostly
conducted by lay people and utilizing guest speakers--in the church
fellowship hall. It's different from regular church but still enjoyable--and
uplifting <g>.

I must, however, take mild exception if you are suggesting that UU churches
are for "a sense of belonging and to meet people only" as Pat said in her
post. Although we are characterized by our lack of a requirement that
members subscribe to a single creed, and although we welcome people with a
broad diversity of religious beliefs, we do have a set of principles and
purposes that outline what we as individuals and our member congregations
consider worthwhile and valuable. We are still a religious organization
first and foremost. People who are looking only for the benefits of a purely
social organization would probably be better served by joining some sort of
club.

There's more information at www.uua.org and specifically about the
principles at http://www.uua.org/aboutuua/principles.html

JoelnCaryn
July 5th 03, 05:17 PM
>> Well, yes. I have a specific intent in mind when I write things, and
>> I try to use words deliberatively not for emotive content but for
>> meaning. Don't you?
>
>Actually, I aspire more to becoming a rhetorician than a technical
>writer. Emotive content is one of my tools :)

Ah. I speak *far* too often with a professional philosopher to have any
interest in rhetoric; it won't save my ass when push comes to shove. Not
useful in arguments.

>> >> I'm not convinced that "desireability" is highest in the case where
>> >we> protect the market. That limits the number of goods and services
>> >that> can be sold, which limits profits, which limits the amount a
>> >> government intent on altruism can collect in taxes.
>> >
>> >Can I assume that this paragraph is still refering to the third of
>> >your options, where you said: "Or we'll stop giving subsidies to
>> >corporations based in the US (and therefore expecting subsidies for
>> >doing business from US taxpayers) but exporting most of their jobs
>> >overseas, and place stricter controls on their activities."
>> >
>> >If so, then I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
>> >Number three made no mention protecting the market or a government
>> >intent on altruism. It spoke only of stopping subsidies and stricter
>> >controls on corporations based in the US but exporting jobs.
>>
>> Protecting the *labor* market, of course. Seems to be mostly welfare
>> liberals(who are, by definition, intent on more altruistic intent than
>> pure laissez-faire capitalists) who wish to prevent globalization, no?
>
>I wouldn't know. "Welfare liberal" is a term you have applied to me on
>several occasions, not a term I apply to myself.

Well, your other choices are "laissez-faire capitalist" (I thought not),
"totalitarian", and "believer in magic". At least, so far. If you expect the
government to have responsibility for some things rather than making caveat
emptor the rule of the day, but you expect the government to refer back to some
basic rules about liberty and equality in the process, you're a welfare
liberal.

>And we might as well
>get the term "altruism" put in its proper place also. Altruism is not
>required for anything that I advocate or have advocated, only pragmatism
>is required. Going all the way back to tit-for-tat and the Prisoner's
>Dilemma, "pragmatism" more accurately describes what is required than
>"altruism." Tit-for-tat is a very pragmatic long term strategy.
>Altruism can neither survive nor defend itself from invasion, and
>therefore can only survive in a large population of pragmatic
>tit-for-tat players. I think you referred to such pragmatism when you
>argued for long-term self interest rather than short-term self interest.

This is very much the formulation used by welfare liberals -- that even though
the end result is better for certain specific individuals in the case where the
government has responsibility for some things (rather than allowing people to,
say, starve to death if they can't find or make work for themselves), and
therefore the choice to be a welfare liberal could be construed as altruistic,
that choice can also be defended because it is better for capitalism, for
pragmatic reasons. It is much easier to start a business in a capitalist
country with public roads and public education than in one with a totalitarian
government in place.

>> I don't see how unionizing is going to help, unless USAians form a
>> union with Pakistanis etc.
>
>I think that Pat made a good analysis of this in earlier posts. Unions
>in one country cannot survive when competeing with wage slaves in
>another country.

Exactly. So why would any given individual in the US choose to be altruistic
and pay higher prices for union products? And why would any given individual
bother paying the costs of unionizing?

>I see this as one of the primary forces driving
>globalization: an attempt to permanently and irrevocably destroy
>collective bargaining of workers.

It doesn't need to be sinister, it only needs to be pragmatic for the companies
in question. Those employees are *cheaper*. End of story.

JoelnCaryn
July 5th 03, 05:17 PM
>> Well, yes. I have a specific intent in mind when I write things, and
>> I try to use words deliberatively not for emotive content but for
>> meaning. Don't you?
>
>Actually, I aspire more to becoming a rhetorician than a technical
>writer. Emotive content is one of my tools :)

Ah. I speak *far* too often with a professional philosopher to have any
interest in rhetoric; it won't save my ass when push comes to shove. Not
useful in arguments.

>> >> I'm not convinced that "desireability" is highest in the case where
>> >we> protect the market. That limits the number of goods and services
>> >that> can be sold, which limits profits, which limits the amount a
>> >> government intent on altruism can collect in taxes.
>> >
>> >Can I assume that this paragraph is still refering to the third of
>> >your options, where you said: "Or we'll stop giving subsidies to
>> >corporations based in the US (and therefore expecting subsidies for
>> >doing business from US taxpayers) but exporting most of their jobs
>> >overseas, and place stricter controls on their activities."
>> >
>> >If so, then I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
>> >Number three made no mention protecting the market or a government
>> >intent on altruism. It spoke only of stopping subsidies and stricter
>> >controls on corporations based in the US but exporting jobs.
>>
>> Protecting the *labor* market, of course. Seems to be mostly welfare
>> liberals(who are, by definition, intent on more altruistic intent than
>> pure laissez-faire capitalists) who wish to prevent globalization, no?
>
>I wouldn't know. "Welfare liberal" is a term you have applied to me on
>several occasions, not a term I apply to myself.

Well, your other choices are "laissez-faire capitalist" (I thought not),
"totalitarian", and "believer in magic". At least, so far. If you expect the
government to have responsibility for some things rather than making caveat
emptor the rule of the day, but you expect the government to refer back to some
basic rules about liberty and equality in the process, you're a welfare
liberal.

>And we might as well
>get the term "altruism" put in its proper place also. Altruism is not
>required for anything that I advocate or have advocated, only pragmatism
>is required. Going all the way back to tit-for-tat and the Prisoner's
>Dilemma, "pragmatism" more accurately describes what is required than
>"altruism." Tit-for-tat is a very pragmatic long term strategy.
>Altruism can neither survive nor defend itself from invasion, and
>therefore can only survive in a large population of pragmatic
>tit-for-tat players. I think you referred to such pragmatism when you
>argued for long-term self interest rather than short-term self interest.

This is very much the formulation used by welfare liberals -- that even though
the end result is better for certain specific individuals in the case where the
government has responsibility for some things (rather than allowing people to,
say, starve to death if they can't find or make work for themselves), and
therefore the choice to be a welfare liberal could be construed as altruistic,
that choice can also be defended because it is better for capitalism, for
pragmatic reasons. It is much easier to start a business in a capitalist
country with public roads and public education than in one with a totalitarian
government in place.

>> I don't see how unionizing is going to help, unless USAians form a
>> union with Pakistanis etc.
>
>I think that Pat made a good analysis of this in earlier posts. Unions
>in one country cannot survive when competeing with wage slaves in
>another country.

Exactly. So why would any given individual in the US choose to be altruistic
and pay higher prices for union products? And why would any given individual
bother paying the costs of unionizing?

>I see this as one of the primary forces driving
>globalization: an attempt to permanently and irrevocably destroy
>collective bargaining of workers.

It doesn't need to be sinister, it only needs to be pragmatic for the companies
in question. Those employees are *cheaper*. End of story.

Joyce
July 5th 03, 06:40 PM
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 11:38:06 -0400, Pat Meadows >
wrote:

>Yes, I know, thanks.
>
>None closer than 40 miles - 80 mile round trip. I cannot
>drive that far (inner-ear condition causes me to have
>vertigo). I wouldn't ask DH to drive me that far: it's
>very rare that he can drive that far, sit around for a while
>and drive back, without a major pain attack. Driving or
>riding in the car generally brings on his pain.
>
>Wegman's is that distance away too, and I'd dearly love to
>be able to get up to Wegman's more often, but we can rarely
>manage it.
>
>Anyway, if one of the main points is to have *local* friends
>- then it will have to be a *local* church.
>
>Pat

That's really a shame. From what I know of you, you would fit very
well into the Unitarian community. They would love you. It wouldn't
hurt to check with the church. Just because the building is 40 miles
away, it doesn't mean that all the congregants are. There may be some
folks close to you who would like to have company on the ride there.

Can anything be done for your DH to alleviate the pain?
Joyce

Joyce
July 5th 03, 06:40 PM
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 11:38:06 -0400, Pat Meadows >
wrote:

>Yes, I know, thanks.
>
>None closer than 40 miles - 80 mile round trip. I cannot
>drive that far (inner-ear condition causes me to have
>vertigo). I wouldn't ask DH to drive me that far: it's
>very rare that he can drive that far, sit around for a while
>and drive back, without a major pain attack. Driving or
>riding in the car generally brings on his pain.
>
>Wegman's is that distance away too, and I'd dearly love to
>be able to get up to Wegman's more often, but we can rarely
>manage it.
>
>Anyway, if one of the main points is to have *local* friends
>- then it will have to be a *local* church.
>
>Pat

That's really a shame. From what I know of you, you would fit very
well into the Unitarian community. They would love you. It wouldn't
hurt to check with the church. Just because the building is 40 miles
away, it doesn't mean that all the congregants are. There may be some
folks close to you who would like to have company on the ride there.

Can anything be done for your DH to alleviate the pain?
Joyce

Holly E. Ordway
July 5th 03, 07:08 PM
Pat Meadows > wrote in
:

> The final opinion - what it all boils down to - is that
> their best guess is that it's an inoperable spinal deformity
> (the highest disk, just below his head), causing nerve pain.

This is probably completely useless, but... the other day I happened to
read something about a new treatment for chronic pain that involves
implanting a small device near the spine that sends out electrical
impulses - it does something like neutralizes the "pain" nerve signals
before they reach the brain, or something like that. It was intended
mainly for people whose pain is chronic and not "useful" (ie. not pain
that signals that the body is in the healing process and should rest).
Might be worth looking into.

--Holly

Holly E. Ordway
July 5th 03, 07:08 PM
Pat Meadows > wrote in
:

> The final opinion - what it all boils down to - is that
> their best guess is that it's an inoperable spinal deformity
> (the highest disk, just below his head), causing nerve pain.

This is probably completely useless, but... the other day I happened to
read something about a new treatment for chronic pain that involves
implanting a small device near the spine that sends out electrical
impulses - it does something like neutralizes the "pain" nerve signals
before they reach the brain, or something like that. It was intended
mainly for people whose pain is chronic and not "useful" (ie. not pain
that signals that the body is in the healing process and should rest).
Might be worth looking into.

--Holly

Dennis
July 5th 03, 07:14 PM
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 11:42:12 -0400, Pat Meadows >
wrote:

>On 05 Jul 2003 15:17:49 GMT,
>(JoelnCaryn) wrote:
>
>>Well, your other choices are "laissez-faire capitalist" (I thought not),
>>"totalitarian", and "believer in magic". At least, so far. If you expect the
>>government to have responsibility for some things rather than making caveat
>>emptor the rule of the day, but you expect the government to refer back to some
>>basic rules about liberty and equality in the process, you're a welfare
>>liberal.
>
>Those aren't the only choices: 'socialist' is a choice.
>'Communist' is another choice (it wouldn't be my choice, but
>it exists.) So for that, matter does 'fascist' (not my
>choice either).

Those are three branches of the same tree. And at the trunk of the
tree (so far as any implemetation ever seen in human history) is
"totalitarian".

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.

Dennis
July 5th 03, 07:14 PM
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 11:42:12 -0400, Pat Meadows >
wrote:

>On 05 Jul 2003 15:17:49 GMT,
>(JoelnCaryn) wrote:
>
>>Well, your other choices are "laissez-faire capitalist" (I thought not),
>>"totalitarian", and "believer in magic". At least, so far. If you expect the
>>government to have responsibility for some things rather than making caveat
>>emptor the rule of the day, but you expect the government to refer back to some
>>basic rules about liberty and equality in the process, you're a welfare
>>liberal.
>
>Those aren't the only choices: 'socialist' is a choice.
>'Communist' is another choice (it wouldn't be my choice, but
>it exists.) So for that, matter does 'fascist' (not my
>choice either).

Those are three branches of the same tree. And at the trunk of the
tree (so far as any implemetation ever seen in human history) is
"totalitarian".

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.

Dennis
July 5th 03, 07:25 PM
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 15:22:58 -0500, Albert Wagner >
wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:37:55 GMT
wrote:
>
>> Albert Wagner > wrote:
>>
>> >> Remember that ALL money comes from private industry.
>> >
>> >ALL money comes from labor. The profits of private industry are
>> >stolen from the workers.
>>
>> To use your words, bull****.
>>
>> Profits come from intellect and labor. If a laborer has no intellect,
>> he has no profit. If an intellectual provides no labor, he has no
>> profit.
>>
>> The profits of private industry are from using both intellect and
>> labor.
>
>If I understand you correctly we don't disagree. I was using "labor" to
>mean the labor of both mind and body. I do NOT use the term in the
>sense that some economists do, however, to mean labor that produces a
>product, as well as management that simply functions as a proxy for the
>capitalist. There is no market for the product of management except
>capitalists. The product produced by labor is the only thing that can
>be sold in the marketplace. Where else could the salaries of management
>and the profits of the capitalist come from?

Well, that will certainly be good news for all the unemployed! All
they need to do is go produce something and sell it in the
marketplace. Since management and capitalists add no value, they
shouldn't need the arcane structure of a "job" or a "workplace" or an
"employer". Yessir, just go out and produce and be successful.
That's the ticket!

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

Dennis
July 5th 03, 07:25 PM
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 15:22:58 -0500, Albert Wagner >
wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 00:37:55 GMT
wrote:
>
>> Albert Wagner > wrote:
>>
>> >> Remember that ALL money comes from private industry.
>> >
>> >ALL money comes from labor. The profits of private industry are
>> >stolen from the workers.
>>
>> To use your words, bull****.
>>
>> Profits come from intellect and labor. If a laborer has no intellect,
>> he has no profit. If an intellectual provides no labor, he has no
>> profit.
>>
>> The profits of private industry are from using both intellect and
>> labor.
>
>If I understand you correctly we don't disagree. I was using "labor" to
>mean the labor of both mind and body. I do NOT use the term in the
>sense that some economists do, however, to mean labor that produces a
>product, as well as management that simply functions as a proxy for the
>capitalist. There is no market for the product of management except
>capitalists. The product produced by labor is the only thing that can
>be sold in the marketplace. Where else could the salaries of management
>and the profits of the capitalist come from?

Well, that will certainly be good news for all the unemployed! All
they need to do is go produce something and sell it in the
marketplace. Since management and capitalists add no value, they
shouldn't need the arcane structure of a "job" or a "workplace" or an
"employer". Yessir, just go out and produce and be successful.
That's the ticket!

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

Albert Wagner
July 5th 03, 08:40 PM
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:25:13 -0700
Dennis > wrote:
<snip>
> >If I understand you correctly we don't disagree. I was using "labor"
> >to mean the labor of both mind and body. I do NOT use the term in
> >the sense that some economists do, however, to mean labor that
> >produces a product, as well as management that simply functions as a
> >proxy for the capitalist. There is no market for the product of
> >management except capitalists. The product produced by labor is the
> >only thing that can be sold in the marketplace. Where else could the
> >salaries of management and the profits of the capitalist come from?
>
> Well, that will certainly be good news for all the unemployed! All
> they need to do is go produce something and sell it in the
> marketplace. Since management and capitalists add no value, they
> shouldn't need the arcane structure of a "job" or a "workplace" or an
> "employer". Yessir, just go out and produce and be successful.
> That's the ticket!

google "worker owned business"

Albert Wagner
July 5th 03, 08:40 PM
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:25:13 -0700
Dennis > wrote:
<snip>
> >If I understand you correctly we don't disagree. I was using "labor"
> >to mean the labor of both mind and body. I do NOT use the term in
> >the sense that some economists do, however, to mean labor that
> >produces a product, as well as management that simply functions as a
> >proxy for the capitalist. There is no market for the product of
> >management except capitalists. The product produced by labor is the
> >only thing that can be sold in the marketplace. Where else could the
> >salaries of management and the profits of the capitalist come from?
>
> Well, that will certainly be good news for all the unemployed! All
> they need to do is go produce something and sell it in the
> marketplace. Since management and capitalists add no value, they
> shouldn't need the arcane structure of a "job" or a "workplace" or an
> "employer". Yessir, just go out and produce and be successful.
> That's the ticket!

google "worker owned business"

Albert Wagner
July 5th 03, 10:54 PM
On 06 Jul 2003 02:09:23 GMT
(JoelnCaryn) wrote:
<snip>
> >Currently I've been reading up on anarchy; I find many useful ideas
> >there, though I wouldn't call myself an anarchist yet.
>
> I don't think getting rid of the rule of law will make things any
> better. I am curious as to why you would entertain the idea that it
> would.

I said only "many useful ideas." I never said I endorsed "getting rid
of the rule of law."

Try browsing this and tell me if some of these ideas tweak your
imagination:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

Albert Wagner
July 5th 03, 10:54 PM
On 06 Jul 2003 02:09:23 GMT
(JoelnCaryn) wrote:
<snip>
> >Currently I've been reading up on anarchy; I find many useful ideas
> >there, though I wouldn't call myself an anarchist yet.
>
> I don't think getting rid of the rule of law will make things any
> better. I am curious as to why you would entertain the idea that it
> would.

I said only "many useful ideas." I never said I endorsed "getting rid
of the rule of law."

Try browsing this and tell me if some of these ideas tweak your
imagination:

http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html

JoelnCaryn
July 6th 03, 04:01 AM
>>Well, your other choices are "laissez-faire capitalist" (I thought not),
>>"totalitarian", and "believer in magic". At least, so far. If you expect
>the
>>government to have responsibility for some things rather than making caveat
>>emptor the rule of the day, but you expect the government to refer back to
>some
>>basic rules about liberty and equality in the process, you're a welfare
>>liberal.
>
>Those aren't the only choices: 'socialist' is a choice.
>'Communist' is another choice (it wouldn't be my choice, but
>it exists.) So for that, matter does 'fascist' (not my
>choice either).
>
>I'm aware that you - of course - know this: either you've
>not expressed yourself clearly in the sentence above, or I'm
>missing something.

There are two different flavors of "socialist" -- totalitarian, and capitalist.
The welfare democracies in places like the Netherlands are, of course, the
capitalist sort. The money for the social programs comes about from taxes
imposed because the majority of the voters agree that those social programs
take care of needs which should be the responsibility of the government.

But the *money* still comes from taxes on private capitalist enterprise, rather
than from an ownership of all enterprises by the state, as would happen in a
totalitarian socialist state.

JoelnCaryn
July 6th 03, 04:01 AM
>>Well, your other choices are "laissez-faire capitalist" (I thought not),
>>"totalitarian", and "believer in magic". At least, so far. If you expect
>the
>>government to have responsibility for some things rather than making caveat
>>emptor the rule of the day, but you expect the government to refer back to
>some
>>basic rules about liberty and equality in the process, you're a welfare
>>liberal.
>
>Those aren't the only choices: 'socialist' is a choice.
>'Communist' is another choice (it wouldn't be my choice, but
>it exists.) So for that, matter does 'fascist' (not my
>choice either).
>
>I'm aware that you - of course - know this: either you've
>not expressed yourself clearly in the sentence above, or I'm
>missing something.

There are two different flavors of "socialist" -- totalitarian, and capitalist.
The welfare democracies in places like the Netherlands are, of course, the
capitalist sort. The money for the social programs comes about from taxes
imposed because the majority of the voters agree that those social programs
take care of needs which should be the responsibility of the government.

But the *money* still comes from taxes on private capitalist enterprise, rather
than from an ownership of all enterprises by the state, as would happen in a
totalitarian socialist state.

Dennis
July 6th 03, 04:08 AM
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 13:40:44 -0500, Albert Wagner >
wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:25:13 -0700
>Dennis > wrote:
><snip>
>> >If I understand you correctly we don't disagree. I was using "labor"
>> >to mean the labor of both mind and body. I do NOT use the term in
>> >the sense that some economists do, however, to mean labor that
>> >produces a product, as well as management that simply functions as a
>> >proxy for the capitalist. There is no market for the product of
>> >management except capitalists. The product produced by labor is the
>> >only thing that can be sold in the marketplace. Where else could the
>> >salaries of management and the profits of the capitalist come from?
>>
>> Well, that will certainly be good news for all the unemployed! All
>> they need to do is go produce something and sell it in the
>> marketplace. Since management and capitalists add no value, they
>> shouldn't need the arcane structure of a "job" or a "workplace" or an
>> "employer". Yessir, just go out and produce and be successful.
>> That's the ticket!
>
>google "worker owned business"

So, you're currently unemployed, right? When are you going to start
your own business? Or were you planning to buy a share in a worker
owned shop? Or is this reply just you just punting (again) ?

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

Dennis
July 6th 03, 04:08 AM
On Sat, 5 Jul 2003 13:40:44 -0500, Albert Wagner >
wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 10:25:13 -0700
>Dennis > wrote:
><snip>
>> >If I understand you correctly we don't disagree. I was using "labor"
>> >to mean the labor of both mind and body. I do NOT use the term in
>> >the sense that some economists do, however, to mean labor that
>> >produces a product, as well as management that simply functions as a
>> >proxy for the capitalist. There is no market for the product of
>> >management except capitalists. The product produced by labor is the
>> >only thing that can be sold in the marketplace. Where else could the
>> >salaries of management and the profits of the capitalist come from?
>>
>> Well, that will certainly be good news for all the unemployed! All
>> they need to do is go produce something and sell it in the
>> marketplace. Since management and capitalists add no value, they
>> shouldn't need the arcane structure of a "job" or a "workplace" or an
>> "employer". Yessir, just go out and produce and be successful.
>> That's the ticket!
>
>google "worker owned business"

So, you're currently unemployed, right? When are you going to start
your own business? Or were you planning to buy a share in a worker
owned shop? Or is this reply just you just punting (again) ?

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

Albert Wagner
July 6th 03, 11:12 AM
On 06 Jul 2003 11:36:03 GMT
(JoelnCaryn) wrote:
<snip>
Caryn, you are beginning to just sound like an idealogue. You have
predetermined in your mind what I believe and, even when I deny it, you
continue to attack your straw man. Your thread was indeed interesting
and true to a point. But you really need to learn to read my posts for
comprehension. I reiterate: "I said only 'many useful ideas.' I never
said I endorsed 'getting rid of the rule of law.'" When the only tool
you have (Locke) is a hammer, you begin to see everything as a nail.

Albert Wagner
July 6th 03, 11:12 AM
On 06 Jul 2003 11:36:03 GMT
(JoelnCaryn) wrote:
<snip>
Caryn, you are beginning to just sound like an idealogue. You have
predetermined in your mind what I believe and, even when I deny it, you
continue to attack your straw man. Your thread was indeed interesting
and true to a point. But you really need to learn to read my posts for
comprehension. I reiterate: "I said only 'many useful ideas.' I never
said I endorsed 'getting rid of the rule of law.'" When the only tool
you have (Locke) is a hammer, you begin to see everything as a nail.

Albert Wagner
July 6th 03, 11:20 AM
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 19:08:24 -0700
Dennis > wrote:
<snip>
>
> So, you're currently unemployed, right? When are you going to start
> your own business? Or were you planning to buy a share in a worker
> owned shop? Or is this reply just you just punting (again) ?
>
The reason I quit conversing with you before is that you could never
respond to a point with a proper counter-point. What do any of the
above questions have to do with my post? For me to reply would, at
best, just give you anecdotal evidence; Which is useless.

Albert Wagner
July 6th 03, 11:20 AM
On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 19:08:24 -0700
Dennis > wrote:
<snip>
>
> So, you're currently unemployed, right? When are you going to start
> your own business? Or were you planning to buy a share in a worker
> owned shop? Or is this reply just you just punting (again) ?
>
The reason I quit conversing with you before is that you could never
respond to a point with a proper counter-point. What do any of the
above questions have to do with my post? For me to reply would, at
best, just give you anecdotal evidence; Which is useless.

JoelnCaryn
July 6th 03, 01:36 PM
>> >Currently I've been reading up on anarchy; I find many useful ideas
>> >there, though I wouldn't call myself an anarchist yet.
>>
>> I don't think getting rid of the rule of law will make things any
>> better. I am curious as to why you would entertain the idea that it
>> would.
>
>I said only "many useful ideas." I never said I endorsed "getting rid
>of the rule of law."

That's what "anarchy" means -- "without anyone in charge". In a democratic
system, *everyone* is in charge. In a totalitarian system, a sovereign is in
charge.

Go read Hobbes, who argues very convincingly that returning to what he calls
"the state of nature", in which no one is in charge, sucks. :-)

Briefly, if each person is likely to have interest in the same sorts of things
as the others, this leads directly to a power struggle in which everyone is
seeking to control resources and each other. He suggests that this results in
a life which is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" because it is
equivalent to being in a "war of every man against every man". But because we
have the ability to imagine things being better, and are rational, we
relinquish all of our power to make war and peace to a sovereign in the hope of
safety. It turns out to be in our best interests to make compacts with others.

Given any set of people, some are going to be stronger than the others in a way
that counts. For some situations, that might be smarts, or strength, or
resource control. But you can't start off with "everyone just wanting to be
nice to everyone else" because if you don't have a social group, that doesn't
happen -- no altruism. You get the idea of justice from having a set of people
for whom strength is uneven *and* a desire to see the group succeed.

Here's B.J. Diggs on the subject of Hobbes' philosophy:
" ' So long as a man is in the condition of mere nature,' he said, 'private
appetite is the measure of good.' Morality, on the other hand, is
fundamentally social; it is a matter of 'what is good and evil, in the
conversation and society of mankind.' If this includes, on the one hand,
natural laws, it also includes, on the other, both the covenant necessary to
guarantee the peace and the sovereign's commands that establish 'a common rule
of good' in the form of civil law. Civil law, consisting in rules for the
distinction of right from wrong, is necessary to make natural law externally
binding. It is thus a distinctive feacture of Hobbes' philosophy that where
there is no commonwealth, and no commands of the commonwealth, there nothing is
unjust. Although this view of the social and contractual origin and ground of
rights, justice, and a society's morality needs critique and revision, Hobbes
should be credited with having pointed out an important dimension of social
morality that had been left obscure and confused in traditional natural law
theory." -- pg. 32, _The State, Justice, and the Common Good_

Locke, of course, came up with the idea of making everyone equally in charge,
i.e. democracy.

The website you mention contains this definition:
"And, just to state the obvious, anarchy does not mean chaos nor do anarchists
seek to create chaos or disorder. Instead, we wish to create a society based
upon individual freedom and voluntary co-operation. In other words, order from
the bottom up, not disorder imposed from the top down by authorities."

Obviously, this relies on people just magically being nicer to one another...

You might also like Rawls, on contract theory.

JoelnCaryn
July 6th 03, 01:36 PM
>> >Currently I've been reading up on anarchy; I find many useful ideas
>> >there, though I wouldn't call myself an anarchist yet.
>>
>> I don't think getting rid of the rule of law will make things any
>> better. I am curious as to why you would entertain the idea that it
>> would.
>
>I said only "many useful ideas." I never said I endorsed "getting rid
>of the rule of law."

That's what "anarchy" means -- "without anyone in charge". In a democratic
system, *everyone* is in charge. In a totalitarian system, a sovereign is in
charge.

Go read Hobbes, who argues very convincingly that returning to what he calls
"the state of nature", in which no one is in charge, sucks. :-)

Briefly, if each person is likely to have interest in the same sorts of things
as the others, this leads directly to a power struggle in which everyone is
seeking to control resources and each other. He suggests that this results in
a life which is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" because it is
equivalent to being in a "war of every man against every man". But because we
have the ability to imagine things being better, and are rational, we
relinquish all of our power to make war and peace to a sovereign in the hope of
safety. It turns out to be in our best interests to make compacts with others.

Given any set of people, some are going to be stronger than the others in a way
that counts. For some situations, that might be smarts, or strength, or
resource control. But you can't start off with "everyone just wanting to be
nice to everyone else" because if you don't have a social group, that doesn't
happen -- no altruism. You get the idea of justice from having a set of people
for whom strength is uneven *and* a desire to see the group succeed.

Here's B.J. Diggs on the subject of Hobbes' philosophy:
" ' So long as a man is in the condition of mere nature,' he said, 'private
appetite is the measure of good.' Morality, on the other hand, is
fundamentally social; it is a matter of 'what is good and evil, in the
conversation and society of mankind.' If this includes, on the one hand,
natural laws, it also includes, on the other, both the covenant necessary to
guarantee the peace and the sovereign's commands that establish 'a common rule
of good' in the form of civil law. Civil law, consisting in rules for the
distinction of right from wrong, is necessary to make natural law externally
binding. It is thus a distinctive feacture of Hobbes' philosophy that where
there is no commonwealth, and no commands of the commonwealth, there nothing is
unjust. Although this view of the social and contractual origin and ground of
rights, justice, and a society's morality needs critique and revision, Hobbes
should be credited with having pointed out an important dimension of social
morality that had been left obscure and confused in traditional natural law
theory." -- pg. 32, _The State, Justice, and the Common Good_

Locke, of course, came up with the idea of making everyone equally in charge,
i.e. democracy.

The website you mention contains this definition:
"And, just to state the obvious, anarchy does not mean chaos nor do anarchists
seek to create chaos or disorder. Instead, we wish to create a society based
upon individual freedom and voluntary co-operation. In other words, order from
the bottom up, not disorder imposed from the top down by authorities."

Obviously, this relies on people just magically being nicer to one another...

You might also like Rawls, on contract theory.

Edgar S.
July 6th 03, 05:59 PM
IleneB > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Edgar S.
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > What u just described is the natural human family system: The extended
> > family
>
> I do think that we are somewhat hard-wired to live in tribal groups
> with some defined limited number of people identified as members of the
> group-- 200? 50? However, since it isn't going to happen

Speak for yourself. People have always lived in tribal groups, and
always will.
Human groups invariably assemble like families. Hieriarchal in
structure typically with a dominant couple or individual. This is true
of workplaces, clubs, all groups.

There are many types of part time "extended families". The workplace
is the most obvious example. Plus schools, classes, clubs.

A few generations back even a mostly nuclear farm family would host
field hands, and teens from town.

There are also religious communal farms in the US and Canada that have
been thriving for hundreds of years.


(can't get
> that pesky Pandora's Box closed) I still ponder how to belong, to what,
> for what, to what extent, etc.
>
> Ilene B

Edgar S.
July 6th 03, 05:59 PM
IleneB > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Edgar S.
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > What u just described is the natural human family system: The extended
> > family
>
> I do think that we are somewhat hard-wired to live in tribal groups
> with some defined limited number of people identified as members of the
> group-- 200? 50? However, since it isn't going to happen

Speak for yourself. People have always lived in tribal groups, and
always will.
Human groups invariably assemble like families. Hieriarchal in
structure typically with a dominant couple or individual. This is true
of workplaces, clubs, all groups.

There are many types of part time "extended families". The workplace
is the most obvious example. Plus schools, classes, clubs.

A few generations back even a mostly nuclear farm family would host
field hands, and teens from town.

There are also religious communal farms in the US and Canada that have
been thriving for hundreds of years.


(can't get
> that pesky Pandora's Box closed) I still ponder how to belong, to what,
> for what, to what extent, etc.
>
> Ilene B

JoelnCaryn
July 6th 03, 07:26 PM
>Caryn, you are beginning to just sound like an idealogue. You have
>predetermined in your mind what I believe and, even when I deny it, you
>continue to attack your straw man.

Albert, when you can't rebut my points you snip them and throw accusations at
me, like "idealogue", or the claim that I wish to deny the vote to uneducated
people. Who's being unreasonable?

>Your thread was indeed interesting
>and true to a point. But you really need to learn to read my posts for
>comprehension. I reiterate: "I said only 'many useful ideas.' I never
>said I endorsed 'getting rid of the rule of law.'"

But again, you've missed the premise. Yeah, if you accept the premise that
people are going to magically be nice to each other, anarchy looks like a
reasonableish argument. In practice, of course, see what happens after the
removal of Saddam, or the LA riots...

>When the only tool
>you have (Locke) is a hammer, you begin to see everything as a nail.

That wasn't Locke. That was Hobbes. And that is *far* from the only tool at
my disposal.

JoelnCaryn
July 6th 03, 07:26 PM
>Caryn, you are beginning to just sound like an idealogue. You have
>predetermined in your mind what I believe and, even when I deny it, you
>continue to attack your straw man.

Albert, when you can't rebut my points you snip them and throw accusations at
me, like "idealogue", or the claim that I wish to deny the vote to uneducated
people. Who's being unreasonable?

>Your thread was indeed interesting
>and true to a point. But you really need to learn to read my posts for
>comprehension. I reiterate: "I said only 'many useful ideas.' I never
>said I endorsed 'getting rid of the rule of law.'"

But again, you've missed the premise. Yeah, if you accept the premise that
people are going to magically be nice to each other, anarchy looks like a
reasonableish argument. In practice, of course, see what happens after the
removal of Saddam, or the LA riots...

>When the only tool
>you have (Locke) is a hammer, you begin to see everything as a nail.

That wasn't Locke. That was Hobbes. And that is *far* from the only tool at
my disposal.

JoelnCaryn
July 6th 03, 07:28 PM
>>There are two different flavors of "socialist" -- totalitarian, and
>capitalist.
>> The welfare democracies in places like the Netherlands are, of course, the
>>capitalist sort. The money for the social programs comes about from taxes
>>imposed because the majority of the voters agree that those social programs
>>take care of needs which should be the responsibility of the government.
>>
>>But the *money* still comes from taxes on private capitalist enterprise,
>rather
>>than from an ownership of all enterprises by the state, as would happen in a
>>totalitarian socialist state.
>
>Not always. Pre-Thatcher Britain is an example of
>state-ownership of a lot of enterprises (mines, railroads,
>post office, utilities, health care) etc. I think I could
>find other countries that have a mixed-economy like this.

Think of it as a 2x3 grid of political and economic systems. We have either a
totalitarian or a democratic political system, with either no state control,
some state control, or total state control of the economy. Theoretically any
political system is compatible with any economic system -- after all, the
Chinese are trying for a totalitarian political system with no state control
over the economy.

Assigning names to the boxes of the matrix will give you terms like
"socialism", "communism", "libertarianism"...

JoelnCaryn
July 6th 03, 07:28 PM
>>There are two different flavors of "socialist" -- totalitarian, and
>capitalist.
>> The welfare democracies in places like the Netherlands are, of course, the
>>capitalist sort. The money for the social programs comes about from taxes
>>imposed because the majority of the voters agree that those social programs
>>take care of needs which should be the responsibility of the government.
>>
>>But the *money* still comes from taxes on private capitalist enterprise,
>rather
>>than from an ownership of all enterprises by the state, as would happen in a
>>totalitarian socialist state.
>
>Not always. Pre-Thatcher Britain is an example of
>state-ownership of a lot of enterprises (mines, railroads,
>post office, utilities, health care) etc. I think I could
>find other countries that have a mixed-economy like this.

Think of it as a 2x3 grid of political and economic systems. We have either a
totalitarian or a democratic political system, with either no state control,
some state control, or total state control of the economy. Theoretically any
political system is compatible with any economic system -- after all, the
Chinese are trying for a totalitarian political system with no state control
over the economy.

Assigning names to the boxes of the matrix will give you terms like
"socialism", "communism", "libertarianism"...

linda-renee
July 6th 03, 08:03 PM
"JoelnCaryn" > wrote in message

> USAians

Could you try to make yourself sound just a *little* more pretentious? (As
if your lectures to Albert on political philosophy haven't already done the
trick...)

linda-renee
July 6th 03, 08:03 PM
"JoelnCaryn" > wrote in message

> USAians

Could you try to make yourself sound just a *little* more pretentious? (As
if your lectures to Albert on political philosophy haven't already done the
trick...)

JoelnCaryn
July 7th 03, 02:50 AM
>> USAians
>
>Could you try to make yourself sound just a *little* more pretentious? (As
>if your lectures to Albert on political philosophy haven't already done the
>trick...)
>

"Americans" is a bit tricky. Peruvians happen to be Americans.

As for the lectures, he specifically asked me for them. <shrug>

JoelnCaryn
July 7th 03, 02:50 AM
>> USAians
>
>Could you try to make yourself sound just a *little* more pretentious? (As
>if your lectures to Albert on political philosophy haven't already done the
>trick...)
>

"Americans" is a bit tricky. Peruvians happen to be Americans.

As for the lectures, he specifically asked me for them. <shrug>

July 7th 03, 04:50 AM
In article >,
Albert Wagner > wrote:

> Now let's see if we can make your head explode: I have also read
> Karl Marx and, although I find many useful ideas there, but I am
> not a communist. I have read the Apocrypha but I am not a
> Catholic. I have read the Book of Mormon but I am not a Mormon. I
> have also read many other such books just to see what other people
> are up to.

Before his character was so subversively assassinated and his career in
government effectively destroyed, Trent Lott subscribed to and
regularly read Mother Jones magazine and kept the issues in his Capitol
office waiting room. When a reporter asked about it, he said, "Just
making sure I know what the liberals are up to," or words to that
effect.

I think he was really ensuring he wasn't imprisoned in an idea box by
those of his own party.

July 7th 03, 04:50 AM
In article >,
Albert Wagner > wrote:

> Now let's see if we can make your head explode: I have also read
> Karl Marx and, although I find many useful ideas there, but I am
> not a communist. I have read the Apocrypha but I am not a
> Catholic. I have read the Book of Mormon but I am not a Mormon. I
> have also read many other such books just to see what other people
> are up to.

Before his character was so subversively assassinated and his career in
government effectively destroyed, Trent Lott subscribed to and
regularly read Mother Jones magazine and kept the issues in his Capitol
office waiting room. When a reporter asked about it, he said, "Just
making sure I know what the liberals are up to," or words to that
effect.

I think he was really ensuring he wasn't imprisoned in an idea box by
those of his own party.

linda-renee
July 7th 03, 01:24 PM
"JoelnCaryn" > wrote in message

> >> USAians

> >Could you try to make yourself sound just a *little* more pretentious?
(As
> >if your lectures to Albert on political philosophy haven't already done
the
> >trick...)

> "Americans" is a bit tricky. Peruvians happen to be Americans.

Peruvians happen to be *South* Americans. Citizens of the United States of
Brazil are Brazilians. Citizens of the United Mexican States are Mexicans.

> As for the lectures, he specifically asked me for them. <shrug>

Then perhaps the lecture series should have gone to e-mail.

linda-renee
July 7th 03, 01:24 PM
"JoelnCaryn" > wrote in message

> >> USAians

> >Could you try to make yourself sound just a *little* more pretentious?
(As
> >if your lectures to Albert on political philosophy haven't already done
the
> >trick...)

> "Americans" is a bit tricky. Peruvians happen to be Americans.

Peruvians happen to be *South* Americans. Citizens of the United States of
Brazil are Brazilians. Citizens of the United Mexican States are Mexicans.

> As for the lectures, he specifically asked me for them. <shrug>

Then perhaps the lecture series should have gone to e-mail.

Dennis
July 7th 03, 05:18 PM
On 06 Jul 2003 17:28:53 GMT, (JoelnCaryn)
wrote:

>>>There are two different flavors of "socialist" -- totalitarian, and
>>capitalist.
>>> The welfare democracies in places like the Netherlands are, of course, the
>>>capitalist sort. The money for the social programs comes about from taxes
>>>imposed because the majority of the voters agree that those social programs
>>>take care of needs which should be the responsibility of the government.
>>>
>>>But the *money* still comes from taxes on private capitalist enterprise,
>>rather
>>>than from an ownership of all enterprises by the state, as would happen in a
>>>totalitarian socialist state.
>>
>>Not always. Pre-Thatcher Britain is an example of
>>state-ownership of a lot of enterprises (mines, railroads,
>>post office, utilities, health care) etc. I think I could
>>find other countries that have a mixed-economy like this.
>
>Think of it as a 2x3 grid of political and economic systems. We have either a
>totalitarian or a democratic political system, with either no state control,
>some state control, or total state control of the economy. Theoretically any
>political system is compatible with any economic system -- after all, the
>Chinese are trying for a totalitarian political system with no state control
>over the economy.

A big problem with so-called democratic socialism is that, as the
bureaucracy grows, it takes on many of the charateristics of
totalitarianism. You can say that the voters nominally have control,
but in practice they do not. A fundamental part of the libertarian
view is that the only way to keep central government under control is
to limit its size and power. Sorry, no nice clean grids in the real
world. :-)

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

Dennis
July 7th 03, 05:18 PM
On 06 Jul 2003 17:28:53 GMT, (JoelnCaryn)
wrote:

>>>There are two different flavors of "socialist" -- totalitarian, and
>>capitalist.
>>> The welfare democracies in places like the Netherlands are, of course, the
>>>capitalist sort. The money for the social programs comes about from taxes
>>>imposed because the majority of the voters agree that those social programs
>>>take care of needs which should be the responsibility of the government.
>>>
>>>But the *money* still comes from taxes on private capitalist enterprise,
>>rather
>>>than from an ownership of all enterprises by the state, as would happen in a
>>>totalitarian socialist state.
>>
>>Not always. Pre-Thatcher Britain is an example of
>>state-ownership of a lot of enterprises (mines, railroads,
>>post office, utilities, health care) etc. I think I could
>>find other countries that have a mixed-economy like this.
>
>Think of it as a 2x3 grid of political and economic systems. We have either a
>totalitarian or a democratic political system, with either no state control,
>some state control, or total state control of the economy. Theoretically any
>political system is compatible with any economic system -- after all, the
>Chinese are trying for a totalitarian political system with no state control
>over the economy.

A big problem with so-called democratic socialism is that, as the
bureaucracy grows, it takes on many of the charateristics of
totalitarianism. You can say that the voters nominally have control,
but in practice they do not. A fundamental part of the libertarian
view is that the only way to keep central government under control is
to limit its size and power. Sorry, no nice clean grids in the real
world. :-)

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

Dennis
July 7th 03, 05:28 PM
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 09:13:59 -0400, Pat Meadows >
wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 19:08:24 -0700, Dennis
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>So, you're currently unemployed, right? When are you going to start
>>your own business? Or were you planning to buy a share in a worker
>>owned shop? Or is this reply just you just punting (again) ?
>>
>
>Can't answer for Albert, but as you know, neither my husband
>nor I can work at present because of health problems.
>
>We did start a business, and it supplements our
>otherwise-minuscule fixed income.
<snip>

Commendable, given your circumstances. But honestly, if you or your
husband's health permitted, you'd jump at a job working for an
employer, right? (Assuming the job meets your criteria, of course.)

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.

Dennis
July 7th 03, 05:28 PM
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 09:13:59 -0400, Pat Meadows >
wrote:

>On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 19:08:24 -0700, Dennis
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>So, you're currently unemployed, right? When are you going to start
>>your own business? Or were you planning to buy a share in a worker
>>owned shop? Or is this reply just you just punting (again) ?
>>
>
>Can't answer for Albert, but as you know, neither my husband
>nor I can work at present because of health problems.
>
>We did start a business, and it supplements our
>otherwise-minuscule fixed income.
<snip>

Commendable, given your circumstances. But honestly, if you or your
husband's health permitted, you'd jump at a job working for an
employer, right? (Assuming the job meets your criteria, of course.)

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.

Dennis
July 7th 03, 06:50 PM
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:47:45 -0400, Pat Meadows >
wrote:

>PS - of course, in the UK, my husband had national health
>care and didn't need to work for a large employer to get
>medical insurance, so he was free to contribute to the
>economy by starting and running his own small business.
>
>(We wouldn't be able to do that here because of the killing
>cost of medical insurance, I forgot this temporarily when I
>answered above.)
>
>Our lack of guaranteed access to health care for all
>citizens and residents stifles the very entrepreneurial
>spirit that is constantly held up as an ideal in our
>capitalistic society.

Then don't despair. Health insurance is available to small businesses
as well as large ones. There are small business organizations that
join together to get rates and coverage similar to that available to
bigger customers. I've used it in the past myself when I didn't have
coverage through an employer.

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.

Dennis
July 7th 03, 06:50 PM
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 11:47:45 -0400, Pat Meadows >
wrote:

>PS - of course, in the UK, my husband had national health
>care and didn't need to work for a large employer to get
>medical insurance, so he was free to contribute to the
>economy by starting and running his own small business.
>
>(We wouldn't be able to do that here because of the killing
>cost of medical insurance, I forgot this temporarily when I
>answered above.)
>
>Our lack of guaranteed access to health care for all
>citizens and residents stifles the very entrepreneurial
>spirit that is constantly held up as an ideal in our
>capitalistic society.

Then don't despair. Health insurance is available to small businesses
as well as large ones. There are small business organizations that
join together to get rates and coverage similar to that available to
bigger customers. I've used it in the past myself when I didn't have
coverage through an employer.

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.

Albert Wagner
July 7th 03, 08:57 PM
On 7 Jul 2003 15:23:24 -0700
(baron48) wrote:
<snip>
> You've got it ass-backwards. A lot of people need to be motivated
> to go out a work for a living. Giving them free stuff is not the
> way to accomplish this.

Torture?

Albert Wagner
July 7th 03, 08:57 PM
On 7 Jul 2003 15:23:24 -0700
(baron48) wrote:
<snip>
> You've got it ass-backwards. A lot of people need to be motivated
> to go out a work for a living. Giving them free stuff is not the
> way to accomplish this.

Torture?

JoelnCaryn
July 7th 03, 09:10 PM
>>>>There are two different flavors of "socialist" -- totalitarian, and
>>>capitalist.

Oh, hell. Mea culpa, Pat -- I was thinking about how much I disliked seeing
this particular error, and so made it. I meant "totalitarian, and democratic"
-- of course.

No *wonder* I confused you. :-(

>A big problem with so-called democratic socialism is that, as the
>bureaucracy grows, it takes on many of the charateristics of
>totalitarianism. You can say that the voters nominally have control,
>but in practice they do not. A fundamental part of the libertarian
>view is that the only way to keep central government under control is
>to limit its size and power. Sorry, no nice clean grids in the real
>world. :-)

And that, of course, is why I have kept saying the phrase "costs of the
bureaucracy"...

That grid isn't perfect in any case -- I left out "oligarchy" and "republic"...

JoelnCaryn
July 7th 03, 09:10 PM
>>>>There are two different flavors of "socialist" -- totalitarian, and
>>>capitalist.

Oh, hell. Mea culpa, Pat -- I was thinking about how much I disliked seeing
this particular error, and so made it. I meant "totalitarian, and democratic"
-- of course.

No *wonder* I confused you. :-(

>A big problem with so-called democratic socialism is that, as the
>bureaucracy grows, it takes on many of the charateristics of
>totalitarianism. You can say that the voters nominally have control,
>but in practice they do not. A fundamental part of the libertarian
>view is that the only way to keep central government under control is
>to limit its size and power. Sorry, no nice clean grids in the real
>world. :-)

And that, of course, is why I have kept saying the phrase "costs of the
bureaucracy"...

That grid isn't perfect in any case -- I left out "oligarchy" and "republic"...

Dennis
July 7th 03, 11:04 PM
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:45:42 -0400, Pat Meadows >
wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:50:40 -0700, Dennis
> wrote:
>>
>>Then don't despair. Health insurance is available to small businesses
>>as well as large ones. There are small business organizations that
>>join together to get rates and coverage similar to that available to
>>bigger customers. I've used it in the past myself when I didn't have
>>coverage through an employer.
>>
>
>I think you will find that this is not true anymore.
<snip>
>NEVERTHELESS and notwithstanding all the above, if you can
>point me in the direction of a group that still offers
>medical insurance to small businesses at group rates, I
>would be most happy to investigate it further. Never hurts
>to try...

Our little 7 person SW company currently gets group health coverage
through Associated Technologies Council http://www.techscouncil.org.

I think it is a regional organization, but there may be something
similar over in your neck of the woods. They have a minimum
requirement of 2 covered workers.

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.

Dennis
July 7th 03, 11:04 PM
On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 15:45:42 -0400, Pat Meadows >
wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 09:50:40 -0700, Dennis
> wrote:
>>
>>Then don't despair. Health insurance is available to small businesses
>>as well as large ones. There are small business organizations that
>>join together to get rates and coverage similar to that available to
>>bigger customers. I've used it in the past myself when I didn't have
>>coverage through an employer.
>>
>
>I think you will find that this is not true anymore.
<snip>
>NEVERTHELESS and notwithstanding all the above, if you can
>point me in the direction of a group that still offers
>medical insurance to small businesses at group rates, I
>would be most happy to investigate it further. Never hurts
>to try...

Our little 7 person SW company currently gets group health coverage
through Associated Technologies Council http://www.techscouncil.org.

I think it is a regional organization, but there may be something
similar over in your neck of the woods. They have a minimum
requirement of 2 covered workers.

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.

Albert Wagner
July 8th 03, 08:52 AM
On 7 Jul 2003 23:22:06 -0700
(Bill Bowden) wrote:

> Albert Wagner > wrote in message
> >...
<snip>
> > ALL money comes from labor. The profits of private industry are
> > stolen from the workers.
> >
>
> In that case, workers should start their own businesses and
> keep all the profits.

Exactly.

>
> > > Government
> > > doesn't HAVE any money, nor any way to earn any.
> >
> > That's easily fixed (easy concept, hard to get passed).
> > Simply make the government a 50% shareholder in all corporations.
>
> And what would the reaction on Wall Street be?
> Panic selling?

If all businesses were worker owned, I don't think there would be a Wall
Street.

> >
> > >
> > > As government breaks more businesses, the burden is being carried
> > > by fewer and fewer people.
> >
> > Bull****!
>
> Not if you live in California. We are 38 billion in debt
> and business is heading for other States to avoid increased
> taxes and regulations. The governor is about to lose his
> job to a recall election.

Making the government a shareholder in all businesses is in lieu of
taxes. Regulations are imposed in response to the bad behaviour of
business.

Albert Wagner
July 8th 03, 08:52 AM
On 7 Jul 2003 23:22:06 -0700
(Bill Bowden) wrote:

> Albert Wagner > wrote in message
> >...
<snip>
> > ALL money comes from labor. The profits of private industry are
> > stolen from the workers.
> >
>
> In that case, workers should start their own businesses and
> keep all the profits.

Exactly.

>
> > > Government
> > > doesn't HAVE any money, nor any way to earn any.
> >
> > That's easily fixed (easy concept, hard to get passed).
> > Simply make the government a 50% shareholder in all corporations.
>
> And what would the reaction on Wall Street be?
> Panic selling?

If all businesses were worker owned, I don't think there would be a Wall
Street.

> >
> > >
> > > As government breaks more businesses, the burden is being carried
> > > by fewer and fewer people.
> >
> > Bull****!
>
> Not if you live in California. We are 38 billion in debt
> and business is heading for other States to avoid increased
> taxes and regulations. The governor is about to lose his
> job to a recall election.

Making the government a shareholder in all businesses is in lieu of
taxes. Regulations are imposed in response to the bad behaviour of
business.

Lorenzo
July 8th 03, 09:57 AM
Albert Wagner wrote:

> That's easily fixed (easy concept, hard to get passed). Simply make the
> government a 50% shareholder in all corporations. After all,
> corporations and their capital are useless without the public
> infrastructure paid for by the government. Don't think so?

what a BS ! as i read your posts on this ng, i can't help but laugh
at your lack of pragmatism. what makes you think that France and
Germany which have such setups of too much govt involvement are
better than USA ? may be you should move to Brunei, Mr. Bitter Old Man.

*lorenzo*

Lorenzo
July 8th 03, 09:57 AM
Albert Wagner wrote:

> That's easily fixed (easy concept, hard to get passed). Simply make the
> government a 50% shareholder in all corporations. After all,
> corporations and their capital are useless without the public
> infrastructure paid for by the government. Don't think so?

what a BS ! as i read your posts on this ng, i can't help but laugh
at your lack of pragmatism. what makes you think that France and
Germany which have such setups of too much govt involvement are
better than USA ? may be you should move to Brunei, Mr. Bitter Old Man.

*lorenzo*

Albert Wagner
July 8th 03, 01:46 PM
On 8 Jul 2003 10:01:38 -0700
(baron48) wrote:

> Albert Wagner > wrote in message
> >...
> > On 7 Jul 2003 15:23:24 -0700
> > (baron48) wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > You've got it ass-backwards. A lot of people need to be motivated
> > > to go out a work for a living. Giving them free stuff is not the
> > > way to accomplish this.
> >
> > Torture?

A lot of capitalists need to be motivated to go out and invest. Giving
them tax incentives is not the way to accomplish this.

Albert Wagner
July 8th 03, 01:46 PM
On 8 Jul 2003 10:01:38 -0700
(baron48) wrote:

> Albert Wagner > wrote in message
> >...
> > On 7 Jul 2003 15:23:24 -0700
> > (baron48) wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > You've got it ass-backwards. A lot of people need to be motivated
> > > to go out a work for a living. Giving them free stuff is not the
> > > way to accomplish this.
> >
> > Torture?

A lot of capitalists need to be motivated to go out and invest. Giving
them tax incentives is not the way to accomplish this.

IleneB
July 8th 03, 02:53 PM
In article >, Pat Meadows
> wrote:

> if you can
> point me in the direction of a group that still offers
> medical insurance to small businesses at group rates,

Have you already checked the AARP (assuming one of you is old enough)?
I know they offer some sort of group plan, no idea if it's reasonable
or what.

Ilene B

IleneB
July 8th 03, 02:53 PM
In article >, Pat Meadows
> wrote:

> if you can
> point me in the direction of a group that still offers
> medical insurance to small businesses at group rates,

Have you already checked the AARP (assuming one of you is old enough)?
I know they offer some sort of group plan, no idea if it's reasonable
or what.

Ilene B

Elizabeth
July 8th 03, 05:20 PM
> >Our little 7 person SW company currently gets group health coverage
> >through Associated Technologies Council http://www.techscouncil.org.
> >

A couple of years ago in Texas, the small group insurers started rating
everyone in the group by age and medical conditions. Mine went from $138 a
month to $791 a month in a little over a year - age only since I had nothing
but minor claims. Another part of the problem is the insurer selling out
to another insurer. The executives have golden parachutes so they get huge
severance packages. Then the rates under the new company double just to
pay the executives.

EBBY

Elizabeth
July 8th 03, 05:20 PM
> >Our little 7 person SW company currently gets group health coverage
> >through Associated Technologies Council http://www.techscouncil.org.
> >

A couple of years ago in Texas, the small group insurers started rating
everyone in the group by age and medical conditions. Mine went from $138 a
month to $791 a month in a little over a year - age only since I had nothing
but minor claims. Another part of the problem is the insurer selling out
to another insurer. The executives have golden parachutes so they get huge
severance packages. Then the rates under the new company double just to
pay the executives.

EBBY

Albert Wagner
July 8th 03, 08:08 PM
On 8 Jul 2003 14:44:55 -0700
(baron48) wrote:

> Albert Wagner > wrote in message
> >...
> > On 8 Jul 2003 10:01:38 -0700
> > (baron48) wrote:
> >
> > > Albert Wagner > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > > > On 7 Jul 2003 15:23:24 -0700
> > > > (baron48) wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > You've got it ass-backwards. A lot of people need to be
> > > > > motivated to go out a work for a living. Giving them free
> > > > > stuff is not the way to accomplish this.
> > > >
> > > > Torture?
> >
> > A lot of capitalists need to be motivated to go out and invest.
>
> What do you think it means to be a "capitalist?" By definition,
> they are already investing their money.

So Bush's tax breaks, designed to encourage investment, are a hoax?

Try to indicate where you have snipped part of a post. To not do so is
misleading and rude.

Albert Wagner
July 8th 03, 08:08 PM
On 8 Jul 2003 14:44:55 -0700
(baron48) wrote:

> Albert Wagner > wrote in message
> >...
> > On 8 Jul 2003 10:01:38 -0700
> > (baron48) wrote:
> >
> > > Albert Wagner > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > > > On 7 Jul 2003 15:23:24 -0700
> > > > (baron48) wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > You've got it ass-backwards. A lot of people need to be
> > > > > motivated to go out a work for a living. Giving them free
> > > > > stuff is not the way to accomplish this.
> > > >
> > > > Torture?
> >
> > A lot of capitalists need to be motivated to go out and invest.
>
> What do you think it means to be a "capitalist?" By definition,
> they are already investing their money.

So Bush's tax breaks, designed to encourage investment, are a hoax?

Try to indicate where you have snipped part of a post. To not do so is
misleading and rude.

baron48
July 8th 03, 09:12 PM
Look at what the state university system offers to students.
It worked out to be cheaper to take one class and buy student
insurance than to pay for COBRA last time I looked at it here
in Colorado. You also might learn something in the process.

-Tom

IleneB > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Pat Meadows
> > wrote:
>
> > if you can
> > point me in the direction of a group that still offers
> > medical insurance to small businesses at group rates,
>
> Have you already checked the AARP (assuming one of you is old enough)?
> I know they offer some sort of group plan, no idea if it's reasonable
> or what.
>
> Ilene B

baron48
July 8th 03, 09:12 PM
Look at what the state university system offers to students.
It worked out to be cheaper to take one class and buy student
insurance than to pay for COBRA last time I looked at it here
in Colorado. You also might learn something in the process.

-Tom

IleneB > wrote in message >...
> In article >, Pat Meadows
> > wrote:
>
> > if you can
> > point me in the direction of a group that still offers
> > medical insurance to small businesses at group rates,
>
> Have you already checked the AARP (assuming one of you is old enough)?
> I know they offer some sort of group plan, no idea if it's reasonable
> or what.
>
> Ilene B

Albert Wagner
July 8th 03, 09:57 PM
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:22:35 -0700
The Real Bev > wrote:

> Albert Wagner wrote:
>
> > Try to indicate where you have snipped part of a post. To not do so
> > is misleading and rude.
>
> I thought the convention was to snip everything but the parts you are
> replying to. Anyone interested in the entire post can just go back a
> step.
That is also my understanding also, but with the proviso that when
something is snipped then some indication should be made, e.g. <snipped>

Albert Wagner
July 8th 03, 09:57 PM
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:22:35 -0700
The Real Bev > wrote:

> Albert Wagner wrote:
>
> > Try to indicate where you have snipped part of a post. To not do so
> > is misleading and rude.
>
> I thought the convention was to snip everything but the parts you are
> replying to. Anyone interested in the entire post can just go back a
> step.
That is also my understanding also, but with the proviso that when
something is snipped then some indication should be made, e.g. <snipped>

The Real Bev
July 8th 03, 10:06 PM
Albert Wagner wrote:

> Regulations are imposed in response to the bad behaviour of
> business.

So what can we do in response to the bad behaviour of government? "Throw
the rascals out" doesn't work when they're all rascals.

--
Cheers, Bev
------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.

The Real Bev
July 8th 03, 10:06 PM
Albert Wagner wrote:

> Regulations are imposed in response to the bad behaviour of
> business.

So what can we do in response to the bad behaviour of government? "Throw
the rascals out" doesn't work when they're all rascals.

--
Cheers, Bev
------------------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.

Albert Wagner
July 8th 03, 10:47 PM
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:27:55 -0700
The Real Bev > wrote:
<snip>
> In a real conversation with real human beings, you mostly ignore
> points you don't want to discuss and respond to those you do without
> making reference to the stuff you want to ignore. I favor that model
> for usenet, since posting really closer to speech than to writing.

I disagree. Without some indication that part of a paragraph or
sentence has been ommited, then the responder is free to quote out of
context, giving an erroneous impression what the original posted said.

Albert Wagner
July 8th 03, 10:47 PM
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 19:27:55 -0700
The Real Bev > wrote:
<snip>
> In a real conversation with real human beings, you mostly ignore
> points you don't want to discuss and respond to those you do without
> making reference to the stuff you want to ignore. I favor that model
> for usenet, since posting really closer to speech than to writing.

I disagree. Without some indication that part of a paragraph or
sentence has been ommited, then the responder is free to quote out of
context, giving an erroneous impression what the original posted said.

Bill Bowden
July 8th 03, 11:27 PM
Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
> On 7 Jul 2003 23:22:06 -0700
> (Bill Bowden) wrote:
>
> > Albert Wagner > wrote in message
> > >...
> <snip>
> > > ALL money comes from labor. The profits of private industry are
> > > stolen from the workers.
> > >
> >
> > In that case, workers should start their own businesses and
> > keep all the profits.
>
> Exactly.
>
> >
> > > > Government
> > > > doesn't HAVE any money, nor any way to earn any.
> > >
> > > That's easily fixed (easy concept, hard to get passed).
> > > Simply make the government a 50% shareholder in all corporations.
> >
> > And what would the reaction on Wall Street be?
> > Panic selling?
>
> If all businesses were worker owned, I don't think there would be a Wall
> Street.
>

There would be if a small business wants to become a large business
and raise capitol through public ownership. Where else would they
get capitol to expand or make it through hard times? I guess they
could issue bonds if the rates were high enough and could find any
buyers.

> > >
> > > >
> > > > As government breaks more businesses, the burden is being carried
> > > > by fewer and fewer people.
> > >
> > > Bull****!
> >
> > Not if you live in California. We are 38 billion in debt
> > and business is heading for other States to avoid increased
> > taxes and regulations. The governor is about to lose his
> > job to a recall election.
>
> Making the government a shareholder in all businesses is in lieu of
> taxes. Regulations are imposed in response to the bad behaviour of
> business.

Regulations are imposed by government wackos. I know a family
that owns a small convience store and they used to sell lottery
tickets. The EOC wackos showed up and ordered them to spend several
thousand dollars upgrading the store and parking facilities so
people in wheelchairs could easily buy lottery tickets.

They refused and no longer sell lottery tickets.

-Bill

Bill Bowden
July 8th 03, 11:27 PM
Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
> On 7 Jul 2003 23:22:06 -0700
> (Bill Bowden) wrote:
>
> > Albert Wagner > wrote in message
> > >...
> <snip>
> > > ALL money comes from labor. The profits of private industry are
> > > stolen from the workers.
> > >
> >
> > In that case, workers should start their own businesses and
> > keep all the profits.
>
> Exactly.
>
> >
> > > > Government
> > > > doesn't HAVE any money, nor any way to earn any.
> > >
> > > That's easily fixed (easy concept, hard to get passed).
> > > Simply make the government a 50% shareholder in all corporations.
> >
> > And what would the reaction on Wall Street be?
> > Panic selling?
>
> If all businesses were worker owned, I don't think there would be a Wall
> Street.
>

There would be if a small business wants to become a large business
and raise capitol through public ownership. Where else would they
get capitol to expand or make it through hard times? I guess they
could issue bonds if the rates were high enough and could find any
buyers.

> > >
> > > >
> > > > As government breaks more businesses, the burden is being carried
> > > > by fewer and fewer people.
> > >
> > > Bull****!
> >
> > Not if you live in California. We are 38 billion in debt
> > and business is heading for other States to avoid increased
> > taxes and regulations. The governor is about to lose his
> > job to a recall election.
>
> Making the government a shareholder in all businesses is in lieu of
> taxes. Regulations are imposed in response to the bad behaviour of
> business.

Regulations are imposed by government wackos. I know a family
that owns a small convience store and they used to sell lottery
tickets. The EOC wackos showed up and ordered them to spend several
thousand dollars upgrading the store and parking facilities so
people in wheelchairs could easily buy lottery tickets.

They refused and no longer sell lottery tickets.

-Bill

baron48
July 8th 03, 11:44 PM
Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
> On 8 Jul 2003 10:01:38 -0700
> (baron48) wrote:
>
> > Albert Wagner > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > On 7 Jul 2003 15:23:24 -0700
> > > (baron48) wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > You've got it ass-backwards. A lot of people need to be motivated
> > > > to go out a work for a living. Giving them free stuff is not the
> > > > way to accomplish this.
> > >
> > > Torture?
>
> A lot of capitalists need to be motivated to go out and invest.

What do you think it means to be a "capitalist?" By definition,
they are already investing their money.

-Tom

baron48
July 8th 03, 11:44 PM
Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
> On 8 Jul 2003 10:01:38 -0700
> (baron48) wrote:
>
> > Albert Wagner > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > On 7 Jul 2003 15:23:24 -0700
> > > (baron48) wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > You've got it ass-backwards. A lot of people need to be motivated
> > > > to go out a work for a living. Giving them free stuff is not the
> > > > way to accomplish this.
> > >
> > > Torture?
>
> A lot of capitalists need to be motivated to go out and invest.

What do you think it means to be a "capitalist?" By definition,
they are already investing their money.

-Tom

Albert Wagner
July 8th 03, 11:45 PM
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:08:25 -0700
Lorenzo > wrote:

> Albert Wagner wrote:
>
> > I have as much right to stay in my own country as you do. Is
> > exporting anyone with an opinion different than your own your idea
> > of patriotism?
>
> for someone who throws insults at every possible poster, you seem
> pretty weak heat sink.

You said, "what a BS ! as i read your posts on this ng, i can't help but
laugh at your lack of pragmatism. what makes you think that France and
Germany which have such setups of too much govt involvement are better
than USA ? may be you should move to Brunei, Mr. Bitter Old Man."

What would you consider an appropriate reply to your post?

>
> > What's wrong with my idea of replacing corporate taxes with
> > dividends?
>
> oh puhleez, its not your idea. go back re-read my original post.
> France and Germany already have it for long time.

Perhaps english is your second language. I didn't mean to claim that I
invented the idea. OK, for you...What's wrong with the idea of replacing
corporate taxes with dividends?

>
> > How is it not pragmatic?
>
> give me a real life example ? i'm not interested in your theories btw.

You just said that France and Germany have it. I'll take your word for
it.

Albert Wagner
July 8th 03, 11:45 PM
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:08:25 -0700
Lorenzo > wrote:

> Albert Wagner wrote:
>
> > I have as much right to stay in my own country as you do. Is
> > exporting anyone with an opinion different than your own your idea
> > of patriotism?
>
> for someone who throws insults at every possible poster, you seem
> pretty weak heat sink.

You said, "what a BS ! as i read your posts on this ng, i can't help but
laugh at your lack of pragmatism. what makes you think that France and
Germany which have such setups of too much govt involvement are better
than USA ? may be you should move to Brunei, Mr. Bitter Old Man."

What would you consider an appropriate reply to your post?

>
> > What's wrong with my idea of replacing corporate taxes with
> > dividends?
>
> oh puhleez, its not your idea. go back re-read my original post.
> France and Germany already have it for long time.

Perhaps english is your second language. I didn't mean to claim that I
invented the idea. OK, for you...What's wrong with the idea of replacing
corporate taxes with dividends?

>
> > How is it not pragmatic?
>
> give me a real life example ? i'm not interested in your theories btw.

You just said that France and Germany have it. I'll take your word for
it.

Albert Wagner
July 9th 03, 12:12 AM
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:34:53 -0700
Lorenzo > wrote:

> Albert Wagner wrote:
>
> > Tell me about this magical thing: unrestrained competition.
>
> tell us how "restrained competition" works ?

No. I said "UNrestrained competition."

> hmm, like how
> government works presently ? eg: SSA, ATF etc ?

No. Like laissez-faire capitalism.

>
> > Do you have any proof that laissez faire capitalism does not
> > ultimately self destruct?
>
> do you have any proof that it *will* self distruct ?

Even prophets don't have PROOF of the future. However, it makes sense
that any system that is not sustainable will some day self destruct.
Any system that consumes the unrenewable natural resources of a finite
world is not sustainable.

>
> for all your jumping from one point to another without clarifying
> what you are talking about or stand for, would you care to describe
> how your envisioned system-of-new-order works in its entirety ?

I have no "system-of-new-order." Unlike you and other libertarians I
have no particular dogma that I can memorize and spew back on demand. I
am simply a seeker for a more equitable system.

>
> while you are at it, would you also enlighten how its works better
> than the present system assuming the population variance (abilities,
> talent, skills) conforms to bell curve ?

If I ever come up with a "system-of-new-order" (whatever that is) it
would of course have to be better than the present system. There is
simply no utility in coming up with a system that is worse.

Albert Wagner
July 9th 03, 12:12 AM
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 20:34:53 -0700
Lorenzo > wrote:

> Albert Wagner wrote:
>
> > Tell me about this magical thing: unrestrained competition.
>
> tell us how "restrained competition" works ?

No. I said "UNrestrained competition."

> hmm, like how
> government works presently ? eg: SSA, ATF etc ?

No. Like laissez-faire capitalism.

>
> > Do you have any proof that laissez faire capitalism does not
> > ultimately self destruct?
>
> do you have any proof that it *will* self distruct ?

Even prophets don't have PROOF of the future. However, it makes sense
that any system that is not sustainable will some day self destruct.
Any system that consumes the unrenewable natural resources of a finite
world is not sustainable.

>
> for all your jumping from one point to another without clarifying
> what you are talking about or stand for, would you care to describe
> how your envisioned system-of-new-order works in its entirety ?

I have no "system-of-new-order." Unlike you and other libertarians I
have no particular dogma that I can memorize and spew back on demand. I
am simply a seeker for a more equitable system.

>
> while you are at it, would you also enlighten how its works better
> than the present system assuming the population variance (abilities,
> talent, skills) conforms to bell curve ?

If I ever come up with a "system-of-new-order" (whatever that is) it
would of course have to be better than the present system. There is
simply no utility in coming up with a system that is worse.

The Real Bev
July 9th 03, 03:22 AM
Albert Wagner wrote:

> Try to indicate where you have snipped part of a post. To not do so is
> misleading and rude.

I thought the convention was to snip everything but the parts you are
replying to. Anyone interested in the entire post can just go back a
step.

--
Cheers,
Bev
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$
"If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would
be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?)

The Real Bev
July 9th 03, 03:22 AM
Albert Wagner wrote:

> Try to indicate where you have snipped part of a post. To not do so is
> misleading and rude.

I thought the convention was to snip everything but the parts you are
replying to. Anyone interested in the entire post can just go back a
step.

--
Cheers,
Bev
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$
"If you put the government in charge of the desert, there would
be a sand shortage within ten years." -- M. Friedman (?)

The Real Bev
July 9th 03, 04:27 AM
Albert Wagner wrote:
>
> The Real Bev > wrote:
>
> > Albert Wagner wrote:
> >
> > > Try to indicate where you have snipped part of a post. To not do so
> > > is misleading and rude.
> >
> > I thought the convention was to snip everything but the parts you are
> > replying to. Anyone interested in the entire post can just go back a
> > step.
> That is also my understanding also, but with the proviso that when
> something is snipped then some indication should be made, e.g. <snipped>

In a real conversation with real human beings, you mostly ignore points
you don't want to discuss and respond to those you do without making
reference to the stuff you want to ignore. I favor that model for usenet,
since posting really closer to speech than to writing.

--
Cheers,
Bev
************************************************
Horn broken. Watch for finger.

The Real Bev
July 9th 03, 04:27 AM
Albert Wagner wrote:
>
> The Real Bev > wrote:
>
> > Albert Wagner wrote:
> >
> > > Try to indicate where you have snipped part of a post. To not do so
> > > is misleading and rude.
> >
> > I thought the convention was to snip everything but the parts you are
> > replying to. Anyone interested in the entire post can just go back a
> > step.
> That is also my understanding also, but with the proviso that when
> something is snipped then some indication should be made, e.g. <snipped>

In a real conversation with real human beings, you mostly ignore points
you don't want to discuss and respond to those you do without making
reference to the stuff you want to ignore. I favor that model for usenet,
since posting really closer to speech than to writing.

--
Cheers,
Bev
************************************************
Horn broken. Watch for finger.

Lorenzo
July 9th 03, 05:08 AM
Albert Wagner wrote:

> I have as much right to stay in my own country as you do. Is exporting
> anyone with an opinion different than your own your idea of patriotism?

for someone who throws insults at every possible poster, you seem pretty
weak heat sink.

> What's wrong with my idea of replacing corporate taxes with dividends?

oh puhleez, its not your idea. go back re-read my original post.
France and Germany already have it for long time.

> How is it not pragmatic?

give me a real life example ? i'm not interested in your theories btw.

*lorenzo*

Lorenzo
July 9th 03, 05:08 AM
Albert Wagner wrote:

> I have as much right to stay in my own country as you do. Is exporting
> anyone with an opinion different than your own your idea of patriotism?

for someone who throws insults at every possible poster, you seem pretty
weak heat sink.

> What's wrong with my idea of replacing corporate taxes with dividends?

oh puhleez, its not your idea. go back re-read my original post.
France and Germany already have it for long time.

> How is it not pragmatic?

give me a real life example ? i'm not interested in your theories btw.

*lorenzo*

Lorenzo
July 9th 03, 05:34 AM
Albert Wagner wrote:

> Tell me about this magical thing: unrestrained competition.

tell us how "restrained competition" works ? hmm, like how
government works presently ? eg: SSA, ATF etc ?

> Do you have any proof that laissez faire capitalism does not
> ultimately self destruct?

do you have any proof that it *will* self distruct ?

for all your jumping from one point to another without clarifying
what you are talking about or stand for, would you care to describe
how your envisioned system-of-new-order works in its entirety ?

while you are at it, would you also enlighten how its works better
than the present system assuming the population variance (abilities,
talent, skills) conforms to bell curve ?

*lorenzo*

Lorenzo
July 9th 03, 05:34 AM
Albert Wagner wrote:

> Tell me about this magical thing: unrestrained competition.

tell us how "restrained competition" works ? hmm, like how
government works presently ? eg: SSA, ATF etc ?

> Do you have any proof that laissez faire capitalism does not
> ultimately self destruct?

do you have any proof that it *will* self distruct ?

for all your jumping from one point to another without clarifying
what you are talking about or stand for, would you care to describe
how your envisioned system-of-new-order works in its entirety ?

while you are at it, would you also enlighten how its works better
than the present system assuming the population variance (abilities,
talent, skills) conforms to bell curve ?

*lorenzo*

Bob Ward
July 9th 03, 05:55 AM
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:22:35 -0700, The Real Bev
> wrote:

>Albert Wagner wrote:
>
>> Try to indicate where you have snipped part of a post. To not do so is
>> misleading and rude.
>
>I thought the convention was to snip everything but the parts you are
>replying to. Anyone interested in the entire post can just go back a
>step.


That is ass-uming that the previous post resides on the reader's
server.

Bob Ward
July 9th 03, 05:55 AM
On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:22:35 -0700, The Real Bev
> wrote:

>Albert Wagner wrote:
>
>> Try to indicate where you have snipped part of a post. To not do so is
>> misleading and rude.
>
>I thought the convention was to snip everything but the parts you are
>replying to. Anyone interested in the entire post can just go back a
>step.


That is ass-uming that the previous post resides on the reader's
server.

The Real Bev
July 9th 03, 06:20 AM
Bob Ward wrote:
>
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:22:35 -0700, The Real Bev
> > wrote:
>
> >Albert Wagner wrote:
> >
> >> Try to indicate where you have snipped part of a post. To not do so is
> >> misleading and rude.
> >
> >I thought the convention was to snip everything but the parts you are
> >replying to. Anyone interested in the entire post can just go back a
> >step.
>
> That is ass-uming that the previous post resides on the reader's
> server.

**** happens. Anyway, NOTHING is worse than html posting.

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== =
Salesmen welcome -- dog food is expensive

The Real Bev
July 9th 03, 06:20 AM
Bob Ward wrote:
>
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 18:22:35 -0700, The Real Bev
> > wrote:
>
> >Albert Wagner wrote:
> >
> >> Try to indicate where you have snipped part of a post. To not do so is
> >> misleading and rude.
> >
> >I thought the convention was to snip everything but the parts you are
> >replying to. Anyone interested in the entire post can just go back a
> >step.
>
> That is ass-uming that the previous post resides on the reader's
> server.

**** happens. Anyway, NOTHING is worse than html posting.

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== =
Salesmen welcome -- dog food is expensive

Lorenzo
July 9th 03, 06:48 AM
Albert Wagner wrote:

> What would you consider an appropriate reply to your post?

not the way you responded.

>>>What's wrong with my idea of replacing corporate taxes with
>>>dividends?
>>
>>oh puhleez, its not your idea. go back re-read my original post.
>>France and Germany already have it for long time.
>
> Perhaps english is your second language. I didn't mean to claim that I
> invented the idea.

then use proper english, Mr. ignoraNus. you use crappy english and
somehow it becomes my problem if the message does not get across.
also, how would you frame a sentence to imply something was really
your idea (just in case there is one) ? hmmm, like "i mean it" kinda
footnote ?

>>>How is it not pragmatic?
>>
>>give me a real life example ? i'm not interested in your theories btw.
>
>
> You just said that France and Germany have it. I'll take your word for
> it.

if irrelavancy (and punting as Mr. Dennis says) is your thesis, prolly
you never realized such a system has failed in France/Germany and they
are already working towards systemic reforms.... as you fail to provide
any concrete example (as expected from a armchair fill-o-suffer),
here is mine: airbus.

*lorenzo*

Lorenzo
July 9th 03, 06:48 AM
Albert Wagner wrote:

> What would you consider an appropriate reply to your post?

not the way you responded.

>>>What's wrong with my idea of replacing corporate taxes with
>>>dividends?
>>
>>oh puhleez, its not your idea. go back re-read my original post.
>>France and Germany already have it for long time.
>
> Perhaps english is your second language. I didn't mean to claim that I
> invented the idea.

then use proper english, Mr. ignoraNus. you use crappy english and
somehow it becomes my problem if the message does not get across.
also, how would you frame a sentence to imply something was really
your idea (just in case there is one) ? hmmm, like "i mean it" kinda
footnote ?

>>>How is it not pragmatic?
>>
>>give me a real life example ? i'm not interested in your theories btw.
>
>
> You just said that France and Germany have it. I'll take your word for
> it.

if irrelavancy (and punting as Mr. Dennis says) is your thesis, prolly
you never realized such a system has failed in France/Germany and they
are already working towards systemic reforms.... as you fail to provide
any concrete example (as expected from a armchair fill-o-suffer),
here is mine: airbus.

*lorenzo*

Albert Wagner
July 9th 03, 09:19 AM
On 09 Jul 2003 06:13:16 GMT
(JoelnCaryn) wrote:

> >I have no "system-of-new-order." Unlike you and other libertarians I
> >have no particular dogma that I can memorize and spew back on demand.
> > I
> >am simply a seeker for a more equitable system.
>
> How have you concluded that anyone with whom you are speaking save
> Dennis is libertarian?
>
I, of course, have no way of knowing if they identify themselves as
libertarians. I use the word to apply to anyone who displays
libertarian attitudes: hatred of government regulations, hatred of
taxes, defense of laissez-faire capitalism. Perhaps too broad of a
brush for a purist, but it works for me.

Albert Wagner
July 9th 03, 09:19 AM
On 09 Jul 2003 06:13:16 GMT
(JoelnCaryn) wrote:

> >I have no "system-of-new-order." Unlike you and other libertarians I
> >have no particular dogma that I can memorize and spew back on demand.
> > I
> >am simply a seeker for a more equitable system.
>
> How have you concluded that anyone with whom you are speaking save
> Dennis is libertarian?
>
I, of course, have no way of knowing if they identify themselves as
libertarians. I use the word to apply to anyone who displays
libertarian attitudes: hatred of government regulations, hatred of
taxes, defense of laissez-faire capitalism. Perhaps too broad of a
brush for a purist, but it works for me.

Lorenzo
July 9th 03, 09:37 AM
Albert Wagner wrote:

>>>Tell me about this magical thing: unrestrained competition.
>>
>>tell us how "restrained competition" works ?
>
> No. I said "UNrestrained competition."

may be you need to think a bit more when something is quoted..
if unrestrained competition (it may mean different things to
different people, but i digress) is bad, then i was wondering
how a restrained competition in your new-system-of-order would work ?

> Even prophets don't have PROOF of the future. However, it makes sense
> that any system that is not sustainable will some day self destruct.

BFD. a new system would replace the old system when there is a need.
till then capitalism is here to stay, like it or not.

> I have no "system-of-new-order." Unlike you and other libertarians I
> have no particular dogma that I can memorize and spew back on demand.

GS said "those who forget history..."; yeah, makes sense in your case.

> I am simply a seeker for a more equitable system.

you mean your "fair" solution of "equal distribution of wealth" ?

ohh.... like, wealth created from capitalism should be shared with
a bunch of loosers that had neither competence nor willingness
to succeed, and all they do is whine on the usenet as to
how bad the system has been ? ever heard of the term "introspection" ?

i love capitalism and its the only system so far that ensures
private/intellectual property ownership, reward for entrepreneurs,
framework for innovation and all that good stuff. unfortunately
loosers donot benefit in such a system and my suggestion for
them is to move to Brunei.[1]

*lorenzo*

[1] or try skydiving without parachute.

Lorenzo
July 9th 03, 09:37 AM
Albert Wagner wrote:

>>>Tell me about this magical thing: unrestrained competition.
>>
>>tell us how "restrained competition" works ?
>
> No. I said "UNrestrained competition."

may be you need to think a bit more when something is quoted..
if unrestrained competition (it may mean different things to
different people, but i digress) is bad, then i was wondering
how a restrained competition in your new-system-of-order would work ?

> Even prophets don't have PROOF of the future. However, it makes sense
> that any system that is not sustainable will some day self destruct.

BFD. a new system would replace the old system when there is a need.
till then capitalism is here to stay, like it or not.

> I have no "system-of-new-order." Unlike you and other libertarians I
> have no particular dogma that I can memorize and spew back on demand.

GS said "those who forget history..."; yeah, makes sense in your case.

> I am simply a seeker for a more equitable system.

you mean your "fair" solution of "equal distribution of wealth" ?

ohh.... like, wealth created from capitalism should be shared with
a bunch of loosers that had neither competence nor willingness
to succeed, and all they do is whine on the usenet as to
how bad the system has been ? ever heard of the term "introspection" ?

i love capitalism and its the only system so far that ensures
private/intellectual property ownership, reward for entrepreneurs,
framework for innovation and all that good stuff. unfortunately
loosers donot benefit in such a system and my suggestion for
them is to move to Brunei.[1]

*lorenzo*

[1] or try skydiving without parachute.

Albert Wagner
July 9th 03, 09:41 AM
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:37:33 -0700
Lorenzo > wrote:
<snip>
> ohh.... like, wealth created from capitalism should be shared with
> a bunch of loosers that had neither competence nor willingness
> to succeed, and all they do is whine on the usenet as to
> how bad the system has been ? ever heard of the term "introspection" ?
>
> i love capitalism and its the only system so far that ensures
> private/intellectual property ownership, reward for entrepreneurs,
> framework for innovation and all that good stuff. unfortunately
> loosers donot benefit in such a system and my suggestion for
> them is to move to Brunei.[1]
>
> *lorenzo*
>
> [1] or try skydiving without parachute.

Thank you for your post. I now know all I care or need to know about
your views.

Albert Wagner
July 9th 03, 09:41 AM
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 00:37:33 -0700
Lorenzo > wrote:
<snip>
> ohh.... like, wealth created from capitalism should be shared with
> a bunch of loosers that had neither competence nor willingness
> to succeed, and all they do is whine on the usenet as to
> how bad the system has been ? ever heard of the term "introspection" ?
>
> i love capitalism and its the only system so far that ensures
> private/intellectual property ownership, reward for entrepreneurs,
> framework for innovation and all that good stuff. unfortunately
> loosers donot benefit in such a system and my suggestion for
> them is to move to Brunei.[1]
>
> *lorenzo*
>
> [1] or try skydiving without parachute.

Thank you for your post. I now know all I care or need to know about
your views.

root
July 9th 03, 09:57 AM
Albert Wagner > wrote:
> I disagree. Without some indication that part of a paragraph or
> sentence has been ommited, then the responder is free to quote out of
> context, giving an erroneous impression what the original posted said.

In which case the OP can correct the mistake.

root
July 9th 03, 09:57 AM
Albert Wagner > wrote:
> I disagree. Without some indication that part of a paragraph or
> sentence has been ommited, then the responder is free to quote out of
> context, giving an erroneous impression what the original posted said.

In which case the OP can correct the mistake.

leslie
July 9th 03, 10:24 AM
Lorenzo ) wrote:
:
: i love capitalism and its the only system so far that ensures
: private/intellectual property ownership, reward for entrepreneurs,
: framework for innovation and all that good stuff. unfortunately
: loosers donot benefit in such a system and my suggestion for
: them is to move to Brunei.[1]
:
: *lorenzo*
:
: [1] or try skydiving without parachute.
:

That's a complete waste of "loosers". A REAL capitalist would:

o harvest usable organs for the ruling class
o convert what's remaining into a protein source, or burn in ovens
like the NAZIs did.
o sell any dependents into overseas slavery markets, thus improving
the balance of payments


--Jerry Leslie (my opinions are strictly my own)
Note: is invalid for email

"CEOs: you wouldn't want your daughter to marry one"

leslie
July 9th 03, 10:24 AM
Lorenzo ) wrote:
:
: i love capitalism and its the only system so far that ensures
: private/intellectual property ownership, reward for entrepreneurs,
: framework for innovation and all that good stuff. unfortunately
: loosers donot benefit in such a system and my suggestion for
: them is to move to Brunei.[1]
:
: *lorenzo*
:
: [1] or try skydiving without parachute.
:

That's a complete waste of "loosers". A REAL capitalist would:

o harvest usable organs for the ruling class
o convert what's remaining into a protein source, or burn in ovens
like the NAZIs did.
o sell any dependents into overseas slavery markets, thus improving
the balance of payments


--Jerry Leslie (my opinions are strictly my own)
Note: is invalid for email

"CEOs: you wouldn't want your daughter to marry one"

Dennis
July 9th 03, 05:08 PM
On 9 Jul 2003 06:14:45 -0700, (Ribeldi) wrote:

>Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
>>
>> I have as much right to stay in my own country as you do. Is exporting
>> anyone with an opinion different than your own your idea of patriotism?
>
>That's a good response to those people who like to say, "well, if you
>don't like it here in the US, why don't you move to [fill in the country]?"

Actually, it's pretty lame. The question is not an invitation to
leave, but rather a test of how strongly the individual holds his
views. A whiner quiz. ****-or-get-off-the-pot. Many fail.

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

Dennis
July 9th 03, 05:08 PM
On 9 Jul 2003 06:14:45 -0700, (Ribeldi) wrote:

>Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
>>
>> I have as much right to stay in my own country as you do. Is exporting
>> anyone with an opinion different than your own your idea of patriotism?
>
>That's a good response to those people who like to say, "well, if you
>don't like it here in the US, why don't you move to [fill in the country]?"

Actually, it's pretty lame. The question is not an invitation to
leave, but rather a test of how strongly the individual holds his
views. A whiner quiz. ****-or-get-off-the-pot. Many fail.

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

Lorenzo
July 10th 03, 03:53 AM
leslie wrote:

> That's a complete waste of "loosers". A REAL capitalist would:

i'm not real capitalist. i like some socialist mix which is
already present to a large degree in our system. it may not
appeal to loosers as thye want nothing less than "equal wealth distribution".
well, we might as well legalize begging or better yet gubmint
could do it for them (robbing hard working people to make
looser zombies wealthy and equal)..

> o harvest usable organs for the ruling class
> o convert what's remaining into a protein source, or burn in ovens
> like the NAZIs did.
> o sell any dependents into overseas slavery markets, thus improving
> the balance of payments

i wish we had invented an instrument that could accurately tell us a person's
absolute physical/mental/intellectual capacity, and what portion of that
is being used by the person presently. so when a bozone leans towards
welfare or disability when he could work instead, we definitely could do
what you suggested ! also, if we apply similar mechanisms to criminals
who take more than one life(or whatever that is), we could get rid of
them in weeks instead of burdening everyone with $40k/annum support
and making a joke out of our legal(?) system (charles ng, ramirez, etc.)

*lorenzo*

Lorenzo
July 10th 03, 03:53 AM
leslie wrote:

> That's a complete waste of "loosers". A REAL capitalist would:

i'm not real capitalist. i like some socialist mix which is
already present to a large degree in our system. it may not
appeal to loosers as thye want nothing less than "equal wealth distribution".
well, we might as well legalize begging or better yet gubmint
could do it for them (robbing hard working people to make
looser zombies wealthy and equal)..

> o harvest usable organs for the ruling class
> o convert what's remaining into a protein source, or burn in ovens
> like the NAZIs did.
> o sell any dependents into overseas slavery markets, thus improving
> the balance of payments

i wish we had invented an instrument that could accurately tell us a person's
absolute physical/mental/intellectual capacity, and what portion of that
is being used by the person presently. so when a bozone leans towards
welfare or disability when he could work instead, we definitely could do
what you suggested ! also, if we apply similar mechanisms to criminals
who take more than one life(or whatever that is), we could get rid of
them in weeks instead of burdening everyone with $40k/annum support
and making a joke out of our legal(?) system (charles ng, ramirez, etc.)

*lorenzo*

Google