ANECDOTAL
Rant


20.1.97 16:55 Economic success. 20.1.97 17:34 Life is unfair. 20.1.97 17:44 Willing to pay. 20.1.97 18:04 Choosing slavery. 20.1.97 18:10 Getting the high score. 20.1.97 18:15 This is oppression. 21.1.97 Let them have servants. 24.1.97 00:18 You too can eat cake. 24.1.97 07:17 Make money fast. 24.1.97 13:27 Currency without production. 27.1.97 16:50 I'm a better hunter. 27.1.97 18:53 Violence, warfare, or robbery. 27.1.97 19:00 Private companies. 27.1.97 19:14 Bill Gates the athlete. 29.1.97 15:33 Clubs, whining, and judo. 29.1.97 15:38 Acquiring education. 30.1.97 12:31 Sales and purchase. 30.1.97 18:09 Let them eat NASA. 3.2.97 Capitalist silliness. 5.2.97 Orgasmic pleasure. 6.2.97 Sometimes it happens. 7.2.97 15:47 Not trying very hard. 7.2.97 15:54 Better officers. 7.2.97 19:34 Hating technology. 7.2.97 19:48 Falling back on. 7.2.97 20:08 Choice or coersion? 9.2.97 Private monarchies. 12.2.97 19:56 To build a fire. 12.2.97 20:03 Not good enough. 15.2.97 A real man doesn't cry. 18.2.97 A danger to whom. 21.2.97 Too much information. 24.2.97 Wolves and sheep. From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics,talk.politics.guns,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.current-events.usa,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.media,alt.president.clinton,talk.environment,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa,misc.survivalism,misc.taxes,talk.politics.guns,alt.philosophy.objectivism Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:21:28 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. jkennedy wrote: > Actually he is offering a legitimate critique of democracy here, as it > is almost universally understood and applied. > What is almost universally accepted is the premise of unlimited > government. And since it is accpted, yes it can generate results that > aren't significantly different than 5 men raping 2 women. > The fault is in granting unlimited power to government, not in > democracy per se, but it's true that demoracy does not ultimately > ameliorate the abuses of unlimited government. There would be no problem with an unlimited government if decisions could only be made by unanimous vote. However, what exactly is this small government miracle cure? Take away education funding so the rich can hire away all the good teachers? Take away law enforcement funding so the rich can enforce their own "company policies" on their employees? Who is going to settle disputes? Or will the rich always be more equal? The more democracy there is, the less rights are taken away. As it stands, the right to use any natural resource without fear of violence no longer exists because it's been wiped out of existance by centuries of capitalism.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.activism,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.media,alt.society.liberalism,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 22:37:32 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Rico wrote: > A Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. > A Republic: The flock gets to vote for which wolves vote on dinner. > A Constitutional Republic: Voting on dinner is expressly forbidden, and the > sheep are armed. > Federal Government: The means by which the sheep will be fooled into voting > for a Democracy... Y'know, since it takes 60% of Congress or 75% of the states to tear up the Constitution, it's still 3 wolves and a sheep voting. Even with armed sheep, they will still be outarmed. The only real solution is to arm every sheep and wolf with nuclear weapons, and thus force them to either cooperate, or totally annihilate eachother. A more positive spin on the same solution would be to convince all sides that the sharing of knowledge and the ability to attain knowledge could benefit the group as a whole, and that no wolf will be driven into poverty, even if a sheep learned more than he did.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:44:44 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > > Thank you for damning how just about every corporation there ever > > was operates -- by central planning. > Central planning by a corporation that operates in a specific area of > expertise is significantly different than central planning by a > government that must claim to have expertise in *all* areas. Plus, > when a company screws up, they fade away. When a government screws up, > taxes go up or people go to jail. > Nobody can have all the information that it takes to run an economy. > The information is too widely dispersed and too expensive to collect. True. So you bring up two important points. Our cabinet is divided into various divisions - Defense, Interior, Justice. Much like how a corporation is divided into divisions - Marketing, R&D, Human Resources. Yes, it is impossible for a President to know about every possible aspect of the country, just as it is impossible for a chairman to know about every possible aspect of his company. So we have specialization by departmentalization. A company that screws up hurts its employees as much as a government can hurt its citizens. That's why citizens demand a say in government. The other important point you bring up is that we are investing too much power into too few representatives. As a result, it is nearly impossible today to elect a single politician who supports both abortion and gun rights. Instead we elect one representative and all his marketing and research entourage, put together so that he *might* be able understand all the issues he has to decide upon. The solution is either more direct democracy or a more fine-grained republic -- that elects single-issue representatives who need less of an entourage simply because there's less to decide upon.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics,talk.politics.guns,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.current-events.usa,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.media,alt.president.clinton,talk.environment,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa,misc.survivalism,misc.taxes,talk.politics.guns,alt.philosophy.objectivism Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:20:39 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Ray Van Tassle wrote: > Something like a government is necessary, otherwise (as you said) we'd all > be at the mercy of the first predator who came along. > > But the former case obviously has problems too, in granting a monopoly > > on the initiation of force to the state you risk unleashing a much > > greater force, one that is subject to widespread abuse. > This is true. Government is like fire----necessary, but VERY dangerous, > and must be kept under _strict_ control, and carefully watched. Government is only dangerous if it does not rule by consensus. If it is ruled by 51%, then it is a danger to the other 49%. If it is ruled by the richest 20%, then it is a danger to 80%.
From: Steve Emerson semerson@teleport.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republicanalt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: 15 Feb 1997 21:57:24 GMT Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016 In alt.politics.radical-left Rick Bowen rbowen@fastlane.net wrote: : > A marathon has a defined distance. There -are- rules. : > If person "A" 'finishes' and you do not, it is not because : > you had to start "in Nebraska". Perhaps it is because : > person "A" spent significant time preparing for the Marathon : > and you spent your time in front of the tube eating twinkies. : > THEN you whine that you were "denied" an "equal chance" : > at the marathon trophy. : > Jim Glass The distance of the marathon keeps getting longer and longer. Since 1970, the bargaining and purchasing power of 80% of the population has been steadily declining. Owning a house and going to college are farther from reach. Both parents now have to work. There are two kinds of people in this country: the person who complains that the marathon is getting longer, and the person who complains that people aren't working hard enough. The people who own the media will readily hire the second person, since the ideas of the first person threatens the interests of those who own and sponsor the media. Hence you have the second person on radio or television telling the public that: reduced wages/living standards are a result of laziness, that adversity toughens a person and builds character, and that a real man doesn't cry and ask for help from the government. Upon hearing this, all the right-wing sadomasochistic personalities in the country come out of the wordwork. The angry, alienated disenfrachisized have finally found their family and their cult leader. The labor camp is their idol of worship. But it's always a labor camp for OTHERS. You should always advocate the labor camp but never join it. If 19-year-olds need to work 2-to-3 part-time jobs just in order to finance education at a 2-year community college (in order to have a livable wage), that's fine, because the sadomasochists usually aren't 19-year-olds and got their education when times were better. And so it goes on down the line. There are, however, a few real masochists who really DID live on Top Ramen, are proud of it, and expect everyone to do the same. : Game, set, match. : Rick : -- : A lie, even minor, left unchallenged, : will be accepted by the ignorant and : uninformed, as the truth. And people who rely on General Electric and Co for their political education wouldn't know the truth if they saw it. -- Steve Emerson semerson@teleport.com
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.glame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.current-events.usa,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.media,alt.president.clinton,talk.environment,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa,misc.survivalism,misc.taxes,talk.politics.guns.alt.philosophy.objectivism Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:03:19 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Aquino wrote: > )I'll pass. I happen to like a peaceful society in which everybody > )has a chance at success. Go figure. > But everyone does have a chance at success. People of the lowest > order of bottom dwellers and low standers have risen from poverty to > ultimate success. You *think* everyone has a chance at success because you're fed a thousand examples of those who have. And the millions who haven't? Obviously, it was completely because they were neither good enough, smart enough, nor did anybody like them. *Anybody* can finish a marathon as well. But just because I get to start 5 feet from the finish line and you have to start in Nebraska, is no reason for you to whine.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics,talk.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 19:56:29 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > > Lack of resources is not a problem for the rich. Do you > > think the major obstacle to running some SQL scripts for > > a hooker's daughter is the fact that she has no initiative? > You completely neglected my point. I was not rich when I left home -- > in fact I was poorer than most of the people who are on welfare > right now (and especially hookers). Today, I can run SQL scripts. > I didn't do it through theft or whining, I did it through hard work > and initiative. Look anybody can start a fire. One person starts it with a forge and the other starts it with sticks. The inequality lies in the fact that by the time stickguy finally learns to get his fire going, forgeguy already has a sword with which to lop off stickguy's head. The fact that you choose to abandon "your people" just means you have already sold your soul. Kind of like how politicians forget about all their campaign promises once they get in power.
From: Steve Emerson semerson@teleport.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics,talk.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: 9 Feb 1997 22:27:52 GMT Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016 In alt.politics.radical-left Henry Blaskowski jhblask@bigpapa.nothinbut.net wrote: : Steve Emerson (semerson@teleport.com) wrote: : > I know an Afro-American who is exceptionally bright and knows : > RDBMS design, management, languages, and app development better : > than most. But employers don't want him. Imagine that! : I don't believe you. Most positions with that type of skill requirements have : open doors -- if you can do the job, come on in. If this person has the skills : you state and no job, they are not trying very hard. Neither of us knows the real percentage of companies which discriminate. But it's a fact, and the labor market for these people is reduced. Texaco is a case in point. : > I know a white individual who is exceptionally bright and knows : > RDBMS design, management, languages, and app development better : > than most. But he is ideologically opposed to the institution : > of monarchy, is neither compliant nor obediant in character, and is : > unwilling to participate in autocratic organizations in which : > he has no power and no say. But employers don't want him. : > Imagine that! : So you think that employers should have to hire people who refuse : to get along? Well...the early Americans who formed this country refused to "get along" with monarchy, and that's why the power which runs the public sector is organized around democratic principles. But the private sector is not, but nevertheless the population is still dependent on the private sector for its livelihood and finds itself having to serve the private sector for a wage. Hence, you have a population which serves private monarchies. No, I don't object to authority per se. I object to the same kind of authority which Thomas Jefferson objected to: unaccountable authority which does not reflect nor is required to address the needs and concerns of the people it governs. : > I know a white individual of average competence in these : > matters, who is totally compliant to private forms of : > authority, and is a fierce advocate of private monarchies, : > is completely satisfied with a feudal kind of society, : > and wants a weak government because he thinks accountable : > forms of power are a threat. And employers WANT him. He's : > in HIGH demand! A team player! He reads Hayek and Ayn Rand : > and gets orgasmic pleasure from platitudes about individual : > autonomy and freedom and now likes to rant about the : > ominous government, but is quite pleased to brown-nose his boss : > every day. : Here's a shock to everyone -- personal skills matter - as they should! : Nobody wants to deal with a jerk everyday, no matter how good they : are. It is much better to have somebody of average skill who is not : disruptive and will play well with the other kids. You have very well described a libertarian, who is opposed to all authority which does not enforce his own views. Personal skills matter, and so does compliance...if you are a king who runs the show. I don't want to want to work in a system run by propertied monarchs any more than a system run by Communist party bosses. In the past, these democratic principles have been pursued--abeit imperfectly--by unions. But unions are only effective when labor is in demand. Today, employers can move to East Germany or Mexico or any other location where living standards and worker protections are remedial. If you believe in freedom, then you should be advocating some policy to redress this sad state of affairs. Trying to increase avenues for entrepreurship, work from home, pro-union measures, worker protections, etc. are some examples. -- Steve Emerson semerson@teleport.com
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.philosophy.objectivism,misc.taxes,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics,talk.politics.guns,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.current-event Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 20:08:46 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Ray Van Tassle wrote: > > Hmmm . . . Through no fault of her own, a woman is stranded in the > > desert, days away from water and so condemned to a lingering death. > > Fortunately for her, a 'Good Samaritan' wheels by in his jeep and > > offers her a ride back to civilization - for a price. His fee: fifty > > thousand dollars and access to her favors for a year, starting immed- > > iately. > This person is certainly acting unethically and immorally. This is an > example of "lifeboat ethics", and not a good way to examine ethics. It > also is a TOTALLY different class of problem than what we have been > discussing. Hardly different from putting a gun to someone's head. TRUE coersion is ONLY when someone grabs your arms, feet, and fingers, and moves them the way he wants them to move. Following the orders of a gun-wielder is a CHOICE. Most people choose to obey, in order to avoid death by bullets. And the poor choose to obey, in order to avoid death by starvation.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.current-events.usa,alt.president.clinton,alt.philosophy.objectivism,misc.taxes,talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 19:48:02 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Robert Durio wrote: > He created an operating system for the iteration of the micro-computer > that changed the world and how we do business. It was in partnership > with IBM. Along the way he was gracious enough to employ thousands of > people and provide a market (global) that never existed before. He, or > the person who would have done what he did had he not been the one to > do it, was a God Send. The Playboy Interview: "Bill Gates was born into a well-to-do Seattle family. His father, William H. Gates II, is a prominent attorney. His mother, Mary, is a University of Washington regent and a director of First Interstate Bank. Hoping to alter young Bill's rebellious streak, his parents put him into Lakeside, an academically rigorous private school in Seattle." I'm not going to make Bill anecdotal evidence, so I'll leave it at that. On a different note: People who don't have to worry about where their rent check is coming from have an advantage. The advantage is that wealth enables them to devote more time into perfecting real skills. Losing a year to a failed business venture is far less devastating if you have money to fall back on.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.conservatism,talk.politics,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.philosophy.objectivism Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 19:34:19 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > > Or you waste it, on a call to the Psychic Friends Hotline, > > or buying a baseball cap on which you can mount two cans > > of beer. > ...as the man said, creating jobs. After all, those phones don't > answer themselves and those beer-caps don't produce themselves. > Actual workers, sharing the wealth, do those things. Isn't society > amazing? The point is the same nag you hear from your mother: "Do you know many starving children in Africa could've eaten that?" In other words, a society that is busy juggling isn't busy producing food. The result is that the rich are merrily entertained and the poor go without both. > work in order to eat. The only question is who owns the output of > your labor. Under socialism, even those who lay under trees with > their mouth open get fed. Capitalism/free-markets/republics just > insists that everyone pitch in. The question is who owns the output of technological labor? Under socialism, it is used for the benefit of the public. Under capitalism, it belongs to the person who owns the replicants. And people will hate technology because it is replacing humans, instead of loving technology for doing their work for them. > > At some point, we have to wake up and say, this > > silliness has gone on long enough, and start feeding our > > people instead of forcing them to bungee off a football > > stadium, trying to dip a chip into salsa. > I know this may come as a shock to you, so sit down and take a deep > breath. That was only a commercial. And Chris Elliot didn't really > do that stunt, it was special effects. Who said anything about Chris Elliot? At least he's still alive. The point is that capitalism will forever force people to do crummy jobs, just to make ends meet, and will never allow all humans to be the masters of technology. Instead, some humans will use technology to enslave others.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics,talk.politics.guns,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.current-events.usa,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.media,alt.president.clinton,talk.environment,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa,misc.survivalism,misc.taxes,talk.politics.guns.alt.philosophy.objectivism Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 15:54:20 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Michael King Ross wrote: > >> - they can only hold him until the _real_ > >> police arrive. Do you really want lightly screened, unaccountable, > >> untrained, possibly sadistic idiots with a dime-store badge to go > >> around arresting people at will? > > As opposed to highly-screened, highly trained, certainly sadistic (but > >unaccountable) thugs who gas and burn women and kids to death? > That's fine that you feel that way, but it would seem to me that your > answer to that would be to do _better_ screening and training, not to > do away with it altogether. Not to mention much higher salaries, so you might actually attract better officers. Where's the money going to come from? Take it from those number crunchers on Wall Street who spend all day producing nothing but more money.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics,talk.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 15:47:45 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Henry Blaskowski wrote: > > I know an Afro-American who is exceptionally bright and knows > > RDBMS design, management, languages, and app development better > > than most. But employers don't want him. Imagine that! > I don't believe you. Most positions with that type of skill requirements have > open doors -- if you can do the job, come on in. If this person has the skills > you state and no job, they are not trying very hard. Maybe it's because they don't like the way he uses the words "ain't" and "y'all".
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.philosophy.objectivism,misc.taxes,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics,talk.politics.guns,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.current-event Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 19:26:42 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. LQuest wrote: > >No - an extortion racket is when a guy comes to you and says "pay up > >or I will burn your house down". What I am saying is: if we don't > >take care of our fellow human beings at least to a certain point, > >_they_ will burn your house down. See the difference? It's not a > >_threat_ it's an _observation_ of human nature, and you're not going > >to change human nature. > So by this rationale, America should simply cave in to the Islamic extremists > when they finally get nuclear or chemical/biological weapons and start > threatening to do us in if we don't meet their demands. I believe this > situation is conceptually and morally IDENTICAL to the threat from the "poor" > that you posed above. The point is you cave in BEFORE the threat ever happens. You give them welfare, good trade deals, offer them a merger (assuming the anti-trust laws don't kick in), our computers for your oil. It's called "cooperation". Sometimes it happens in a capitalist society.
From: Steve Emerson semerson@teleport.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics,talk.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: 5 Feb 1997 23:10:00 GMT Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016 In alt.politics.radical-left Jeffrey N Woodford jeffw@olivier.pc.cs.cmu.edu wrote: : Henry Blaskowski (jhblask@bigpapa.nothinbut.net) wrote: : : Second, I grew up below the poverty line, had nothing except a small : : box of clothes when I left home, and guess what. I know SQL. Lack : : of resources is not a problem in this country. Lack of ingenuity, : : initiative, and persistence is. : Hey guess what? When _I_ left home, I didn't even have a box of : clothes, I just had the clothes on my back, that was it. And today, : I know _both_ SQL _and_ DBaseIV. Imagine that! But hey! I know an Afro-American who is exceptionally bright and knows RDBMS design, management, languages, and app development better than most. But employers don't want him. Imagine that! And hey! I know a white individual who is exceptionally bright and knows RDBMS design, management, languages, and app development better than most. But he is ideologically opposed to the institution of monarchy, is neither compliant nor obediant in character, and is unwilling to participate in autocratic organizations in which he has no power and no say. But employers don't want him. Imagine that! And.... I know a white individual of average competence in these matters, who is totally compliant to private forms of authority, and is a fierce advocate of private monarchies, is completely satisfied with a feudal kind of society, and wants a weak government because he thinks accountable forms of power are a threat. And employers WANT him. He's in HIGH demand! A team player! He reads Hayek and Ayn Rand and gets orgasmic pleasure from platitudes about individual autonomy and freedom and now likes to rant about the ominous government, but is quite pleased to brown-nose his boss every day.
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.current-events.usa,alt.president.clinton,alt.philosophy.objectivism,misc.taxes,talk.politics.guns Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 21:06:39 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Jim Glass wrote: > >In a capitalist society, that "savings" goes into the pockets > >of the share-holders. In a consumer's society, that "savings" > >results in lower prices. In a productive society, that > >"savings" is used to create new jobs for more people, instead > >of replacing clerks. > Silliness beyond belief. Once in the pockets of the "shareholders" > (i.e., me and you), what happens to the "savings"? Do we stuff it > into matresses? Perhaps you do; I don't. I spend it-- creating > jobs-- or save it-- creating jobs. Or you waste it, on a call to the Psychic Friends Hotline, or buying a baseball cap on which you can mount two cans of beer. Capitalism forces people to work in order to eat, even if it means they are forced to do the silliest things. At some point, we have to wake up and say, this silliness has gone on long enough, and start feeding our people instead of forcing them to bungee off a football stadium, trying to dip a chip into salsa.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 18:09:11 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Jon Gwynne wrote: > > And there are people who don't have a home to live in, or a > > car that runs, and are tired of fiscal conservatives like > > you telling them to "get a job" with the sorry education > > this country gave them, while you send your Beaver Cleaver > > to your clean suburban junior proms and the rich send > > theirs to $10K a year private schools. > I hate to break it to you but this is real life. Nobody "gives" > you anything. The only reason I got out of public school knowing > anything useful was that I didn't wait to be "given" an education. I hate to break it to you but they "give" me bombers and nukes to defend against countries that I couldn't care less about. They "give" me police who love to put parking tickets on my car, stop me for going a few miles over the speed limit, kill the occasional bystander, and prevent me from sleeping on your curb. They "give" me NASA, for which I am eternally thankful because of Tang and all the great pictures of space that I can use for my background.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republicans,alt.activism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory Subject: Re: ,Re:,Unequal,Distribution,of,Wealth Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 12:31:12 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Doug Jennings wrote: > >Microsoft is living proof that a sales talent is vastly more useful in a > >capitalist society than intelligence. A person with an IQ of 1,000 could > >die destitute, but a cretin with a sales talent can become a billionaire > It appears to me you purchased a computer. But then I'm sure no one > with any sales talent guided you to make the best purchase, right? > Oh, and don't forget to never purchase an automobile from a sales > person either....And, never ask a salesperson in a hardware store who > is trying to make a living what is the best solution for your problem. The goal of a salesperson is to sell you something. If you're going to rely on a salesperson for factual info, there's going to be a conflict of interest. A more dishonest salesperson may blatantly lie, a lesser one may just forget to mention the truth. The difference between a salesperson and a reviewer (or consumer group) is that it's the reviewer's JOB to find out how good a product is. Of course, reviewers can also be bribed by the producer...
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics,talk.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 15:38:12 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mark Hornberger wrote: > >And there are people who don't have a home to live in, or a > >car that runs, and are tired of fiscal conservatives like > >you telling them to "get a job" with the sorry education > >this country gave them, while you send your Beaver Cleaver > >to your clean suburban junior proms and the rich send > >theirs to $10K a year private schools. > That people are sitting around waiting for someone else to *give* them > or their children an education is indicative of what the problem just > might be. Skills and knowledge are acquired by those who want to > acquire them And so our brave students set out to *acquire* their education. First thing they want to learn is SQL, so they go into a store and *acquire* a SQL server and some client machines. Then they go to a software store and *acquire* an operating system, compiler, and server software. Finally, they *acquire* some networking cable and hook all their new machines into the local power grid. Five minutes later, the cops show up, arrest them all for grand larceny, and send them merrily off to jail.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,talk.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 15:33:02 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Jeff Blunt wrote: > > And there are people who don't have a home to live in, or a > > car that runs, and are tired of fiscal conservatives like > > you telling them to "get a job" with the sorry education > > this country gave them, while you send your Beaver Cleaver > > to your clean suburban junior proms and the rich send > > theirs to $10K a year private schools. > Quit whining. You can get a good education and therefore a good job from > a public school, you just have to get off your lazy ass and work for it. > I grew up in a family that qualified for (and never took, thank God) > welfare. I went to a small, less than top of the line school, yet I > managed to get a scholarship to a top of the line university. However, > I did not spend my time whining, I spent it studying and working. Some people are born unarmed into a land of club-wielders. Some of those do nothing about it and just whine that they don't have a club. Others learn unarmed judo well enough that they can easily defeat almost any club-wielder. And the third spend just as much time learning judo as whining. Not that it matters of course, because they're all dead meat when I bring out my bazooka.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 19:14:36 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. american@mail.idt.net wrote: > Bill Gates deserves his high income. He is creating > jobs and wealth for the nation. How about letting the fans own the > teams. They pay the salaries. Let them decide whether salaries are > high enough. You've just contradicted yourself. If fans should own the teams and determine athlete salaries, then Windows users should own Microsoft and determine Bill's salary. (In any case, Bill's salary is comparatively "low" with respect to the rest of industry. His worth comes from the stock and options he holds.)
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.socialism,misc.taxes,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics,talk.politics.guns,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 19:00:57 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike.Schneider wrote: > > : Hey, politicians only have so many hours in a day to get things done; > > : and their schedules are well-booked. > > ...... with sucking the dicks for the corporate kingpins and the lobbyists > > loaded with bribe money. > Consider this: If the government did not "administer" the economy, > there'd be no *reason* for anyone to want to bribe them. What you posit to > be cause is actually effect. So you are saying the government shouldn't buy from private military contractors, hire private contractors to build anything of any value, or even use privately produced typewriters and computers. If were no private companies to buy from, then there would be no one to bribe them.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.current-events.usa,alt.president.clinton,alt.philosophy.objectivism Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 18:53:03 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Billy Beck wrote: > Does a starving man have a legitimate claim on his neighbor's > goods *because* he is starving? No more than his neighbor can claim that the land he "owns" didn't ultimately originate from violence, warfare, or robbery.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.socialism,alt.society.conservatism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 16:50:54 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mark D. Vincent wrote: > FACT: one does not have to be Bill Gates to be > successful. FACT: people can and do move up to higher income percentiles > via hard work, saving, and investing. FACT: people who do not already > have tons of dough in the bank get loans and start businesses and some > are even successful. Get used to it. FACT: some people can kill a grizzly bear with nothing but their hands. But don't go claiming that you're a better hunter than me if you own a tank and I only own a baseball bat.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republicans,alt.activism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory Subject: Re: ,Re:,Unequal,Distribution,of,Wealth Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:27:18 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Insectus Pentius wrote: > : Cigarettes, beer, and lottery tickets for starters. > Now, why do you suppose low-income people buy the Lotto tickets? Can it be > that they lost hope of succeeding by Hard Work(tm)? And the beer to drown > their sorrows? What's amazing is the demographics of Lotto players. The > Lottery is effectively a regressive tax. If people harboured hope they > wouldn't bother with the Lotto tickets. The poor buy lottery tickets. The rich buy stocks. ...trying to "earn" currency without producing any value.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.society.conservatism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Organization: Netcom Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 07:17:52 GMT In article 32E7D064.130B@netdragon.jpl.nasa.gov, Ken Childress kchildre@netdragon.jpl.nasa.gov wrote: >Loren Petrich wrote: >> If one had to choose between everybody having $10,000 and 99% >> having $1000 and 1% having $900,000, which would you choose? >There is no choice. It would have to be the latter. Why? Because >you have the ability to make yourself one of the 1%. Except that that usually doesn't happen. Welcome to the real world. >... That is why >this country is so great, those that choose to do what it takes, can >earn as much money as they desire. Mr. Childress, I take it you are 10 times as rich as Bill Gates -- and have a portfolio of assets much more diversified than his (mainly M$ stock). After all, that's what you want, isn't it? -- Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh petrich@netcom.com And a fast train My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
From: Steve Kangas kangaroo@scruznet.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.society.conservatism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 00:18:11 -0800 Organization: scruz-net Ken Childress wrote: > Loren Petrich wrote: > > If one had to choose between everybody having $10,000 and 99% > > having $1000 and 1% having $900,000, which would you choose? > There is no choice. It would have to be the latter. Why? Because > you have the ability to make yourself one of the 1%. That is why > this country is so great, those that choose to do what it takes, can > earn as much money as they desire. This is known as the "Slavery is morally acceptable because you, too, can become a master" argument. Sometimes you have to wonder if people really think twice before hitting the "send" button on these messages. Steve Kangas http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/LiberalFAQ.htm
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.society.conservatism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Organization: Netcom Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 14:26:15 GMT In article 32e9f57a.577782295@nntp.net-link.net, Brian Carnell brian@carnell.com wrote: >The bottom line is that societies which don't have huge gaps in wealth >are very poor societies. Would you rather live in a society where you >make $10,000 but a few people make $100,000 or a society where >everyone makes $5,000? Why is it that societies which today have some >of the biggest gaps in wealth distribution also have some of the >highest absolute standard of livings in history for even the poor? Excuses, excuses. Why not look at Canada or Europe or Japan? The poorer part of the population is better off in Canada and much of northern Europe than it is here. If one had to choose between everybody having $10,000 and 99% having $1000 and 1% having $900,000, which would you choose? I'm not an absolute egalitarian, but I'm not an absolute inegalitarian, either. Someone had once asked the late Dr. Isaac Asimov that wouldn't it have been great a century ago when it was easy to get servants. Dr. Asimov responded "That would be horrible." "Why?" "Because we'd be the servants." Thus, as Dr. A had noted, people imagine themselves philosophers or gentleman farmers or whatever, and not slaves or serfs or peasants. And I hope that Mr. Carnell, as a businessman, realizes that only a tiny minority will be able to buy anything if all the wealth is redistributed upward. -- Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh petrich@netcom.com And a fast train My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:15:19 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Alan Miles wrote: > Marx didn't, to my knowledge, protest that society's leeches were > sucking his blood. His DID, famously, argue "from each according to his > abilities to each according to his needs." While noble at one level, > this statement obviously says that the talented MUST give to the needy. > This is oppression. Some other idiot also once claimed that the politicians in power MUST give the powerless a chance to be elected or even vote. This is oppression.
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics,soc.women,alt.society.conservatism,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.president.clinton,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.media,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.current-events.usa,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.activism Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:10:57 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. midtowng@slip.net wrote: > I guess you think Mozart, Mark Twain, Ghandi and MLK were not great people > then, because they had little money. (These are just a few examples) Of course they weren't great. Great people succeed. Success is defined by dollar bills. Whoever dies with the biggest number wins. Kinda like video games...
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics,talk.politics.guns,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.current-events.usa,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.media,alt.president.clinton,talk.environment,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa,misc.survivalism,misc.taxes,talk.politics.guns.alt.philosophy.objectivism Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 18:04:31 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Alan Miles wrote: > If you use electricity, you cannot claim that an electric bill is > enslaving you (although you can argue the rates need adjustment and work > to adjust them). If you take employment, you cannot argue that payroll > taxes are slavery since you have obviously chosen to work. No one is forcing you to buy food. No one is forcing you to pay for heat in 0 degree weather. I bet if all oxygen were available only from a "free market", then a whole lot of people would be spending money on oxygen too. But hey, nobody's forcing them to.
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:44:51 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Michael Zarlenga wrote: > : How about the converse? A person who works one hour a week, for somewhere > : between sixteen and twenty weeks a year, but makes many thousands of times as > : much as someone who works fourty or more hours a week for fourty eight > : weeks a year. > : I can find an example. It's called "American football." > Football players work much more than 1 hour per week and > for much longer than 20 weeks. > Aside from that, the pay football players get doesn't strike > me as unfair at all. Their employers are willing to pay that > much, so I have no problem with that. "The pay CEOs get doesn't strike me as unfair at all. Their board of stock-holders are willing to pay that much." Now, I don't have too much of a problem with the amount of work and personal risk a football player has to put up with. But I could also say, "The pay a bank robber gets doesn't strike me as unfair at all. Those bank tellers are willing to pay that much, so I have no problem with that."
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.current-events.usa,alt.politics.media,soc.culture.usa Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:34:56 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Christopher Lockwood wrote: > > It doesn't require one to think that some guarantee of equal income is a > > prerequisite of a democratic society, to think that unfair advantages > > ought to be attacked. > > For example, an idiot with rich parents obviously has an advantage over > > a genius with crack addict parents. > > Is this a wise outcome? > This is a dangerous line of thinking. Government isn't for making life > "fair". Is this a wise outcome? No It is fair? No. But it's life. It's > not fair that some people were born more attractive, more intelligent, to > richer parents, etc...but that doesn't mean govenment should step in to be > the great equalizer. Life sure is unfair. It's not fair that black ex-slaves don't own any businesses or can't get any jobs from white employers, but that doesn't mean government should step in to be the great equalizer. It's not fair that Jews aren't the majority of the population and are therefore targets of violence, but that doesn't mean government should step in to be the great equalizer.
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.current-events.usa,alt.politics.media,alt.president.clinton,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa Subject: Re: Unequal Distribution of Wealth? Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:55:46 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mark Earnest wrote: > > I'm not lazy; I just don't want the fruits of my labor ripped off > > by corporate elitists. > Then don't work for them. Go start your own company. You know, We > CAN do that in this country. We have that choice under capitalism. You also have the choice of asking your local party cadre to put your name up for "election" in the Soviet system too. But doesn't necessarily mean you'll succeed. When was the last time I tried to start a television network? Well, not lately.

|HOME| CJohnYu.96@alum.mit.edu [email/index]

|11/13|