C E N S O R
Rant
18.1.97 A gloriously productive nation.
23.1.97 13:40 Stupid management.
23.1.97 14:14 The use of force.
24.1.97 10:19 "Productive" defined.
24.1.97 11:10 Lest we forget.
27.1.97 17:29 Privately funded justice.
27.1.97 18:11 Bullets and starvation.
27.1.97 18:14 Never a free lunch.
28.1.97 Start your own company!
29.1.97 15:49 Taxes and warfare.
29.1.97 16:50 It's good to be the king.
29.1.97 17:06 Factors of production.
29.1.97 17:12 At the mercy of technology.
29.1.97 17:22 Political power relations.
29.1.97 17:27 Statistical democracy.
30.1.97 Lords and monarchs.
1.2.97 Competition vs. cooperation.
3.2.97 Conservative worship.
6.2.97 20:52 The campaign trail.
6.2.97 20:59 Blade Runner and Star Trek.
6.2.97 21:12 Sex and Picassos.
6.2.97 21:21 Placate the upper class.
12.2.97 Backlash against technology.
19.2.97 Singing, juggling, and layoffs.
22.2.97 11:58 The ultimate goal.
22.2.97 12:03 Not based on land.
22.2.97 12:17 The miracle of civilization.
22.2.97 12:28 Bound for the recycling center.
26.2.97 Armed robbery should be legal.
1.3.97 Leaving the land unowned.
5.3.97 14:47 Advanced concepts.
5.3.97 15:34 To make a living.
5.3.97 15:45 Fight over what's left.
5.3.97 15:52 Making affordable silk.
10.3.97 19:01 All the tea in China.
10.3.97 19:08 God and Founding Fathers.
10.3.97 19:14 As long as we can hold it.
10.3.97 19:20 No excuse for stupidity.
10.3.97 19:33 A million slaveowners.
10.3.97 19:40 Who takes what you earn?
17.3.97 22:28 Mutually beneficial agreement.
17.3.97 22:53 But they were all bad.
17.3.97 23:01 Might actually be a good thing.
24.3.97 14:07 Nothing more than mutation.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 14:23:34 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Sam Hall wrote:
> >Umm... elected? How many choices do we have? In Russia,
> >it was one autocrat or the other autocrat. Here, it's one
> >capitalist or the other capitalist. Why? Who can afford
> >to hold rallies? Who can afford to hire petition workers?
> >Who can buy airtime on TV? What percentage of Americans
> >even knows who Harry Browne is?
> >Freedom of speech for the poor, freedom to be heard for the rich.
> So what do you suggest? Even if you gave free TV time to all comers,
> it wouldn't make a lot of difference. The two parties have large
> groups of people working for them, mostly unpaid.
Ah, but who pays those who ARE paid? Why do you go
volunteer for an organization if not because you fell
for their marketing? The party or church that can
hire the most preachers will get the most converts.
----
Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. - C. Salzenberg
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 14:07:29 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
JMH wrote:
> > If, in fact, you deny that benefit is a right, then
> > there is not even the right to your own life. Humans
> > believe in the sanctity of life only because of
> > evolution. Those societies that did believe in
> > murder eventually all killed each other off. The
> > right to shared resources is only an extension of
> > that. Those societies that believe competition is
> > more beneficial than cooperation engage in price
> > wars, patent suits, crime, and warfare.
> The fact we can have common goals is not justification
> for collectivizing private resources. The fact that most
> of our goals are private and diverse suggests that collective
> resources will create conflict and competition within the
> collective.
A "right" is no more than the system of beliefs that
claims whatever you're claiming is a "right". The
reason one system of beliefs survives longer than
another is simply natural selection. All the
"competing" systems of beliefs we have right now are
nothing more than mutation.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.labor-unions
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 23:01:53 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Mike Wooding wrote:
> > Correct. And if you can't, then you owe welfare to
> > those who want to use the field themselves. Because
> > to deny them welfare, you not only hurt the advancement
> > of knowledge, but you will need to waste valuable
> > resources on a police state. Of course, capitalists
> > are used to wasting resources on peer competition.
> I see. So everyone owes everyone else welfare but no one
> can use anything at all because they must get unanimous
> consent from all present and future.
Wrong and wrong again. If you can't get unanimous
consent to allow you to have access to that land,
then you owe a portion of everything you produce
in the form of taxes. If you actually want to apply
supply&demand, here's how. Give the land to whoever
is willing to work it for the least return. Of course,
in a less selfish society, workers actually support
the education of others, because, well, gollee, new
information might actually be a good thing.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:53:57 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Ian L. Bayne wrote:
> I can't speak for German laws, because I'm an American.
> And here in America, the greatest land of all, a law that would
> exterminate ANYONE would be struck down as unconstitutional.
American sheep believe that America is the greatest land
of all. Soviet sheep believed that the Soviet Union was
the greatest land of all. You might try thinking for
yourself once in a while, and stop letting the TV do your
thinking for you. You think nobody is being executed in
this country? Nobody on death row? "But they were all
bad." Yeah, German Jews were "all bad" too. To an
American, a "cowardly traitor" that sells government
secrets deserves death, but a Russian defector is a
"brave hero". If it weren't for the leakage of our
atomic research, life for your average American would
indeed be great today, because the world would be our
slaves.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 22:28:03 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
JMH wrote:
> > If some bug-eyed alien came up to me today and offered me a
> > Porsche for all the carbon-dioxide in North America, I'd say
> > yes. Hey, free car for something I didn't own in the first
> > place.
> Excpet that the Indian tribes held tribal meetings and
> discussed the pros and cons of sell *TRIBAL* lands, not
> unowned lands, you might have a point.
So I talk to my sister. She doesn't care. I talk to my
cousin, she says "Fine, as long as I get a ride too."
There ya go. Now those aliens can justify to themselves
that both sides reached a mutually beneficial agreement.
There is no such thing as "tribal" lands. Land belongs
to whoever is on it. Only the "initiation of force" can
prevent someone from having access to land.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 19:40:11 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
twsheets wrote:
> It is imposible to separate political rights from property rights. If
> you do not have one, you cannot be sure about the other. Free speech
> means little if you do not have the right to earn a living, to keep what
> you earn, and to provide for yourself.
Exactly. And who takes what you earn? The government?
Your stock-holders? The answer, of course, is both.
HOWEVER, the government (supposedly) tries to give some
of that back to the rest of society. Why? Because
capitalism has taken away the right to earn a living from
far "too many" people, through the use of violence and
title deeds. Because share-holders exploit the lack
of resources for their own profit, leading to more theft.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 19:33:54 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Sam Hall wrote:
> >In an ideal society, everyone would own an equal share of
> >every natural resource, and would be FREE to start their
> >own company, merge their resources with those of others,
> >or give it to random strangers. In a capitalist society,
> >resources have already been conquered and continue to be
> >held under armed guard and behind legal documents. And
> >the poor are forced to fight over what's left - leading
> >to crime, racism, and even warfare.
> Try telling that to Warren Buffet, Bill Gates or Ross Perot. Those are
> men who got rich based on the contents of their brains, not because of
> any resources they controlled.
One black slaveowner does not justify all of slavery.
Nor does a million black slaveowners. No matter how
many excuses you throw, capitalism will still be rooted
in violence, capitalism will still be perpetuated by
fraudulent capitalist education, and capitalists will
still take advantage of people who need to eat by taking
away a portion of everything they produce. You are
either a fool or a coward.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 19:20:49 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Sam Hall wrote:
> >Bullshit. Land titles are written because might makes right.
> >If you believe that, then you believe in both capitalism
> >and armed robbery. If you think every law is right, then
> >you'd be a supporter of slavery in 1850.
> Sigh. The words "armed robbery" are a legal term for something that is
> against the law. Law is something that man invented to keep us from
> harming each other. I do not believe in breaking the law. Laws are one
> of the major things that makes us civilized.
So if a German law makes it possible to exterminate Jews,
you would support that? If laws are your ultimate authority,
then you might as well be a slave. Laws are no excuse for
stupidity. And your stupidity is no excuse for capitalist
laws.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 19:14:55 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
LQuest wrote:
> >You own your thought and your labor, but you do not have the
> >right to deny someone use of resources that were created
> >by nature
> Yes you do IF and ONLY IF you have honestly EARNED the right to CONTROL said
> property and all value that can be derived from it based on the application of
> human responsible agency. No one ever truly OWNS land, since they did not
> create it. However, we can and do EARN the priviledge of CONTROL for as long
> as we can hold it.
In other words, you can hold it as long as you have more
weapons than all challengers? No one owns land. Period.
If you want the privilege to produce something from it,
then you owe something to all those who longer have
access to the materials you are monopolizing. Welfare.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 19:08:35 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
JMH wrote:
> > What you need to ask first is, how did the person who sold
> > you that land (or used TV) come into possession of it? The
> > source of all land ownership is violence and coercion. You
> > own your thought and your labor, but you do not have the
> > right to deny someone use of resources that were created
> > by nature and belong to everyone.
> Perhaps you have spelled this point out before, but just where
> does this property right each of us has in the entire world, i.e.
> natural resources, come from?
The same place the right to your own life comes from.
Not from God, not from Founding Fathers, but because
societies based on interpersonal competition are doomed
to inefficiency, and are ultimately beaten by ones in
which individuals are united in a common cause. So do
we unite against another race? Another company?
Another nation or culture? Another planet?
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 19:01:23 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
JMH wrote:
> > >Besides, the Native Americans didn't profess to "own" the land, which was
> > >apparently to advanced a concept for white people to handle.
> If that was true why did a number of the American Indian tribes
> actually *sell* their land to both European and the U.S. governments?
If some bug-eyed alien came up to me today and offered me a
Porsche for all the carbon-dioxide in North America, I'd say
yes. Hey, free car for something I didn't own in the first
place.
It is those who did not believe in land ownership that were
far wiser than any of today's idiot capitalists. Today's
capitalists don't really believe that violence is a valid
method of declaring ownership. What today's captialists
believe, is in their own comfort - so they search out
excuses like Rand or Darwin to justify for their own
selfishness. This view of Darwin, of course, has
been completely perverted. The reason most human social
systems do not believe in murder is because interpersonal
violence hurts the chances of survival for both individuals,
while the sharing of knowledge benefits both. Until this
species casts off the plague of capitalism in favor of
cooperation, it will be forever mired in more violence.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 15:52:09 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Big Oh wrote:
> =| Sure innovation. And if it weren't for democracy, all the
> =| profit from that innovation would be in the hands of a
> =| few corporate chairmen. No socialist society has ever
> =| existed. They were socialist in name only, because those
> =| who had the power got rich. We are democratic in name
> =| only, because those who have the wealth get powerful.
> =| True incentive is when there are no stock-holders or
> =| venture capitalists around to skim off your earnings,
> =| when policy decisions are made by managers employees
> =| elect, instead of having unpopular policy handed down
> =| from above.
> That "innovation" born in the USA has made our economic well-being
> extremely good in the USA -- even for the lower class and those in amy
> other countries have likewise benefitted from our "innovation".
> You don't understand capitalism at all; it isn't about making silk
> stockings for the rich, it is about making silk stockings afforable to
> those who make them.
You don't understand capitalism at all; it isn't about
making affordable silk, it's about preventing others from
using "your" stolen property, unless you can take a cut of
everything your employees produce. If it weren't for
democracy (or what we think is democracy) in the USA,
then inventors would have no incentive to innovate, and
your average worker wouldn't even have the sad public
education that our "democracy" gave them.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 15:45:08 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Sam Hall wrote:
> >Sure innovation. And if it weren't for democracy, all the
> >profit from that innovation would be in the hands of a
> >few corporate chairmen. No socialist society has ever
> >existed. They were socialist in name only, because those
> >who had the power got rich. We are democratic in name
> >only, because those who have the wealth get powerful.
> >True incentive is when there are no stock-holders or
> >venture capitalists around to skim off your earnings,
> >when policy decisions are made by managers employees
> >elect, instead of having unpopular policy handed down
> >from above.
> The difference is that in a capitalist economy, you are free to start
> such a company like United Airlines, Avis and many more), but in a
> socialist economy you are not free to start any kind of a business,
> except what the government says you can.
In an ideal society, everyone would own an equal share of
every natural resource, and would be FREE to start their
own company, merge their resources with those of others,
or give it to random strangers. In a capitalist society,
resources have already been conquered and continue to be
held under armed guard and behind legal documents. And
the poor are forced to fight over what's left - leading
to crime, racism, and even warfare.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 15:34:54 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
LQuest wrote:
> >What gives anyone the right to claim raw materials? A club?
> >A sword? A deed? Christianity? Raw materials are created by
> >nature. If you deny someone the use of natural resources
> >with a fence or a gun, then you have stolen his right to
> >make a living.
> What an astounding assertion! Exactly how has YOUR right to make a living
> been "stolen" by me having title to the land that I worked my butt off for and
> honestly earned?
What you need to ask first is, how did the person who sold
you that land (or used TV) come into possession of it? The
source of all land ownership is violence and coercion. You
own your thought and your labor, but you do not have the
right to deny someone use of resources that were created
by nature and belong to everyone. If someone IS being denied
access, then you owe them welfare, not just because she
has lost something because of coercion, but because by
supporting her education, she may just find a better way to
use "your" resources, or even find new resources.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 1997 14:47:43 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
D.J. Waletzky wrote:
> > And who did the Mexicans, Texans, or Native Americans displace
> > in order to "own" that land in the first place?
> The Native Americans didn't displace anyone, and that's the point.
> Besides, the Native Americans didn't profess to "own" the land, which was
> apparently to advanced a concept for white people to handle.
Who's to know? Maybe those they displaced died out. Maybe
they just displaced each other. What counts as being
displaced anyway? If I walk away, can you now suddenly
claim the land I was just standing on? A great wrong was
done to them the day they were shoved off to reservations
and denied the use of any land, and that wrong continues
today, and is extended to everyone else who needs to find
a job to survive. You own your ideas and your effort, not
the right to deny someone access to resources without
giving them back something in return.
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 1997 14:41:05 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Thomas Franklin Harris Jr wrote:
> : > . . . The point is that no one owns land, because
> : > land ownership results only from violence and coercion. The
> : > only thing you own is your own effort and thought.
> : If someone were to come across land no one used or wnated to use
> : and claimed for their own, no violence of coercion, is ownership
> : then possible, or does the possibility that in the future someone
> : might want the land and therefore try to use it make the ownership
> : impossibly due to the insuing conflict?
> And then if the land is unowned, how to we prevent conflict between the
> many people who was to use it? Leaving the land unowned would seem to
> solve nothing.
The only true ownership you can claim is if it were yours by
unanimous vote for all of eternity. As soon as someone else
wants to exercise his right to make a living from the raw
materials you are monopolizing, then you owe them something.
And that something is called *welfare* -- but more importantly,
it should include *education* so that either he could be
taught to use new resources, or he could learn how to make
your own work more efficient.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:04:41 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Jill E. Deel wrote:
> > Yeah, and where did that land come from? How many people were
> > ordered off of it? How many were killed? And how many starved
> > because they weren't allowed to use it?
> Um, you did know that Texas won its independence from Mexico, didn't you?
And who did the Mexicans, Texans, or Native Americans displace
in order to "own" that land in the first place? The point is
that if property belongs to whoever has the most weapons, then
armed robbery should be legal.
From: "C. Darwin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 12:28:31 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Mike Wooding wrote:
> > Let me ask you this. What happens in your capitalist society
> > when machines can provide for all the essentials of life?
> > Capitalists will force everyone to go into the entertainment
> > industry, singing and juggling, just so they can afford food.
> > Or capitalists will purposely create inefficiencies, just so
> > they wouldn't have to lay people off.
> Everything for free, huh? Supposing these machines are clever
> enuf to fulfill all of Mr.Luther/Hobbes/Hancock/whatever's
> needs/wants/wishes/whatever. Then would not these machines not
> be clever enuf to recognize that Mr.Luther/Hobbes/Hancock/whomever
> serves no useful purpose, and is hence an irrelevant drain on
> resources. No? Would not Mr.Luther/Hobbes/Hancock/whomever be
> on the next truck bound for the recycling center.
> BTW - there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Of course, your "intelligent machines" in this case are the
owners of the technologies, who suddenly discover they don't
need their workers anymore and politely lay them off. The
industrial revolution has proven that you don't need a
large percentage of farmers to feed all those factory workers,
researchers, managers, politicians, and entertainers.
So do we keep our factory workers scrambling to feed themselves,
or do we send them off to school so that they can "industrialize"?
Well, that would depend if we were afraid of new competition or
actually believed new technology would benefit society. (The
answer is both, but only in a capitalist society.)
From: "C. Darwin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 12:17:33 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Big Oh wrote:
> =| In a way, the Borg are the ultimate example of unanimous
> =| government. No rights are violated because they all agree
> =| on the same laws. The only problem is that people don't
> =| enter the Borg voluntarily. They are forced in. In a
> =| capitalist society, the same thing happens. You are forced
> =| into the country you are born in, and forced into the economy
> =| you are born in. You have no right to produce anything for
> =| just yourself because other people already "own" all the raw
> =| materials.
> In a socialist society, the same thing happens. You are forced into the
> country you are born in, and forced into the economy you are born in. You
> have no right to produce anything for just yourself because the state
> already "owns" all the raw materials.
That could very well be true, depending on the implemenation,
and whether the socialist state allows you to secede with
your own share of the raw materials intact. And it would
also depend on who owns the state. In the Soviet version,
the powerful elite did - thus socialism never actually happened,
because the elite were "more equal" than everyone else. It
is impossible to achieve either political or economic equality
without the other.
So we give people the right to secede. But do they? No,
because the "miracle" of civilization is that the whole is
greater than the sum of the parts. The flaw in an economy
based on competition is that it continually tries to break
itself down into parts, instead of *really* working together.
Why do you think we need anti-trust laws, and why do you think
Russia fears NATO? Because a group of intelligent managers
have figured out the secret to cooperation. Of course, they're
also blind to what could be accomplished by including even
more "co-conspirators". So the question is, do we compete
with our neighbors or do we compete against mother nature?
From: "C. Darwin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 12:03:11 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Sam Hall wrote:
> >What are CDs made out of? What are diskettes made out of? Servers?
> >Computers? Wires? Office buildings? Office furniture? I don't
> >think you can just program all that out of thin air.
> The point was (and is) that today much weath is not based on land like
> it was in the past.
And it shouldn't be at all. Wealth should be based *only* on
personal effort and personal thought. That is the only true
incentive. However, if you deny someone else her right to make
use of the same resources to produce some wealth with her own
effort, then you owe her a portion of what you produced.
From: "C. Darwin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 11:58:06 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Cyndi Bakke wrote:
> > Yeah, and where did that land come from? How many people were
> > ordered off of it? How many were killed? And how many starved
> > because they weren't allowed to use it?
> What is your point? If any _individuals_ are currently living who were
> killed or ordered off their land then absolutely we should as a state
> use our legal system to redress that wrong. I might even go so far as
> to suggest that we return the property to the children of those who
> first occupied it. But none of those people seem to be alive anymore,
> so I don't see any legitimate claim for the land.
> As for those who were killed...I don't see any people alive who killed
> to get land, so I don't see any legitimate prosecutions either.
Then the ultimate goal is to have your father kill the original
"owner" and all her offspring, and then hope your father dies as
soon as possible? The point is that no one owns land, because
land ownership results only from violence and coercion. The
only thing you own is your own effort and thought.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:37:02 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Mike Wooding wrote:
> > Yes, heroism and volunteerism will be more common. But it's not
> > going to come from humans, it's going to come from machines.
> > In a Star Trek future, technology provides the essentials. In
> > a Blade Runner future, technology puts humans out of work and
> > into poverty (and creates a violent backlash against technology).
> And Mr. J. Hancock seems quite willing to accept SF models for
> how the future will work?
Let me ask you this. What happens in your capitalist society
when machines can provide for all the essentials of life?
Capitalists will force everyone to go into the entertainment
industry, singing and juggling, just so they can afford food.
Or capitalists will purposely create inefficiencies, just so
they wouldn't have to lay people off.
> Has anyone noticed how authoritarian
> this ST model is? There's always someone in charge, with the
> minions standing at attention ... and then there's another model
> of socialism, too: the borg!
In a way, the Borg are the ultimate example of unanimous
government. No rights are violated because they all agree
on the same laws. The only problem is that people don't
enter the Borg voluntarily. They are forced in. In a
capitalist society, the same thing happens. You are forced
into the country you are born in, and forced into the economy
you are born in. You have no right to produce anything for
just yourself because other people already "own" all the raw
materials.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:17:28 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Treepusher wrote:
> > Capitalism results in a Blade Runner future.
> > Communism results in a Star Trek future.
> In the comfortable universe of fiction! The "star trek" future would only
> work if heroism and volunteerism were more common than selfism.
Yes, heroism and volunteerism will be more common. But it's not
going to come from humans, it's going to come from machines.
In a Star Trek future, technology provides the essentials. In
a Blade Runner future, technology puts humans out of work and
into poverty (and creates a violent backlash against technology).
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 21:21:26 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Sam Hall wrote:
> >> them, but the point is that small businesses can be started on very
> >> little money and it doesn't take a rocket scientist
> >Always thinking small eh? Not a very good capitalist are you?
> >The only thing that gives a rich man more of a right to start
> >a large business is money and the government he uses to protect
> >his money. It says nothing about ability or drive.
> Ross Perot borrowed $500 to start EDS. Bill Gates stared Microsoft
> with very little. The two that started Apple Computer did so with very
> little money. Dell Computer was started by a college student building
> computers in his dorm room. I could go on if you wish, put I believe
> that I have made my point. Even the First Lady believes in it. She is
> promoting "Microcredit," a program where poor people are loaned $500
> to 5,000 to start their own business.
The First Lady is a member of the upper class and feels
she has to placate the upper class in order to prevent
further Whitewater investigation. I don't know about
old Ross, but the other two made it into college alright
(even if they didn't finish). And we fiscal conservatives
of course want to make it harder for the working class
to obtain the same education our own kids can buy.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 21:12:24 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Mike Wooding wrote:
> No. Socialism creates AND spreads shortages. Capitalism
> (i.e. free markets) provide both the information AND the
> incentive alleviate shortages.
Neither creates shortages. A lack of production creates
shortages. Incentive produces production. Both bullets
and starvation produce incentive. Both types of force
are equally unacceptable. Do away with the bullets and
the starvation, and you just might be able to use TVs,
fur coats, or fame&glory as incentive.
> As far as Picassos and research, well, some (myself included)
> might argue that Picassos are wealth. Necessary wealth. After
> all it might be a pretty dreary world if all produce came from
> a factory. No?
Spoken like a true fiscal conservative. I bet there
are a lot of hungry people in this world who would
disagree. People tend to value bodily safety over
food over sex over Picassos. When you have both
personal safety and food, you might start thinking
about intercourse. Some might value personal success
over sex, others use personal success as a means of
obtaining sex.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 20:59:06 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
JMH wrote:
> > > Let's say we lived in a future where all our production
> > > and distribution of food was done by robots or trained
> > > monkeys. Would there be a free lunch?
> No. There is still a real resource cost of producing
> those items. Resources used in one production line
> cannot be used in another. The production *not*
> done is the cost of what is produced.
Resources that found their way into the hands of the
landlord through violence or the threat of violence.
Resources that result from nature, and belong to nature as
much as oxygen belongs to nature. As more and more of our
labor is accomplished by technology, there's no reason to
believe that harvesting these resources cannot also
be done by technology.
Capitalism results in a Blade Runner future.
Communism results in a Star Trek future.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 20:52:19 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Mike Wooding wrote:
> There also seem dis-economies of scale which are not generally
> recognized. It seems that as organizations become very large
> that they lose the flexibility and competitive drive and ambition
> of the leaner, hungrier sorts of organizations. E.g. IBM?
The simple result of lack of democracy. Middle management
gets entrenched into political infighting instead of inter-
departmental cooperation. The result is that the thinkers
who do the real work are buried at the bottom, and their
only hope of advancement is to abandon their work and hit
the campaign trail.
From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 21:24:29 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Sam Hall wrote:
> I have two sister-in-laws that started their own home based businesses
> on pocket change. One is making spending money while the other is
> doing well. Since they were not poor, I am sure many would discount
> them, but the point is that small businesses can be started on very
> little money and it doesn't take a rocket scientist
Always thinking small eh? Not a very good capitalist are you?
The only thing that gives a rich man more of a right to start
a large business is money and the government he uses to protect
his money. It says nothing about ability or drive. If I had
a billion or two dollars, I'd be able to start a lot of
businesses too, some of them might even succeed, and I'd be
putting people to work. You fiscal conservatives would then
be practically worshiping me for my multi-million dollar
empire making those toys you get in cereal boxes.
From: samhall@dkdavis.com (Sam Hall)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Sat, 01 Feb 1997 15:28:00 -0600
Organization: Davis & Associates
On Wed, 29 Jan 1997 17:49:03 -0800, "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com wrote:
>Dan Sullivan wrote:
>> >Ah, but if my labor were "free" at a time when the
>> >labor of other people were equally "free", then there
>> >would not be a problem.
>> >Such is the result of cooperation as opposed to competition.
>> No, that is merely the replacement of free cooperation with
>> directed cooperation. When people freely agree to make things and
>> trade them with each other, that IS cooperation.
>True. Now, how about the merits of competition as an
>alternative to cooperation?
>If I compete heavily with my coworkers, I may get promoted,
>but the product my division produces suffers. If my
>division refuses to cooperate with the other divisions,
>then while it may get more funding, the company suffers.
>If my company competes heavily with other companies, my
>company may get more business, but the profit margin of
>the entire industry falls. So the question is, who
>should we be competing with here? My coworkers? Other
>nations? Other planets?
>> >When science has advanced to
>> >the point where food and assembly production no longer
>> >requires significant human labor, then the cost (in
>> >labor) of such products has fallen to the point where
>> >they can be given away for free.
>> You have a point, but the increased return does not go to capital
>> either; it goes to land. Automation has little to do with it.
>> Migrant farmworkers work with wood-handled hoes, and still they
>> work for almost nothing.
>That is because there is more supply of workers than
>farmowners demand. The solution is to use the excess
>wealth produced by technological labor to give things
>away for free.
We are close to that point. Compare how many hours of labor was
required to obtain the food to feed a middle class family 100 years
ago and how many hours it would require today to obtain _the same
food_. I would guess that it would be less than a day per month for
most people. Of course, we don't eat the same as they did 100 years
ago. That is where the excess weath goes. A middle class person lives
today as only the rich could a 100 years ago.
--
Samuel L. Hall
Systems Engineer
(communications systems)
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 17:40:28 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
> And libertarians want far less rule, no matter who rules.
> A monarchy is no danger to liberty, if the monarch has no power.
When a monarch's power is gone, it leaves more room for
the lords to rule. (Who will probably fight amongst
themselves until one emerges as the new monarch.)
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 17:27:10 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Ray Hartman wrote:
> > It is in fact harder to prevent "incorrect" state rule
> > when it is ruled by the few, than when it is ruled by the
> > many. Due simply to sampling error. The ultimate example:
> > being ruled by a monarch - he's the only one who needs to
> > be convinced to kill all Jews and they'd all be killed.
> .. The majority may fool itself every bit as easily as the Oligarchy.
> .. That's why a checks_and_balance (neg_feedback) system is so
> .. valuable, whether instituted under a democracy or a monarchy !
No doubt that checks and balances ARE needed. However,
rule by many *is* less prone to random fluctuations of
opinion than rule by the few. For example, if you
randomly select 3 people from a population, it's much
more likely that they will all be female than if you
had randomly selected 3 million.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 17:22:47 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Dan Sullivan wrote:
> >Socialism promotes economic decisions by the masses.
> Socialism promotes economic decisions by the persons elected by
> the majority. Regardless of intentions, that which is not solved
> economically is solved by political power relations, and because
> superior strength dominates such relations, ultimately a Lenin or
> Mao or Castro emerges.
What you are describing is the different between a
republic and a pure democracy. We have a republic
in this country right now, and it is prone to the same
problems you have just described, particularly when
the "freely elected" leaders of this republic also
"happen to be" those who can already distinguish
themselves from everyone else on the basis of wealth.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 17:12:50 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Dan Sullivan wrote:
> >Let's say we lived in a future where all our production
> >and distribution of food was done by robots or trained
> >monkeys. Would there be a free lunch? Not if it was
> >capitalist. Someone has to own those monkeys and robots.
> >So someone has to profit. Only capitalism guarantees
> >that there will never be a free lunch.
> If we had robots doing everything, including build more robots,
> then the return to labor (wages) would disappear, and the
> landless could as well starve. But the robots would themselves
> become cheap, and the true capitalist (manager of labor products)
> would starve as well, especially once patents ran out. The land
> holders would get the whole produce of production: 100% of it,
> for even these robots could not make something from nothing.
Exactly. An economy based solely on competition and profit
is doomed to be at the mercy of technology. An economy
based on cooperation will be the masters of technology.
Do we let robots replace us or do we have them work FOR us?
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 17:06:06 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Dan Sullivan wrote:
> >Look at what happens in Ethiopia or Ireland when there's
> >no food! The point is, neither capitalism nor communism
> >solves shortages.
> I would not call either country particularly capitalist. Both
> suffer from land monopoly, but neither have much capital, whether
> privately or publicly held. One of the great disservices of
> socialism was the confounding of landlordism with capitalism. The
> landlords trade in state-issued privileges, while capital is
> properly labor-created wealth. After all, if the three factors of
> production are land, labor and capital (a premise that Marx
> accepted and argued from), then the factors must be kept
> distinct, else everything is at sea.
Marx was about as intelligent and Rand, Smith, J.D.Salinger,
and the writers of the New Testament. Capital is but a
by-product of land and labor. There was a time when there
were no governments around to print currency - in other
words, no capital. Only when you use labor (and possibly
land) to produce something, do you then have a product that
you can call "capital".
> That begs the question of where the accountant gets it. If he
> draws the money from productive investment, then I see no reason
> to complain. If he draws it from state-sanctioned privilege
> (which is indeed likely), then that is the issue, not the
> inheritance itself.
He gets money because of the stupidity of others. In other
words, he buys stock at a lower price and sells to people
(later) who are willing to pay a higher price. Not that
those idiots don't deserve to lose money, but still, that
accountant created little more *real* wealth than the couch
potato sitting in front of the TV.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 16:50:22 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Big Oh wrote:
> =| > Monopolies can only exist with gov't protection and the gov't very often
> =| > deliberately creates its own monoplies (e.g. - gas, electricity, waste
> =| > collection, road maintenance).
> =| Don't forget the police force, the justice system, the
> =| military, and the legislature. All monopolies.
> YEP!
So let's abolish them all and go back to full rule by
whoever can hire the most mercenaries. I've always
wanted to be a Baron or Count.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.poltics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 15:49:42 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Dan Sullivan wrote:
> >> Except that I oppose taxes for funding the police since collecting taxes
> >> requires coercion. Police should be privately funded (i.e. - voluntarily
> >In other words, people should hire their own police, hire
> >their own legislators, hire their own judges, pass their
> >own laws, build their own armies,
> but only that the citizen is superior to the state. For if your
> military does not work for you, then surely you will end up
> working for your military.
Quite true.
> > and attack anyone who disagrees with them...
> That is not only unlibertarian, but just plain stupid.
Ah, but say all the citizens of Michigan voluntarily support
their military and all the citizens of Ohio voluntarily
support theirs. However they disagree with each other over
just how big Ohio is. So they fight a war... in other words,
"attacking anyone who disagrees with them."
From: pimann@pobox.com (Dan Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 08:28:42 GMT
Organization: Pennsylvania Fair Tax Coalition
"T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com wrote:
>Goon works for Richman because Richman got him where
>he is - campaign contributions. Goon tells me that
>either I have to find a job with Richman in the
>next 6 months or it will cut my unemployment checks,
>thereby causing me to starve (if not die of exposure).
>"So what liberty do I have?" I ask Goon. Goon tells
>me, "Why! Start your own company of course!" So here
>I sit in my rags and my shopping cart (stolen from
>one of Richman's stores of course), scratching my
>head, wondering if I should advertise my airline
>on NBC or Fox (or both).
"Work for yourself" seems not to be a viable option today for
destitute people of moderate intelligence, but such used to be
the actual advice given, and it was good advice at that, and
worked well. Actually, the advice usually took the form of "Go
west, young man," and there was at that time an unowned west to
go to. That was what shaped the American Character, and now that
the frontier is gone, we are all misfits for the ensuing slavery.
Dan Sullivan
The only time my education was interrupted was when I was in school.
--George Bernard Shaw
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 18:14:54 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Mike Wooding wrote:
> The most overlooked/misunderstood/ignored/etc/etc/etc
> economic principle is also the easiest to state and
> to understand: there's no such thing as a free lunch.
> If you learn nothing else about economics, at least
> learn that.
Let's say we lived in a future where all our production
and distribution of food was done by robots or trained
monkeys. Would there be a free lunch? Not if it was
capitalist. Someone has to own those monkeys and robots.
So someone has to profit. Only capitalism guarantees
that there will never be a free lunch.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 18:11:18 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Big Oh wrote:
> =| Price minimums are one thing, and price maximums are another.
> =| The first prevents people from buying something. The second
> =| empowers people to buy something.
> Not if there is nothing to buy! Look at what happens in every communist
> country - they set price maximums and the shelves are totally bare while
> there's long lines outside of the stores waiting to buy anything that just
> might appear on any shelf. The free market solves shortages -- socialism
> creates shortages. History proves you wrong.
Look at what happens in Ethiopia or Ireland when there's
no food! The point is, neither capitalism nor communism
solves shortages. Communism just spreads shortages to
everyone. Capitalism just raises prices until the poor
starve. If you want to argue about production, then you
might ask if an economy that spends its profits on Picassos
and ballooning around the globe is likely to produce more
than an economy that spends its profits on more research
or hiring more labor.
> Using your very own example -- by you refusing to work for the richman then
> the richman has no product to sell but still must pay his goon to enforce
> his property rights. And with no one working for the richman and producing
> products then both the goon and the richman will have no products to
> purchase and thus must also starve along with you. Capitalism works
> because of voluntary cooperation -- socialism requires pointing a gun to
> the back of the head of every common person to force them to produce.
Who says richman is a businessman? He doesn't need
products to sell because he inherits his money. He
merely lives by spending what his accountant gives
to him every month. Capitalism is as much cooperation
as competition. Communism is the only pure cooperation.
Sure, communism might do it with a bullet. Capitalism
does it with starvation instead.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.poltics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 17:29:30 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Big Oh wrote:
> =| > It is your exercise of free speech by which you convince others to
> =| > voluntarily help those truly in need. Those who are too lazy to use
> =| > logical and reasoned arguments to convince others to do such voluntarily
> =| > typically resort to the use of force to coerce others into conform to their
> =| > elitist attitudes of what a properly social engineered human is suppose to be.
> =| It is your exercise of free speech by which you convince others to
> =| fund the police precinct. Those who are too lazy to use
> =| logical and reasoned arguments to convince others to do such voluntarily,
> =| typically resort to the use of force to coerce others into conforming to
> =| their selfish attitudes that no one else has a right to their property.
> Except that I oppose taxes for funding the police since collecting taxes
> requires coercion. Police should be privately funded (i.e. - voluntarily
> funded). Unlike you, my principles are consistent and oppose using initial
> force.
In other words, people should hire their own police, hire
their own legislators, hire their own judges, pass their
own laws, build their own armies, and attack anyone who
disagrees with them... provided they had some way to get
over that annoying moat they put around that other castle
of course...
From: pimann@pobox.com (Dan Sullivan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 11:10:25 GMT
Organization: Pennsylvania Fair Tax Coalition
johannp@aimnet.com (Big Oh) wrote:
>In article 32E7F698.7242@geocities.com, "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com wrote:
>=| Lest we forget, when a man accumulates enough wealth,
>=| he can form his own government, call himself Generalissimo,
>=| Lord, or Emperor.
>Lest we forget, when a man accumulates enough power, especially collective
>power, he can form his own totalitarian government, call himself Dictator
>of the Proletariat, and accumulate all the wealth he wants.
Lest we forget, it doesn't matter what he calls himself, and it
doesn't matter whether he claims rulership of the land or
ownership of the land, and it doesn't matter whether he sends
swarms of tax gathering bureacurats or swarms of rent gathering
aristocrats. What matters is that the fruits of your labor belong
to you, and that whoever controls the land controls the fruits of
your labor.
This was the message of the classical liberals, in whose
footsteps libertarians purport to walk.
Dan Sullivan
The only time my education was interrupted was when I was in school.
--George Bernard Shaw
From: pimann@pobox.com (Dan Sullivan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 10:19:38 GMT
Organization: Pennsylvania Fair Tax Coalition
"J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com wrote:
>Big Oh wrote:
>> =| Atlantis has risen! Say a huge chunck of land forms off the
>> =| coast of California after some extensive volcanic activity.
>> =| Who has equal rights to that land? Everyone in California?
>> =| Everyone in the United States? Everyone in the world? Or
>> =| just the first boatload of soldiers armed with machineguns
>> =| and tear gas to arrive on that island?
>> In the existing system the gov't of the U.S. will forcefully lay claim of
>> ownership (as it does to much of the land under its laws). In a free
>> society it would go to those who first could do something productive with
>> it. Those willing to take the greatest risks and invest the most of
>> themselves are the one's most probably who will become the owners while
>> those less determined abandon their claims.
>How are you going to define productive? Person A wants
>to farm it. Person B wants to build a shopping mall on
>it. Person C wants to drill for oil on it. Person D
>also wants to drill for oil on it. Person E shoots them
>all and then just waits around for property values to go
>up before he sells it.
Sounds like Person E gets to define productive however he wants
to. This would be very unlibertarian, but since we no longer have
nasty old governments any more, who is going to take Person E to
task over this? This is why some level of government is
necessary, but, unfortunately, governments also tend to be
dominated by the likes of Person E, and will be until ABC&D find
a system under which they can mutually benefit from access to
this new land, for E is stronger than any of them, but not
stronger than all of them. But as long as they are divided and
competing over land themselves, the most ruthless agressor will
win.
Dan Sullivan
The only time my education was interrupted was when I was in school.
--George Bernard Shaw
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.poltics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 14:14:13 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Big Oh wrote:
> =| And since it's voluntary anyway, it's not part of
> =| the structure which classical liberalism envisions; people
> =| may do it, or they may not; people may be helped, or they
> =| may be allowed to die in the streets (if things come to
> =| that). This is quite distinct from tribal and feudal
> =| arrangements, where the community is generally held to owe
> =| each one of its constituents some means to live.
> It is your exercise of free speech by which you convince others to
> voluntarily help those truly in need. Those who are too lazy to use
> logical and reasoned arguments to convince others to do such voluntarily
> typically resort to the use of force to coerce others into conform to their
> elitist attitudes of what a properly social engineered human is suppose to
> be.
It is your exercise of free speech by which you convince others to
fund the police precinct. Those who are too lazy to use
logical and reasoned arguments to convince others to do such voluntarily,
typically resort to the use of force to coerce others into conforming to their
selfish attitudes that no one else has a right to their property.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:40:10 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Big Oh wrote:
> =| In any case, if *anyone* has
> =| the power to "kill me" by forcing prices beyond my
> =| reach, then I guess I would not be a happy camper.
> Gov't clearly does have the power to do such through the costs added by
> taxation, fees, licenses, and regulation.
So would a monopoly. "But if one company charges too
much, other smaller companies will be started," you
freemarketers say. In a true capitalist economy, these
new smaller companies could earn much more money by
merging with the monopoly, thereby continuing the
high price tradition. Why don't they do it now? Well,
if it ain't anti-trust laws, it's stupid management.
From: "J. Iscariot"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Property Rights Come in Third in Constitution
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:03:24 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Dan Sullivan wrote:
> >Atlantis has risen! Say a huge chunck of land forms off the
> >coast of California after some extensive volcanic activity.
> >Who has equal rights to that land? Everyone in California?
> >Everyone in the United States? Everyone in the world? Or
> >just the first boatload of soldiers armed with machineguns
> >and tear gas to arrive on that island?
> It depends. The second boatload might have more soldiers carrying
> better weapons, in which case the land belongs to them. This
> would be consistent with the statist quo system we currently use.
And a great system it is ain't it? It's worked for
thousands of years. Might makes right. And has resulted
in the formation of this gloriously productive nation
of ours. I say the Ends justifies the Means.
CJohnYu.96@alum.mit.edu
[email/index]