D E C O Y
Rant


6.2.97 18:30 Deserve to be smarter. 6.2.97 18:48 Demand for teachers. 6.2.97 18:53 Always better. 6.2.97 19:01 Salary and prices. 10.2.97 21:06 Just like everyone else. 10.2.97 21:11 As much as they deserve. 12.2.97 A representative of the rich. 17.2.97 19:28 Inheriting threat and coercion. 17.2.97 19:45 Monopolizing legislators. 17.2.97 20:01 Learning to use bidets. 17.2.97 20:25 Genetic intelligence. 17.2.97 20:33 Television fairytales. 18.2.97 15:54 Sick and tired. 18.2.97 20:32 Lines and rationing. 18.2.97 20:36 Commanding hot-tubs. 19.2.97 Rule by 51% or 53%. 24.2.97 21:10 Where money comes from. 24.2.97 21:15 Access to stolen land. 24.2.97 21:24 Kill or be killed, take or be taken. 24.2.97 21:34 The real "trick". 24.2.97 23:13 Dollar bills instead of people. 24.2.97 23:22 Beat out all other students. 25.2.97 Providing the highest living standard. 4.3.97 15:43 Pitting man against man. 4.3.97 15:50 My kids or your kids? 4.3.97 16:06 All that stands between slavery and incentive. 4.3.97 16:15 Sheep and wolves. 4.3.97 20:46 Merely the advancement of civilization. 11.3.97 18:16 Perpetuated by fools and cowards. 11.3.97 18:26 Such uncapitalist traits. From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 19:32:31 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Keith Marchington wrote: > > And then "capitalists" buy from the "thieves" and > > "marauders", telling themselves, "It's alright Bob, > > it wasn't you who killed anybody. It's them lousy > > thieves and marauders. But hey, it's your land now. > > Screw everyone else. Pass it on to your kid so it > > will be yet another level removed." > Any sort of evidence that supports what you are accusing > people of in the above missive? Look, how did people ever come of with this idea of "property"? If not by conquest, then it was probably a mutual agreement. AN AGREEMENT. In other words, a vote. Property still exists, no doubt. What can be done with it can either be decided by violence or by agreement. Same as always. That is the difference between autocracy and democracy.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 18:26:03 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bob Tiernan wrote: > > : The question is: Why do parents value the education > > : their of OWN children over the education of OTHER > > : people's children? > But note, Brew, that he acknowledges that people care more about > their own kids' education that other people's kids. If that were > true, 95% of the voters wouldn't vote to keep the publik skool system > open just to make sure other people's kids get skooled. And that, of course, we owe to genetic altruism. All social animals develop such "uncapitalist" traits because it is cooperation that led to the establishment of human civilization. The very same civilization that has been perverted by capitalism, that leads to trade secrets, national security secrets, and selfish profit. ...resulting in hunger, jealousy, crime, and warfare.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 18:16:37 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Charles D. Standley wrote: > > Capitalists are those who believe that a conquering army has > > the right to "own property". Capitalists are those who believe > > that they have a right to buy stolen property for their own > > enrichment. Capitalists are those who demand a cut of everything > > produced by those who ask to make use of their stolen raw > > materials. > You are really mis-informed on what a capitaliat is. Just because some > Capitalists are unethical, doesn't mean all are. Correct. The rest perpetuate capitalism with their own ignorance. Ignorance created by their own capitalist ancestors who tried to "educate" the masses so that they could be more docile employees, who are not able to challenge the property "rights" garnered by violence. > > Education breeds knowledge. Competition breeds racism and warfare. > > ...which would be fine if that hatred were directed at disease, > > at poverty, at the challenges given us by nature, but is > > completely counterproductive if it's directed at other people. > This is a problem that we could have eliminated years ago, except politicians > and minority group leaders use and propagate these proplems to continue need > for their programs and power. Not capitalists. Indeed, it is capitalism itself, because capitalism itself is based on competition. Politicians, too, have fallen victim to the capitalist education that defends property "rights" on faith alone. And politicians continue to be manipulated by the wealthy, because this system of campaign contributions and lobby groups was set up BY the wealthy in order to perpetuate their own power. Both capitalism and autocracies are perpetuated by fools and cowards.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 20:46:25 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bob Tiernan wrote: > > Better schools can exist all they want, but why should the > > rich outnumber the poor in these schools? Pay good teachers > > as much as they deserve, but don't let them charge more. > > Let their salaries come from anyone who benefits from an > > educated public. > Tell me, Mr Hancock. Is education a "right"? Please keep your answer > relatively short. No, it is merely a necessity for advancement of human civilization, that's all. What IS a right is welfare, IF someone is preventing you from making a living by monopolizing what used to be universally shared resources.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 16:15:36 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Keith Marchington wrote: > > Capitalism doesn't provide high standards of living. Democracy > > does. > In reality neither democracy nor capitalism provide high > standards of living. There is only one thing that provides > high standards of living -- high productivity. Again, productivity only provides a high standard of living for whoever controls the wealth produced. In capitalism, that would be the capitalist. > > Capitalism only provides high standards of living for > > the rich. > ROTFL! The poorest of the poor in this country have a > higher standard of living than what are considered middle > class people in some societies. Have you considered that this society is more democratic than some societies and less capitalist than others? > > Democracy provides it for everyone else. Democracy > > means employers aren't allowed to treat their employees like > > crap. Democracy means producers aren't allowed to treat their > > consumers like crap. But true democracy is impossible as > > long as the rich have more say in the government than the poor. > Piffle. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what > to have for dinner. That is assuming your version of democracy is rule by 67%. Whereas in capitalism, it's one wolf and 2 sheep "deciding" that sheep are for dinner.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 16:06:24 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Sam Hall wrote: > If you took a group of people and started them all out with nothing, > no money, no friends, no family. Some would get rich, some would stay > poor and the rest would be in the middle. _That's_ the way it is. Oh, > I forgot, they would also need freedom, except to harm each other. The > only way you could make them come out equal is if you remove their > freedom. Face it, there always will winners and losers. Yes, the losers are the ones who didn't control the conquering armies. The winners are the ones who continue to deny others the right to use stolen raw materials unless they give the "winners" the juicy half of everything produced. The poor have already been harmed... they were harmed the first time anyone came in with a sword and wrote up a land deed. The abolishment of stolen property is all that stands between slavery and real incentive.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 15:50:43 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Cyndi Bakke wrote: > > The only reason capitalists fear that poor kids will > > receive a better education than their own kids is simple: > > they fear competition. Capitalism breeds that fear: > > kill or be killed, take or be taken. Capitalists see > > cooperation not as a goal, but only as a means to destroy > > competitors. And that is the fatal flaw that leads to > > hatred, fear, and prejudice. > value educating their children at different levels. Family A, even if > it did value education more than Family B, would not be allowed to have > the freedom to forgo entertainment, vacations, materialism, etc. in > order to pay more for education than Family B. > Also, how do you respond to a situation in which one Family wishes to > teach its children extra-skills at home? The question is: Why do parents value the education of their OWN children over the education of OTHER people's children? The answer is capitalism itself. An economy based on competition is doomed to conflict and fear, instead of cooperation and universal advancement.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 15:43:22 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. hrearden wrote: > > And where did that money come from? If it came from theft, > > do they deserve to keep it? The point is that all ownership > > of land and natural resources result ultimately from violence > > and coercion. If you create wealth from stolen property, then > > part of that wealth belongs to someone else, because you have > > stolen someone else's right to use that property. > Oh, there is no ownership? Ok, well, then there should be a political > body to oversee the allocation of the land 'rights'. I see. Where would > their 'right' to authority come from? From the ownership or > enfranchisement of individuals to endow it upon them? From their elite > 'knowledge of what is best for the people'? Or would they confiscate > this property of individuals to self-determination? > Who would provide for the general welfare? Where would the funds come > from? Who decides the leadership of a nation? There should be a political body to oversee the decision making process? Who do we ask to make sure the leader is the right one? How many must agree? Wouldn't it be so much more efficient to just make the prince into a king? The point is difficulty is no excuse for the denial of either political or economic rights. The funds come from anyone and everyone who is denying someone else the right to make a living by monopolizing some resource, not just because the person who lost her right will starve if you don't, but because all of civilization is based on cooperation, because to deny the poor an education is to slow the advancement of knowledge and the evolution of humanity itself. Only capitalism perverts civilization by pitting man against man, instead of man against nature.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:35:48 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Sam Hall wrote: > >It doesn't work because it is commanded by the Politburo > >and not the consumers. It doesn't work because in rule > >by the rich&powerful few, the few will just command > >themselves up a few hot-tubs instead of more food for > >everyone else. > The "rich and powerful" tried New Coke and the consumers said: "no > thanks." The reason capitalism has provided the highest living > standard the world has ever seen is because consumers are in control. > They decide what sells and what does not. Capitalism doesn't provide high standards of living. Democracy does. Capitalism only provides high standards of living for the rich. Democracy provides it for everyone else. Democracy means employers aren't allowed to treat their employees like crap. Democracy means producers aren't allowed to treat their consumers like crap. But true democracy is impossible as long as the rich have more say in the government than the poor. ------- Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. - C. Salzenberg
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 23:22:21 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bob Tiernan wrote: > > I would PREFER neither. In either case, the rich will always > > be "better" than the poor. If you can guarantee that both > > the rich and poor will be able to spend the same amount on > > education, then THAT is what I would prefer. Redistribution > > of wealth if necessary. Let the rich PROVE that they're really > > as smart as they say. > As for the rich and the poor paying the same for education, well, > would you criminalize the private teaching of kids of the wealthy, > or anyone else? Why should you politicize education? In order > for this to work, you're gonna have to jail a helluva lot of people > for doing nothing more than anyone else would do - and that is see > to it that their kids get a good education. What I would criminalize is the taking of land by force, the possession of stolen land, and denying someone else use of those stolen resources without giving that person something back in return. The only reason capitalists want a BETTER education for their own child is because of one thing: capitalist competition. Because they want their kid to make a good living, because they want their kid to live in a good house, they want their kid to be better than everyone else. Simply because capitalism exists, parents fear for the welfare of their own kid, urging her to beat out all other students instead of helping them.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 23:13:23 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bob Tiernan wrote: > > if only consumers would vote those money-driven politicians > > out of office. (Which will be very difficult, as long as > > political campaigns are all dominated by private contributions.) > Your final premise is all wrong, and clearly misguided thanks to > myths supplied by so many people. *Private contributions* are > not evil. If we go to "public" financing (which only means that > the government is going to take our money and hand it out to > politicians on our behalf) then that would be a true travesty > of fairness as my money will divied up with much of it going to > politicians who support policies that I detest. And someone who > does not even believe in taking part in the system will be forced > to support a system that he/she's given up on. Private contributions will always be an attack on democracy until the day everyone is able to contribute just as much. If a rich man can contribute more, then he has more power. Government support of politicians is only wrong if the government is controlled by dollar bills instead of people. ----- Freedom of speech for the poor, freedom to be heard for the rich.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 21:34:27 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Sam Hall wrote: > >So if in communism, you break legs, and in capitalism you > >get head starts, what do you call it when everyone runs a > >fair race? Common sense, maybe? > I would call it a liberal dream. There will always be people both in > front of you and behind you. The trick is to make sure that, at the > end of the race, there are more behind you than when you started. The "trick" is to make the starts as close as possible, so that you can actually be more certain the winners actually deserve it. The "trick" is to abolish all unearned income: inheritance and possession of natural resources. The "trick" is to pay people based only on their effort and thought; not because they have taken away someone else's right to use a resource. Actually, the real "trick" is to ensure that as much of human society is as educated as possible, so that we actually are able to solve the problems presented to us by accidents of nature, instead of worrying that someone smarter than you might just make you unemployed.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 21:24:10 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bob Tiernan wrote: > But the point is: a public > i.e government run education (skooling) system will never be > good enough. When will it happen, Hobbesy? When will it > happen? Public or private actually has little to do with it. I would be perfectly happy if all schools were private, if kids were given vouchers, AND schools could NOT accept anything BUT one voucher from each student. There you have it. Competition without classism. The only reason capitalists fear that poor kids will receive a better education than their own kids is simple: they fear competition. Capitalism breeds that fear: kill or be killed, take or be taken. Capitalists see cooperation not as a goal, but only as a means to destroy competitors. And that is the fatal flaw that leads to hatred, fear, and prejudice.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 21:15:04 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bob Tiernan wrote: > > You have the right to do as you please. However, it's not your > > neighbor's kids' fault that their parents are poor > It's not Ms. Bakke's fault, either. It's the fault of those who used violence to conquer land. It's the fault of those who use coercion to maintain their control over land. And it's the fault of those, who by denying other people access to stolen land, are able to enrich themselves.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 21:10:40 -0800 Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bob Tiernan wrote: > > What is it about rich parents that makes a kid more deserving > > of a better education? > Their money, of course, which is not yours, nor mine, nor ours > collectively. And where did that money come from? If it came from theft, do they deserve to keep it? The point is that all ownership of land and natural resources result ultimately from violence and coercion. If you create wealth from stolen property, then part of that wealth belongs to someone else, because you have stolen someone else's right to use that property.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:08:02 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bob Tiernan wrote: > > The difference is that in a truly democratic country, > > NO ONE would be put in charge. Every representative would > > be a real representative of the people, instead of a > > representative of rich campaign contributors or corporate > > contractors. > But you don't want either, Mr. Bramblebush. You have your ideas > of what things should be like, and by golly, you'll want them > implemented regardless of what 50% minus one has to say about it. Rule by 51% is far better than rule by the rich 20%. And that's why they stay rich. Rule by 53% is also better than rule by 51%. And of course, rule by 100% is better than rule by 53%. But because the founders of our constitution actually wanted some things to be done, instead of being forever mired in debate, they made concessions and tried to make up for it with a bill of rights.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:36:18 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Sam Hall wrote: > >Until we perfect our technology, we can't regulate the Gulf > >Stream. But we do have the power to regulate prices right now > >if only consumers would vote those money-driven politicians > >out of office. (Which will be very difficult, as long as > >political campaigns are all dominated by private contributions.) > I hate to tell you this, but changes in prices is what controls supply > and demand. The other way is called a command economy and doesn't > work. It doesn't work because it is commanded by the Politburo and not the consumers. It doesn't work because in rule by the rich&powerful few, the few will just command themselves up a few hot-tubs instead of more food for everyone else.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:32:07 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Harold Brashears wrote: > >Until we perfect our technology, we can't regulate the Gulf > >Stream. But we do have the power to regulate prices right now > >if only consumers would vote those money-driven politicians > >out of office. (Which will be very difficult, as long as > >political campaigns are all dominated by private contributions.) > By "regulate prices" I assume you mean government or other coercive > regulation, is this correct? > This does not work, you just get lines and rationing. This has been > tried over and over, many times for the best of intentions. Not just price controls, but giving away things for free. If the essentials have no value, then there would be no fighting over them. "And who would pay the producers of these essentials if they're free?" you ask. A man will go to work producing food he doesn't need because he *wants* something that isn't free. Like a pager or opera tickets.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:54:41 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bob Tiernan wrote: > > We prevent illegal immigrants > > from working don't we? > No we don't. Ever have to provide an I-9 form, or show them your driver's license and social security card on your first day of work? They do that because "native" American workers are sick and tired of people coming into this country and taking their jobs. It's the same reason that we build fences along the US-Mexican border. And why do American workers hate competition? Because in a capitalist society, too much supply of labor alleviates the demand for labor, leading to unemployment. > > We tell drug companies that they can't > > lie about their products don't we? > Who does the "telling" here? The government? The government > lies more than anybody. Who protects us from *those* lies? Who *should* protect us from those lies are ourselves. The reason why we voters can't protect ourselves is because voters don't really have control over the government. It's the drug companies and lobby groups that do. Why do you think the AMA cheers when "we" prevent hospitals from training more doctors?
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:33:33 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Joyce Reynolds-Ward wrote: > I think so, but then what do you do about the infamous "third > generation failures"? Although, given the history of families such as > the Weyerhaeuser clan, the third generation slump does not show. So I > wonder how true such a thing is. It's called complacency. The first generation works as hard as hell because they see an opportunity and want only the best for their kids. The second generation works hard both for themselves and for their kids, taking their parents as an example of success through hard work. The third generation is born in the lap of luxury, and sees no reason to study engineering or anything practical, and ventures off into history, acting, writing, music, or politics instead. And what about the n'th generation that are still poor after the (n-1)'th generation? They see no examples of success through legal work. The "examples" fed to them by TV are just fairytales. So they strike out on their own "new" paths to success, which don't always happen to be legal.
From: "J. Goebbels" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,soc.culture.jewish,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:25:05 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Chapman wrote: > IF intelligence is in any way genetic, and IF intelligence enables > wealth, in a free society, the wealthier populations will be more > inherently intelligent to some degree, and will of course pass this > characteristic on to their children. IF intelligence guarantees success among those who are otherwise equals, then those who claim to be intelligent wouldn't have a problem with actually rising to the top instead of being born there. Money is more genetic than intelligence. > Their parents were successful > because of a superior culture and genetics, and so on back through the > generations, to the origins of these particular superior strains due > to variety and selection. > It doesn't take money to go to a university. Loans are available to > everyone. But it does take money to shrug off any and all worries associated with paying back loans. It takes money to fight off emergency situations that come up while your kids are at school. And what about loans to attend private schools before college? What about loans to buy computers, books, and art supplies? ...not to mention loans so that the rugrat can do his homework instead of having to go pump gas?
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 20:01:02 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Chapman wrote: > Some studies on twins indicate that the wealthy may be genetically > more intelligent than the poor to some degree. This is actually > common sense if you understand genetics and natural selection. And I suppose that proves that just because you're wealthy, you deserve to be the ruler, right? Do you forget the other vital part of natural selection? It's called mutation. > They continue to pass on these characteristics > with other more intelligent and necessarily "wealthy" (not poor) > people. And they also continue to pass on their money, whether they acquired it by violence or exhortion or skill it doesn't matter. Is it any wonder the kids of the rich have more money and learn to use bidets and know how to drive Porsches and read leather bound volumes of poetry? If the wealthy truly believed they were smarter, they wouldn't be afraid of giving the poor an equal shot at the same education.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:45:50 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Chapman wrote: > >And I say give the rich vouchers too, just like everyone else. > >And only let them pay with the vouchers they were given, just > >like everyone else. > And of course you couldn't let anyone teach their kids at home, > because they might do a better job than the schools, eh? If the education system was good enough, then teaching your kids at home would not be a significant advantage. However, it is your right to do as you please, but if you instead monopolize the time of teachers or other resources so that they cannot teach the children of poorer kids, then that is equivalent to monopolizing the time of firemen and legislators.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:28:36 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Mike Chapman wrote: > >No, they only have to get rich once, and not just born rich, > >but actually earning it by starting life at an equal footing > >with everyone else. > Ah, so you're going to have the state raise all the children from > birth and lobotomize any which are any more intelligent than the > lowest moron? If not total equality, then far more than we have now. What is it about rich parents that makes a kid more deserving of a better education? ...and yet violent parents do not make any kids more deserving of abuse? > Why is it that you commie types have this *obssession* > with inheritance? It's nuts. Is it sour grapes? Envy is not a good > quality. Don't worry about what other people have, they didn't steal > it from you, they either created it or were given it. For the same reason fiscal conservatives have this *obssession* with welfare. Getting something for nothing - a "free lunch". If I invaded "your" land with an army, can my son now legally inherit that land? Or do I have to first sell it to a private individual who then passes it on to his son? If I threaten someone with a gun if he doesn't work for me, can I pass on what is produced to my son? What if I threaten someone with starvation, and at the same time prevent him from touch "my" land?
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:25:50 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bob Tiernan wrote: > > Let the rich PROVE that they're really as smart as they say. > This souns very totalitarian to me, Hancock. I'm glad you're > revealing yourself as the monster you surely would be if > put in charge of any country. The difference is that in a truly democratic country, NO ONE would be put in charge. Every representative would be a real representative of the people, instead of a representative of rich campaign contributors or corporate contractors.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 21:11:35 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Bob Tiernan wrote: > > then no, they don't deserve to be smarter just because their parents > > have more money. > Like I said, it doesn't always work out that way. You might as well say > that since Harvard and Oxford exist that all other skools should be > deemed unfair. Better schools can exist all they want, but why should the rich outnumber the poor in these schools? Pay good teachers as much as they deserve, but don't let them charge more. Let their salaries come from anyone who benefits from an educated public.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 21:06:33 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Sam Hall wrote: > >If "by the free market" you mean the consumers, then yes, > >the consumers. But if "by the free market", what you really > >mean is that those who can pay more for education, deserve > >a better education, then no, they don't deserve to be smarter > >just because their parents have more money. > The rich already have a free market. I want it for everyone. Give > every parent a voucher for their child's education. They can spend it > _anywhere_ they wish as long as the student receives certain, minimum, > education in core subjects. And I say give the rich vouchers too, just like everyone else. And only let them pay with the vouchers they were given, just like everyone else.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 19:01:03 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. wbg wrote: > : And there WILL be > : greater demand for good teachers over bad teachers. > Gee, cyu, how can this be, if our benevolent gummint has > repealed the Laws of Supply & Demand? There will always be supply and demand, but we don't have to let it affect prices. Yes, there will be shortage of good teachers because everyone wants one, but do the rich deserve to be smarter just because they have more money? If you want to attract better teachers or policemen, then raise their salaries, but allowing firemen to accept or deny "business" on the basis of payment is not productive.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 18:53:59 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Gack wrote: > > The point is there WILL be good teachers who charge more > > (unless price controls are established). And there WILL be > > greater demand for good teachers over bad teachers. > > As a result, the poor will be stuck with mediocre teachers > > a lot more often than the rich. Kinda like how the poor > > are buying used cars and the rich drive Range Rovers. > If there were a free market in education the rich would get a better > education than they do now, and the poor would get a better education > than they do now. The rich would get a more expensive, hence > presumptively better, education than the poor. > I guess you prefer the status quo where the rich get fair to middling > educations and the poor get no education to speak of. I would PREFER neither. In either case, the rich will always be "better" than the poor. If you can guarantee that both the rich and poor will be able to spend the same amount on education, then THAT is what I would prefer. Redistribution of wealth if necessary. Let the rich PROVE that they're really as smart as they say.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 18:48:48 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. John Stevenson wrote: > > The point is there WILL be good teachers who charge more > > (unless price controls are established). And there WILL be > > greater demand for good teachers over bad teachers. > > As a result, the poor will be stuck with mediocre teachers > > a lot more often than the rich. Kinda like how the poor > > are buying used cars and the rich drive Range Rovers. > I think you both are missing an important point. There will be MORE > good teachers in a free-market education system. This will be true > because that's the way the free-market works. Yes, the price that good > teachers charge will go up, and yes, the rise in price will be caused by > the greater demand for good teachers. Let's cut to the chase. You're saying what's really attracting good teachers is higher salary. The fact that it is in a "free market" is just one means of providing funding. We could easily raise the salaries of good teachers, but not let them charge anything. Where is this money coming from? From anyone who benefits from an educated public. > As for your point, H.(L.?) Mencken, that "the poor will be stuck with > mediocre teachers a lot more often than the rich" in a free-market, open > your eyes and look around. That's exactly what the current government > monopoly in education has produced! Agreed. Only I pull in the opposite direction. Abolish private schools. You want a better educated public? Then you vote to raise education funding. Quite like how corporate profit sharing works - you want more return on your stock options? Then work harder.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican Subject: Re: Skooling (was Re: CEO Salaries?...) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 18:30:33 -0800 Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc. Sam Hall wrote: > >And there WILL be > >greater demand for good teachers over bad teachers. > >As a result, the poor will be stuck with mediocre teachers > >a lot more often than the rich. Kinda like how the poor > >are buying used cars and the rich drive Range Rovers. > I think that you are overlooking something. There is more to a school > system than teachers. Do you spend money on a new football field or on > computers? Should > these decisions be made by local school boards, State departments of > Education and the Federal Department of Education as they are now, or > by the free market? If "by the free market" you mean the consumers, then yes, the consumers. But if "by the free market", what you really mean is that those who can pay more for education, deserve a better education, then no, they don't deserve to be smarter just because their parents have more money.

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

|11/13|