16.1.97 True free market.
17.1.97 Choosing collectivism.
18.1.97 American democracy.
19.1.97 15:30 Economic equality.
19.1.97 15:48 Implementing democracy.
22.1.97 The ability to rule me.
23.1.97 Collective justice.
25.1.97 12:11 The threshold of revolution.
25.1.97 12:19 The incorruptible rich.
27.1.97 13:41 Form your own country.
27.1.97 13:56 Land and capital.
30.1.97 Work under or with?
4.2.97 Pink slips and new goals.
6.2.97 14:39 Alternatives to slavery.
6.2.97 14:59 Crummy jobs and countries.
10.2.97 A day of celebration.
11.2.97 20:52 Running in the opposite direction.
11.2.97 21:04 All men are created equal.
18.2.97 Hard earned dollars.
25.2.97 Instead of whip and rope.
4.3.97 Abolish slavery.

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 18:46:12 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Mike Wooding wrote:
> > If your master allowed you to either pick cotton in the north
> > field or to pick cotton on the west field, would that no
> > longer be slavery?
>  No ... it's not slavery because you can tell your master to go
>  bugger himself and either find another master of become your
>  own master. Usually the latter involves a lot more time and
>  effort ... but has its own rewards.

The latter only involves more time and effort IF you didn't
inherit it in the first place.  No honest conservative
believes that everyone has an equal shot to being her own
master.  Because of this, some will always be more enslaved
than others.

From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 17:43:15 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Maxim Jacobs wrote:
> How can it be slavery?  You have a choice of careers where to work and when
> to work.  If you are saying that the fact that people have to actually work
> to survive is slavery then everyone on earth has been a slave since the
> beginning of time including the capitalists.

If your master allowed you to either pick cotton in the north
field or to pick cotton on the west field, would that no
longer be slavery?  As long as capitalists continue to hold
raw materials under armed guard, there will always be slavery.
Resources belong to everyone who wants to use it, not to an
army, not to the builder of the fence, and not to the holder
of a title deed.  If you want to abolish slavery, then abolish
stolen property.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:45:16 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Maxim Jacobs wrote:
> Slavery in itself is a regulation.  Slavery didnt spontaneously just
> happen, it was backed up by laws and regulations, without which it could
> never have lasted.  So to regulate away slavery is like regulating away
> telecom regulation.  Sure you can call it regulation but the end result is
> deregulation.  And name one modern fiscal conservative who thinks that
> anti-slavery laws are a burden.

Slavery still exists today, except that capitalists deny
that it constitutes slavery. Instead of threat of death by
whip and rope, they use threat of death by starvation. They
have fenced off all the land, they have killed and chased
off all challengers to their "ownership", and they refuse to
allow anybody to use "their" resources unless that slave
submits to handing over a portion of everything the slave
produces. Sure capitalists reward their slaves for better
performance, just as plantation masters fed and rewarded
their hard-working slaves as well.

From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:26:09 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Maxim Jacobs wrote:
> > Whoever said "all men are
> > created equal" didn't know about free market capitalism.
> > Everyone knows that the abolition of slavery was just another
> > regulation and an attack on our "glorious" free market.
> The abolotion of slavery was actually a great victory for the free market.
> The southern economy before 1860 was very parisitic.  You had a few feudal
> lords gaining from the forced labor of millions without giving them
> anything in return.  The abolition of slavery allowed for free market
> capitalism, where mutualism and not parasitism reigns supreme.

True that the abolition of slavery created more mutualism than
there was before. However, you forget that greatest of compaints
from fiscal conservatives: regulation. If you regulate away
slavery, fiscal conservatives claim (or would claim if they
didn't already know they were wrong), then you are taking away
property that the master spent his hard earned dollars on.

From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:04:12 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Michael J Blinn wrote:
> >The real alternative is, of course, to give each individual
> >the *same* economic opportunity to start any business and
> >enter into any industry.
> job, but neither can a business function for long without employees- that's
> why, if they feel they're being mistreated, employees form unions and go on
> strike. It would be ludicrous to suggest that labor unions have no power in
> this country, and by extension, it is ludicrous to suggest that the worker
> bears no influence over his/her/their (we really need a gender-neutral pronoun
> :) work environment.

The inherent inequality in this case, of course, is that you
need hundreds, or even thousands of unionized workers just to
sway the opinions of a few men.  Whoever said "all men are
created equal" didn't know about free market capitalism.
Everyone knows that the abolition of slavery was just another
regulation and an attack on our "glorious" free market.

> the upstart? To offer billions of (someone else's) dollars to every single Joe
> who thinks he can run a car company would be an enourmous waste of money,
> because most new business ventures will fail

There won't be enough billions to go around. If everyone
can't start their own governments, then everyone owns a share
in their current government. If everyone can't start their
own companies, then everyone owns a share in their current
company.

From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 20:52:07 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> > The real alternative is, of course, to give each individual
> > the *same* economic opportunity to start any business and
> > enter into any industry.
> OK, under your system, I want to start a factory that produces
> the number 8 for touch-tone phones.  I am allowed to start *any*
> business, aren't I?  Or does somebody have a vote over my life?
> What if I start it myself, through hard work, without outside help?
> Can whoever wants join my business now?

Yes, feel free. If (magically) everyone was given (by God
or government) an equal share in every natural resource,
then you would have a right to do whatever you wanted with
the resources given to you. Whether you start your own,
join with others who bring in their own shares, or throw
your own shares away, you would only have that right
because everyone else had the same start. Just as a runner in a
50 meter dash has the right to run in the opposite direction,
but not to start at the 25 meter mark.

From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 21:55:33 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Max Jacobs wrote:
> >   The day that third world
> > nations are as educated as we are, is the day that American
> > based companies are in for a helluva fight against more
> > efficient overseas companies (unless we institute some
> > major tariffs).
> When thirld world nations ever become as educated as America is today
> that will be a day of great celebration.  That would mean that there
> would be less disease, pollution, poverty, and authoritarian rule in the
> world then there is today. I think Im willing to sacrifice a few Nike
> factories for that.

True, it SHOULD be a day of celebration. However, if America
is still a capitalist nation when that day comes, it will be
a day of massive unemployment, a day when the number of people
competing for our jobs has jumped thousands of percent. A day
when food will be so abundant that anyone in the food business
will be doomed to low prices and bankruptcy.  Of course,
capitalism has a sure fire answer to low food prices. It will
never happen because nobody will enter the food industry if
their own entry will lower prices below profitability.

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,soc.women,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 14:59:53 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Cyndi Bakke wrote:
> > Like how a slave weighs the cost/benefit of open revolt
> > to continued slavery?  If he revolts, chances are he
> > will be killed. If he continues to serve, chances are
> > he will live at least a while longer.
> In any case, the slave has a choice.  Personally I would always risk
> death for freedom.  An individual who does not value his freedom at
> least that much is probably not worthy of it.

Just like every victim of rape has the choice of risking
death for chastity?  Anyone who values life over
chastity probably deserves rape, right?  Since everyone
has the right to fight rape, rape should be legal.

> > And many people do prefer not to risk their lives
> > as cops or clean toilet bowls and urinals.  What is
> > it about management that is more valuable than an
> > officer willing to put his life on the line?
> The officer, no matter how admirable and brave a person, has the
> misfortune of working for the government.  It is already deciding how
> much he deserves to be paid.

Like the slave decides to work for his master right?
How else is he going to eat?  People don't leave their
crummy jobs for the same reasons others don't leave
their crummy country. They can't be sure they'd have it
better anywhere else.

> Who are you suggesting should make the decisions about what members of
> society are valuable?  The government?  Central governments seem to
> value bureaucrats over everyone else...so I think we see what poor
> judges governments make.

A government makes decisions that hurt the majority of
its citizens because it is ruled by a minority of its
citizens.  If we could actually elected people of median
income to political office, you can bet they won't be
trying to "reform" education so that only the wealthy
will be able to afford it. (Unless of course, they have
plans to be among the wealthy very shortly.)

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 14:39:38 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> > > > Ever wonder why more companies aren't employee-owned in
> > > > our wonderful capitalist state?  Is it because 95% of
> > > > the people *enjoy* working under other people instead of
> > > > with other people?
> > > One, yes, many people like working for others.
> > But would you say MOST people like working for others?
> Yes, I would.  I have explained to many people a method to double
> their salary, virtually guaranteed (certainly when averaged over a
> few years), doing the same work they are currently doing, with the
> catch that they would be essentially self-employed, and have to rely
> on themselves. If they don't work, they don't get paid.  If they work
> alot, they get paid alot.  Maybe one in ten is interested.
> Yes, most people *love* working for others when you explain to them
> what the alternative is.

Exactly. When you explain to them what the ALTERNATIVE is.
Most slaves would *love* working for their masters if you
explained to them that yes, they could escape to Canada for
a better life, but that they would be hunted by dogs for
hundreds of miles, shotkilledrapedtortured if caught, and
probably have the rest of their family whipped into a nice
frothy white cream.

The real alternative is, of course, to give each individual
the *same* economic opportunity to start any business and
enter into any industry.

From: Bill Whitehouse whitehou@ncsa.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1997 14:57:20 -0600
Organization: Outland Revenue

Cyndi Bakke wrote:
> J. Iscariot wrote:
> > Like how a slave weighs the cost/benefit of open revolt
> > to continued slavery?  If he revolts, chances are he
> > will be killed. If he continues to serve, chances are
> > he will live at least a while longer.
> Are you suggesting that individuals in our society are enslaved?  That
> would be pretty ridiculous.
> In any case, the slave has a choice.  Personally I would always risk
> death for freedom.  

In real slavery, it's an either-or proposition - not a risk.

> An individual who does not value his freedom at
> least that much is probably not worthy of it.

Interesting logic - an individual who doesn't value their 
freedom enough to toss any chance of enjoying it away isn't
worthy of it.  "Give me liberty or give me death."

Where a risk of death does imply a chance for freedom, that
risk is well worth taking.  But whether that chance exists
or not is an assessment that only the person in that
situation can make - and no cut-and-dried rules of thumb
about who's worthy of it and who isn't apply.  Freedom must
be fought for for the benefit of all, not just those who
are deemed "worthy of it" by moralists.
   
> > And many people do prefer not to risk their lives
> > as cops or clean toilet bowls and urinals.  What is
> > it about management that is more valuable than an
> > officer willing to put his life on the line?
> The officer, no matter how admirable and brave a person, has the
> misfortune of working for the government.  It is already deciding how
> much he deserves to be paid.

How is that different from a private corporation deciding how
much the janitor deserves to get paid.  Or do you _really_
think a janitor has any more say in that than the officer?
 
> >  What is it about management that is more valuable than a
> > secretary that spends all day scheduling, editing, and
> > organizing meetings?
> I guess that depends.  I would flush most middle management positions
> out of my company if I were the boss.  But as for real management (i.e.
> the folks who really run the company), their work is more skilled than
> that of a secretary.  They bear more responsibilities as well.  And so
> deserve to make more money.

What responsibilities does corporate management bear that laborers
don't?  They bear the responsibilities of shuffling paper and
scheduling meetings, but to the things that directly translate to
actual production - who's responsible for the production and who
gets fired/replaced if that level of production doesn't occur?

The answer is clear - management sets the goals, laborers implement
them.  If the goals aren't met, management sends out the pink
slips and devises new goals.  In practically all cases, it's the
laborers that bear the responsibility of the companies' bottom
line, and also the missteps of management.  The hierarchical (read:
fascist/centralized) power structure of corporations is the _only_
thing that dictates that management gets paid more than laborers.

> Who are you suggesting should make the decisions about what members of
> society are valuable?  The government?  Central governments seem to
> value bureaucrats over everyone else...

But not nearly is exclusively as corporate execs - who _are_ 
career bureaucrats, by job definition.
Bill Whitehouse               whitehou@ncsa.uiuc.edu

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 15:47:37 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Mike Wooding wrote:
> > The existence of employee-owned companies (United) shows that
> > this idea isn't inherently incompatable with capitalism in
> > reality.  Even if the theory/propaganda is still too polarized.
>  In fact, United is perfectly compatible with capitalism! In
>  fact, almost any arrangement in which all the parties involved
>  are in mutual agreement is compatible with capitalism.

Ever wonder why more companies aren't employee-owned in
our wonderful capitalist state?  Is it because 95% of
the people *enjoy* working under other people instead of
with other people?  The reason is that until we level
the playing field and give every individual the same
opportunity to enter any industry, industry will be
dominated by the wealthy.

From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 13:56:22 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Paul Gowder wrote:
> Aah, but the capitalist does preform useful work.  That's what you ignore.
> Labor is NOT THE ONLY MEANS OF PRODUCTION!  There is also LAND and CAPITAL!
> The capitalist provides the CAPITAL, the laborer provides the LABOR!  Thus,
> since each contributes to the production, each is entitled to a portion

LAND: Is land production?  You need land to produce something,
yes. But land itself does not generate any new wealth.  Whatever
wealth was in that land (fertile soil, oil, ore, lumber, etc)
got there without any help of the landlord.  But if you grow,
drill, mine, or harvest from that land, you have production
through labor.  The "possession" of land has its roots
only in warfare and violence.  There was never a "Communist
Uptopian Starting Point" at which each person owned an
equal share of land and was free to buy, sell, or trade
his own share.

CAPITAL: Capital comes from 3 sources. 1) Labor (which is "legit"
means of production). 2) Robbery (which includes warfare, and
therefore, land). 3) Inheritance and endowment (which, although
you can argue is the right of the giver, nevertheless is not
a productive act).

From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 13:41:06 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
> Please show me a socialist government that exists solely because
> people VOLUNTARILY come together

And they do. At least in the beginning. Until a decade
or two later when they realize that nothing has changed.
The rich are still powerful, and the powerful are still
rich. (Although it may be a new set of families at the
top.)

> Hm.. capitalist corporations form because people VOLUNTARILY come
> together.  Anyone who chooses not to work for one corporation can work
> for another corporation, or go into business for himself.

Governments of any kind form because people "voluntarily"
come together (or at least the military "voluntarily"
comes together).  They pass welfare laws "voluntarily". If
you choose not to support the welfare laws in this country,
you are "free" go "work" for another country.  Or "form your
own country".

From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 12:19:17 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
> >> You mean people like Steve Forbes and Ross Perot, but aren't
> >> so blatant that they openly flaunt their fortunes?  They run
> >> because they can.  They can because they're rich (or they've
> >> made enough promises to "venture capitalists" who decide to
> >> fund their campaign for a post-election "return" on their
> >> investment).
> >What would you prefer?  The influence peddling that we have seen from the
> >President and the DNC?  I would far prefer a person using his own honestly
> >gained, hard earned money, than I would someone selling off bits of this
> >country to get the funds.
> I have a cartoon... shows two guys, briefcases labelled "lobbyist" and
> "pac", talking outside a governmentish-looking building.  One says to
> the other,
>   I hate it when a guy tries to buy the office with his own money.
> Wish I could remember something about where I got this cartoon from.
> The one thing you KNOW about Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, or other
> similar candidates, is that nobody has bought them under the table.

What I would *prefer* is NEITHER. Sure, people can be rich
enough to be "incorruptible"... of course, these are also the
ones who do the corrupting in the first place.

I would use my hard earned money to run for president to, if it
weren't a few million to short.  I'm sure at least 20% of the
people posting here could do a better job as Pres than old Ross,
but they wouldn't even be considered a better contender than
the Libertarian Party.

From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 12:11:23 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

fuggoff! wrote:
> Let's stop talking this and start acting...
> 1> California just dumped overtime pay, busnesses are soon to follow
> 2> Businesses are moving jobs out of the US, to instead pay slave labor wages
> 3> The environment is in such disrepair that floods and heatwaves are commonplace
> 4> Our "democracy" panders to corporate interests more than it would
> ever consider litstening to the people.
> I may not be a Ph.D., but I know when someone is trying to fuck me.
> We need to have a quality revolution that attacks the cancer at the
> root: not at the capital  (although that would be a start) bur right
> on Wall St. - burn the fuckers down to the ground.

It'll never work.  Wall St. is protected by the capital.
Fighting the capital won't work either, because they've
managed to figure out exactly how little money they need
to give out as welfare to keep the poor below the threshold
of revolution... that is, until all our business move away
in search of cheap labor and welfare can no longer keep
up with unemployment.

From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:38:45 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

John Parker wrote:
> There's nothing wrong with collectivism as long as it's voluntary.  I
> practice myself with my family.  It's only when it's forced upon you
> that it's a problem.

Why then did we abandon feudalism and form a collective
military and a collective justice system?  Can I elect
to excuse myself from your collective laws?

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 16:42:31 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Chris Wilson wrote:
> >> Markets are much more "democratic" than governments in that each
> >> individual may choose to buy or not to buy, to sell or not to sell, to
> >> cooperate or not to cooperate, to produce or not to produce, etc.
> >In a truly "free democratic market" political system, there
> >wouldn't be a political system at all. All roads will be
> >privately funded, as will meat and other safety inspections.
> >We'd all hire our own law enforcement teams to implement our
> >own brand of justice.  Now that's true freedom.
> Exactly, its called anarcho-capitalism.

It also used to be called feudalism.

> >> The Ruling class is the government, not privately acting individuals.
> >> A rich man with no political power has no ability to rule me.
> >He can if he lobbies Congress.  He can if he contributes to
> >political campaigns.  He can if he runs for President, forms
> >his own party, and blows a few million the night before the
> >election on infomercials (well, assuming he can convince more
> >than 20% of the population that's he's got values just like
> >every other American).
> Perhaps you should read my argument rather than just skimming.  I said
> a rich man with NO political power has no ability to rule me.  If he
> lobbies Congress, that is political power.

And if he hires a better "anarcho-capitalist law
enforcement team" than I can, then he has the ability
to rule me.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 15:48:32 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Jill E. Deel wrote:
> I said it before, and I will say it again--utter complete fantasy.  There is
> not enough money or material wealth in the world to satisify, or bribe away a
> person's longing for freedom.

Yes there is. We call it the American Welfare System.  After all,
why bite the hand that feeds you, even if it means having to "put
up with a little oppression"?  Yes, we long for freedom, but many
long for food and security more.  In war-torn nations, some would
even settle for stability.

>  How is a business that is more concerned with power plays going to compete
> with a company overseas that is more concerned about the bottom line?  The
> answer is they can't!  That is why some American businesses go overseas.

Correct. In a capitalist world, businesses will always tend to
move to countries with the cheapest labor. "Globalization" they
call it.  Either we bring up the level of pay of all overseas
workers or we bring our own down (or both).  The Great Invisible
Hand of the Free Market at work, so to speak.

> > You are mistaken. Again, it is obvious that you obstinately cling to the
> > false idea that the Soviet system, in its various forms was socialism.
> You can continue to maintain his theories were never fully implemented.  How
> long do we hold on to a failed dream before we get the idea that maybe those
> ideas *can't* be fully implemented, because they were never feasible in the
> first place?

You might say democracy has never been implemented in this
country either.  After all, how many people get to vote on
every single bill in Congress?  You can even say a true
democratically elected republic hasn't been implemented
either.  Candidates with the biggest coffers and the big
campaign funds also tend to be the ones that win, so there
must be more than just votes at work here...

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 15:30:55 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

redflag@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > Economic
> > equality cannot be impletmented in socities with "political equality"
> > (OTHERWISE KNOWN AS FREEDOM).
> You are addressing the wrong issue. Socialists advocate economic DEMOCRACY
> as the basis for achieving a more just society. "Economic equality" is not
> necessarily what we want. After all, our individual tastes and aptitudes will
> primarily determine our economic choices. Some will want to work harder than others
> and thereby obtain more material possesions, whereas others will settle for less
> because they will not want to work as hard. The point is people will be able to
> freely choose their economic future instead of having to submit to the involuntary
> poverty and narrow, no-win and dehumanizing choices offered under capitalism.

Quite right. Advocating for economic equality doesn't have
to mean everyone with the same salary, anymore than advocating
for political equality would have to mean everyone is
President.  It just means the right to both economic
AND political equal opportunity.

From: "J. Iscariot"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:14:12 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Jill E. Deel wrote:
> > No, *not* everyone wants the same president at the same
> > time either. But we're all stuck with one.  Economic equality
> > does no more to kill your precious Individuality than political
> > equality.
> We have a chance to vote in someone more suitable in four years.  However,
> your "economic equality" (what a joke) cannot be voted out.  Economic
> equality cannot be impletmented in socities with "political equality"
> (OTHERWISE KNOWN AS FREEDOM).  It doesn't work, that is one of the reasons
> the Soviet Union fell.  Gorbechev believed he could give the people a little
> freedom and keep communism.  He could not.  The econimc equality of the
> Soviet Union is no more.

Yes, in four years we can all vote for a new president, but
some of our votes will count more than other votes.  Why?
Because votes aren't just at the ballot box.  Votes also
come in the form of campaign contributions.  Ever wonder
why AT&T contributions so much money to BOTH the Democratic
and Republican parties?  Ever wonder why nobody seems to
think AT&T is controversial?  (Except maybe MCI & Sprint...)

From: "M. Luther" 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:31:16 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Cyndi Bakke wrote:
> I think collectivism in its socialistic context should more accurately
> be described as the subjugation of the individual to the collective.  If
> socialism or communism truly worked, then I think people would choose
> such a system of government on their own.

And people would be more likely to choose it, if it weren't
for the domination of this country's political system by those
in the "upper crust" of the economic pyramid.  Why would your
"average wage earner" making over $100K a year ever contribute
to a politician who is arguing for more economic protection for
the working class?

A similar situation existed in the Soviet Union.  Why would
your "average party cadre" in total control of his precinct
ever offer economic salvation to a worker who is calling for
more political democracy?

From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Socialism negates freedom
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 18:19:52 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Jill E. Deel wrote:
> On the other
> hand, the Soviet Union had to fall to end the terrible practices of
> concentration camps and slave labor.  They are still using such labor in
> China.  We could bring up a lot of bad practices that once existed in this
> country, but it wouldn't help your argument a bit, it would only strengthen
> mine, because those practices no longer exist!  Those practices in communist
> countries run merrily on.

Just because there's a Great Wall in China, doesn't make
great walls a trait of "communism".  You're forgetting
that child labor is very popular in many free market
nations.  After all, anti-child labor laws go against the
very essence of a "free" market.

From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Homeless Rights Nonsense
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 16:10:58 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Bill Koehler wrote:
> > To make a similar generalization, "If a person is ensured
> > a great place to live and plenty of food to eat, then
> > he would be less likely to stick a gun to your face
> > and demand your wallet."
> Free market capitalism out produces
> all others.  If you are serious about helping the homeless
> the only locical way to do it is by supporting a free market
> economy, anything else will create more of the problem you are
> trying to solve.

You mistake the American economic system for a "free
market".  If it were truly a free market, we wouldn't
have all these fiscal conservatives arguing for more
deregulation.  We wouldn't have this pesky FDA, we
wouldn't have anti-trust laws, we wouldn't have the NTSB
or any of these pesky anti-pollution/clean-water acts.

Japan also produces a hell of a lot of products. You
might call it capitalist, but you can't call it a "free"
market.

There are freer markets in third world nations
that are producing less than the U.S.

15.1.97 Belief and indoctrination

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Capitalism Stinks of Death!
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 15:23:30 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Max Jacobs wrote:
> First off, the USSR is the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, so its
> not like there was a capitalist conspiracy to soil the name of
> Socialism since the Soviets were very happy to flaunt it.

They were flaunting their brand of "socialism" the way the
People's Republic of China flaunts rule by the "people" in
the form of a "republic".  Will fiscal conservatives ever
learn that something being advertised as a duck isn't always
a duck?

Yes, the Soviet government claimed to be advancing the
cause of communism, all the while filling its own pockets
with money.  Just as the American government claims to
be advancing the cause of political equality, all the
while filling its top political offices with the wealthy.

From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Capitalism Stinks of Death!
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:06:48 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

redflag@bellsouth.net wrote:
> By this i assume that your point of reference is still the Soviet Union.
> You're just mistaken. Another myth to which many people obstinately cling
> is the myth of the Soviet system having been a form of Socialism. As
> Lepore said elsewhere, most people can't be blamed for holding on to that
> belief. After all, it's to be expected when all they've been told throughout
> their lives is that the USSR was socialist because state ownership is
> socialism. Furthermore, the've been told that capitalism is a free system
> in which anyone can succeed in achieving prosperity if he only tries hard enough.
> Such myths are the product of sophisticated and prolonged campaign of
> indoctrination carried out by defenders of this system in an effort to further
> prolong its existence by prolonging and perpetuating pupular ignorance.

...which in many ways is quite similar to the "passing on" of
religion from parents to children.  It's little wonder that a
Christian society produces Christians, a Hindu society produces
Hindus.

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

---