DEMAGOGUERY
Rant
7.2.97 Long communist lines.
15.2.97 The rich many.
19.2.97 15:44 Pooled their resources.
19.2.97 15:53 Instead of political oppression.
22.2.97 05:42 Not at all.
22.2.97 12:43 The grand video game of life.
22.2.97 12:52 Mine! All mine!
26.2.97 A superior military force.
27.2.97 Local dictatorships.
28.2.97 The power hot potato.
6.3.97 Wearing jeans to work.
7.3.97 Lowest common denominator.
11.3.97 19:10 Governments in miniature.
11.3.97 19:18 Suppose they walk?
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.labor-unions,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: Real capitalist world, was Capitalism will implode in the near future.
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 19:20:20 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Tim Walker wrote:
> If we ask who has the right to say how much is too much wealth,
> shouldn't we also ask how little is too little wealth. How many
> people in this country are barely surviving? How many people are
> homeless?? How many people are working 40hr/wk and not even able to
> feed their kids because minimum wage is so low??
Yep, and how many of those jobs are useless jobs that could
easily be automated or computerized? But managers don't
have the "heart" to lay off his workers. Consider how much
paperwork is involved in this country's tax system. Why?
Well, at least it keeps clerks employed. That's also why
it costs you MORE to file electronically instead of by
paper. This is all inefficiency caused by *capitalism*.
All these workers would be MUCH more helpful to society if
they were actually being EDUCATED for something better.
But a capitalist society is not capable of any education
without profit - and that's why we have trade secrets,
patents, and copyrights - while people in third world
nations die from lack of knowledge. All those lives wasted
on menial labor because capitalists are afraid of new
competing companies.
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: Real capitalist world, was Capitalism will implode in the near future.
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 19:18:57 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Terry McIntyre wrote:
> : Seems it all depends on how the matter is reported in the press. If the
> : press are planning on beating the living daylights out of a few of their
> : employees I can imagine how it would be reported.
> Suppose the employees walk? Last I checked, it was rather unusual
> to chain employees to their workplace, unless the employer is
> the government ( as in prison work gangs. )
Suppose the citizens walk? If every nation (or company)
were autocracies, what do you do? How much personal
sacrifice must you endure during your search for a
democratic nation or a democratic company? Do you
honestly believe that there's an ideal company or
country out there just waiting to accept you? Or do
you believe that anybody can really start a company
as easily as anybody else? It's time you left your
ivory tower and looked in some real bank accounts.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Real capitalist world, was Capitalism will implode in the near future.
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 19:10:45 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Terry McIntyre wrote:
> What if you implement your own brand of "justice?" The history
> of struggle between labor and corporations is largely the
> history of using the power of government to disarm one
> side or the other.
How many union members does it take to change the mind of
one manager? One? Five? 25? The point is that corporations
are little more than governments in miniature. And the
vast majority have even less democracy than our federal
"democracy". All men created equal? Hah, not in capitalism.
> Looking back to the title, I should point out that socialism
> has already imploded. If Capitalism is doomed, it at least held
> up longer than its rival - and has done a better job of feeding
> the hungry and clothing the naked than socialism, in the
> meantime.
Socialism has NOT imploded. What HAS imploded is autocracy.
It is impossible to achieve socialism with an autocracy
because autocrats will just grab money for themselves. The
reason capitalism fails in so many countries is because of
a lack of democracy. Because the rich buy their way into
power... right back to a doomed autocracy.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: Real capitalist world, was Capitalism will implode in the near future.
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 18:50:06 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> So you want 100% flat distribution socialism? Uh, maybe you should
> check the results of those previous cruel experiments. When there
> is no means of improving your life faster than your neighbor, everyone
> soon falls to the lowest common denominator
100% flat distribution at least for unearned income:
inheritance, lotteries, stock. Especially if the source
of that "wealth" resulted only from violence, coercion,
warfare, or conquest. Total property redistribution is
only an ideal, like democratic rule by unanimous vote is
an ideal. The first is an ideal because it would mean an
end to crime and warfare. The second is an ideal because
it would become nearly impossible to violate any person's
rights. Only in capitalism can violence get you legally
to the highest denominator.
> and you get economies
> like the former Soviet Union, East Germany, Cuba, etc.
A intelligent fiscal conservative once wrote:
he says something like: "What about El Salvador?" (Or Chile, or South
Africa, or the "Third World", or any place where "capitalism" is
generally held to be doing less than brilliantly.) The wrong reply
to that is the all too familiar "right wing" counter-blast: "What
about Russia?" (Or Hong Kong, or West Germany, or any place where
the argument for liberty is strong and the opponents of liberty have
more or less given up.)
Any country without democracy can never achieve equality.
As long as money can buy power, or power can steal money,
then that nation will be doomed to counterproductivity.
From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.labor-unions,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: Real capitalist world, was Capitalism will implode in the near future.
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 15:11:25 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> > You don't seem to get much, do you, Henry? What I beleive he is saying
> > is that you should distribute power so that there aren't any powerless
> > people and there aren't people who horde all the power for themselves.
> You don't seem to get much, do you, John. What you suggest is EXACTLY
> what libertarians consistently propose, what I proposed in my post
> (reread it above, if you don't believe me), and what socialists and
> others statists are continually arguing *against*!.
Fiscal conservatives keep forgetting that there is little
difference between money and power in a capitalist society.
Do you call for a ban on all campaign contributions, as
well as spending any money that someone else can't spend
to push your own political ideas? If not, then the wealthy
will always be "more equal" than everyone else.
Fiscal conservatives love to knock down the government but
gingerly dance around corporations. Corportations are but
small versions of government. For each peg you take from the
government's (ie. democracy's) ability to limit corporations,
you are giving corporations another peg with which to tell
their employees, "You wear jeans to work, you're fired. You
get an abortion, we dock your pay." If you take away the
power of federal democracy without implementing corporate
democracy, you are creating nothing but economic feudalism.
From: John Bicketts sfeikema@mach3ww.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: Real capitalist world, was Capitalism will implode in the near future.
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:35:30 -0600
Organization: Des Moines Internet
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> H. Mencken (cyu@geocities.com) wrote:
> > Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> > > The solution to abuse of power is to grant less power, not more!
> > The solution to abuse of power is to take it away from those
> > who have it, and give it those who don't.
> Wow, how clever! Then the instant those people have power, we
> would have to take it away from them, and a nanosecond later, pass
> it on to the next powerless group. It's "power hot potato".
> Or we could just limit power to small, specific functions in the
> first place.
> hblask
You don't seem to get much, do you, Henry? What I beleive he is saying
is that you should distribute power so that there aren't any powerless
people and there aren't people who horde all the power for themselves.
Democracy is an attempt at that. It hasn't worked all that perfectly
because it failed to take into account another means of power
concentration- excessive wealth (Also, I think- call me a Philistine-
that the Constitution needs a bit of a tune up after 200 years. It
was a great for it's time but it could probably be improved. Physicists
don't take Newton to be the end-all of physics, do they?)
From: "H. Mencken" 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: Real capitalist world, was Capitalism will implode in the near future.
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:26:05 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> The solution to abuse of power is to grant less power, not more!
The solution to abuse of power is to take it away from those
who have it, and give it those who don't. True liberty is
always curbing the ability of anyone with power to take from
the less powerful, be they rich, racist, right-handed, or
religious. If you only take power away from the federal
government, without giving the powerless more, then you're
just allowing dictatorships to rise up on a local level.
From: "H. Mencken" 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: Real capitalist world, was Capitalism will implode in the near future.
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 18:22:03 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Rich Johnson wrote:
> : Exactly what is wrong with concentration of power. The one
> : with the most power will use it to take away the rights of
> : others. The one with the most wealth will use it to take
> : away the wealth of others. But instead of calling it
> : "political oppression", we call it "venture capitalism".
> Which of your rights has Bill Gates taken from you?
Anyone that denies you the use of a natural resource with
a fence, a law, or a gun has taken your right to use those
resources. The reason you have a right to those resources
is because at one point, no one ever owned that land. It
only became "owned" when a superior military force arrived
and was able to chase all challengers away. So if we are
to make robbery by governments legal, why not make
robbery by bandits legal?
From: "C. Darwin" 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: Real capitalist world.
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 12:52:25 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bill Koehler wrote:
> > everyone else. The fiscal conservative definition of
> > a "free" market is little more than mightmakesright
> > economics.
> There is no equality. The free market is where you are
> free to use whatever resources you have to achieve as
> much as you desire. Justice is the only requirement.
The free market is where you are free to use *shared*
resources to achieve as much as you desire. Why? Because
at one time, all resources *were* shared, until some
guy rode in with an army and declared those resources
were all his.
From: "C. Darwin" 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: Real capitalist world, was Capitalism will implode in the near future.
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 12:43:28 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
John Parker wrote:
> >If it were a truly "free" market, then everyone would
> >have an equal shot at competing. Instead, capitalism
> >produces a market where one person has a far greater
> >chance at success because he can afford to outspend
> >everyone else. The fiscal conservative definition of
> >a "free" market is little more than mightmakesright
> >economics.
> How did this guy get to where he could outspend others? The
> definition of success may be the ability to outspend others, it's
> quite likely what you are competing for in the first place.
He got there because he killed someone else for land.
He got there because he didn't allow anyone else to
use that land unless that employee gave him a share
of what the employee produced. He got there because
his father passed on all that wealth that came from
theft. If he got there by his own effort or thought,
then fine, but if he got there by taking away someone
else's right to use the same resources, then he owes
that person what he has taken away.
Capitalism defines success in terms of dollar bills,
like points in the grand video game of life. Evolution
defines success in terms of how many people survive,
and how ready each one is to solve the new problems that
nature throws at human civilization.
From: Feline feline@cableinet.co.uk
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: Real capitalist world, was Capitalism will implode in the near future.
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 05:42:16 +0000
Organization: Cable Internet
Larry Nomer wrote:
> >M.Luther wrote:
> >You get caught using company equipment for
> >something you're not supposed to, those private security
> >guards are going to implement their own brand of justice.
> There would still be trial-by-jury and other legal
> recourses against employer abuses. Can you imagine
> the field-day the media would have if McDonalds
> or some other big business started whipping
> employees who filched a burger and then
> ignored legal rulings against them by a
> major private court?
> Such a media feeding frenzy would be very bad
> for business, and a powerful incentive for companies
> to treat their employees fairly.
> -Larry Nomer
Odd. That was never the case previously.
Seems it all depends on how the matter is reported in the press. If the
press are planning on beating the living daylights out of a few of their
employees I can imagine how it would be reported.
Not at all.
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: Real capitalist world, was Capitalism will implode in the near future.
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:53:02 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Rich Johnson wrote:
> Not too many people waiting in unemployment lines these days.
> What's the rate, about 5.3%? Labor shortages in some sectors.
Do you have any friends or family? How many people do you know?
20? Well, take one of those, and take away his job. Or should
it be you? The middle class are blinded to unemployment because
they only hang out with the middle class. To them, unemployment
just means numbers on a graph, not a person without a reason to
get up in the morning.
> P.S. You know they always say how concentrations of wealth are
> bad all by themselves but they never say why.
Exactly what is wrong with concentration of power. The one
with the most power will use it to take away the rights of
others. The one with the most wealth will use it to take
away the wealth of others. But instead of calling it
"political oppression", we call it "venture capitalism".
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: Real capitalist world, was Capitalism will implode in the near future.
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 15:44:57 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
John Parker wrote:
> Hehehe, here's another one of the "we can't get ahead cause Bill Gates
> has all the money" crowd. When are all you poor class envy bozos
> gonna figure out that one man's wealth cannot detract from another
> man's?
It can if he forbids you from using "his" land to mine for
gold or drill for oil. In the days before the rich and
powerful decided to fence off land and hold everyone back
with weapons, people lived off the land without fear of
trespassing laws. However, in the interest of cooperation,
they formed governments and pooled their resources. The
rich have perverted that, taken over the government, and
(of course) taken over the pooled resources as well.
From: "Z. Beeblebrox" 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: Real capitalist world, was Capitalism will implode in the near future.
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 15:45:46 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Mike K. wrote:
> > Communism has nothing to do with guns except who owns them.
> > In true communism, everyone would own guns (or at least an
> > equal share in the military). Communism failed in China
> > because of a lack of democracy. The powerful grabbed wealth
> > by force. Democracy failed in America because of a lack of
> > communism. The wealthy bought their way into power.
> Is your communist utopia brought about before or after your
> collective lynch mob puts a bullet in my head? Inherent in
> any communist system is the forced redistribution of wealth
> from the productive to the parasites; moreover, anyone who
> resits this collective extortion, is promptly dealt with.
It is "brought on" when we have true rule by the many in this
country instead of rule by the rich "many". If I stole your
BMW, how are you going to get it back if I refuse? Obviously
you have to put a bullet in my head. Now what if I came in
with an army, put up barbed wire around your house, bulldozed
it to the ground, built a shopping mall, and claimed that land
as mine? The only way for you to reclaim "your" land is to
come at me with a bigger army, more horses, and more muskets.
> Capitalism is not perfect, nor will there ever be a capitalist
> utopia, but capitalism is the only economic/political paradigm
> that gives, anyone who is willing to work, the opportunity to
> acquire wealth and prosperity. In a statist system, such as
> communism, the productive have no motivation to work, since the
> more you produce the more society takes.
Capitalism gives the worker the incentive to work by forcing
him into poverty if he does not submit to the venture capitalist.
True communism provides the real incentive to work because no
stock holders are going to be there to skim off the money you
make. Each worker owns as much of a share over his company as
he does of the government, and has the true democratic power to
control both (instead of waiting for the rich/powerful to
obscure the facts with TV, print, and radio blitzing).
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: Real capitalist world, was Capitalism will implode in the near future.
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 14:26:52 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> > It of course depends on how much food is available. Say
> > 3 people have just barely enough food for 2 people. In a
> > communist society, all three will die because none can
> > get enough. Say 3 people have just barely enough for 3.
> > In a capitalist society, the rich one will have a feast
> > and the two poor ones will die.
> And yet, in the real world, those in communist societies wait in
> long lines for bread and meat which never show up, and in capitalist
> societies, the shelves overflow with endless varieties of these products.
> Would you like to join us in the real world?
In the real world, communism has never been achieved.
In your "communist" societies, who DOESN'T have to wait
in long lines for bread and meat? Why, the same ones
in capitalism of course - the rich and powerful. If those
societies were truly communist, then politicians would
ACTUALLY be trying to increase production, since there'd
be no other way they could get pantyhose otherwise.
7.2.97 15:32 Wartime boom.
7.2.97 15:39 The gov gets 42+%.
12.2.97 Cheapest alternative to communism.
20.2.97 The juicy half.
22.2.97 Taxing earnings.
26.2.97 Knocking off a liquor store.
27.2.97 All capitalists have ever known.
From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,x1alt.activism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.abortion,alt.current-events.usa,alt.politics.media,alt.president.clinton,soc.culture.usa,alt.nuke.the.USA
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics Works!
Date: Sat, 01 Mar 1997 15:02:25 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
John Parker wrote:
> Simple question, simple answer.....I wouldn't have any part of a union
> because the bargaining power of a group of employees, assuming it is
> based upon management's perceived value of the employees to the
> company, can only be an average of the individuals within the group.
Unions are only needed if the management refuses democracy.
Unions would not be needed if each employee could freely elect
his own manager from among his peers. That, of course, we
can't have. After all, it might produce employees who
actually believed in what they were doing.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.economics,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,alt.politics.libertarian,soc.culture.usa,alt.nuke.the.USA
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics Works!
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:42:09 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Mike wrote:
> > capitalist around to scrape away the juicy half. You cannot
> > achieve democracy when the wealthy are able to buy their way
> > into power. You cannot achieve communism if you can't throw
> > out politicians who are stealing the people's money.
> If you think this communist utopia you propose will eliminate political
> despotism, your dreaming. Under communism there will always be cyclical
> process of the majority forcefully redistributing the wealth of the
> helpless minority.
It would depend if your definition of democracy is rule by
50%, 60%, 75%, or 100%. The capitalist definition of democracy
seems to be rule by whoever can afford to spend the most
campaign dollars. The point isn't even to "take" at all.
Competition is only paramount in capitalist societies, because
that's all capitalists have ever known. The point is that
everyone owns a share of every natural resource, and the
reason they avoid competition is because by combining their
effort, each person could achieve far more than he could have
trying to manage all those resources alone, or wasting his
effort fighting a war.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.economics,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa,alt.nuke.the.USA
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics Works!
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 18:56:26 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
> In article rayvt-1902971245430001@dd358.comm.mot.com, Ray Van Tassle rayvt@comm.mot.com wrote:
> >Good point!! I never thought of it in quite this way. The crime rate is
> >MUCH higher in poor inner-city neighborhoods than in the well-to-do and
> >wealthy suburbs. I've always been mildly puzzled and amused by this.
> >(Amused in that the liberals and the like always express "compassion" for
> >the poor, but never get around to actually DOING something about it, like
> >maybe "...and we're gonna put a cop on every streetcorner in the
> >inner-city, and TWO cops on every floor of every high-rise in the
> >projects")
> >Clearly, the crooks are responding rationally to the costs and
> >incentives. They don't get caught (or even hunted) in the poor areas, so
> >their expected cost is zero.
No duh, it's costs and incentives. But it's not that they're
not afraid of being caught. It's because they don't have much
to lose, and so much to gain. If you lived in a suburbian
house, drove an Audi, worked a cushy desk job, why risk it
all knocking off a liquor store? But if you lived in a slum,
have little if any hope of getting a Harvard education and a
law degree, then dealing a few vials here or there might just
earn you enough to get out of that slum.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.economics,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa,alt.nuke.the.USA
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics Works!
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 10:48:18 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
This is not my real email address wrote:
> > 80s. Hint: Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
> How do the poor, who have no money, pay all those taxes?
Government taxes a rich man's earnings as much as a capitalist
taxes a poor man's earnings. (But they call it "investment".)
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.economics,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,alt.politics.libertarian,soc.culture.usa,alt.nuke.the.USA
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics Works!
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:02:02 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bruce Salem wrote:
> You might point to dictatorship as an abuse of power.
> You might hail that we have defeated Communism in the former USSR and
> that state ownership was a total mistake. You might even say that the
> Soviets came to realize in time that central control could not possibly
> be as efficient as a market, and that is why they abandoned their form
> of government. I would agree. But I have to turn around and point out
> that much of the same abuse can result from a market system and especially
> the lassez faire system advocated by people since 1980. The clue is
> moderation, moderation of wealth distribution, yes the Income Tax is
> a redistribution of wealth, yes Corporate and Sales taxes do limit the
> tendancies to businesses to concentrate wealth, and definately state-
> run programs to help those people disadvantaged by economic forces.
Not moderation, but real democracy. Not rule by just the members
of the "communist" party. Not rule by just the members of the
upper class. True incentive is when a worker gets everything
he produces, and there is neither a party cadre nor venture
capitalist around to scrape away the juicy half. You cannot
achieve democracy when the wealthy are able to buy their way
into power. You cannot achieve communism if you can't throw
out politicians who are stealing the people's money.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa,alt.nuke.the.USA
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics Works!
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 21:04:28 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Gary Forbis wrote:
> > >> that? If I want to pay a person I will hire them. Taxes I pay for services
> > >> are fine. Taxes I pay for welfare are theft robin hood style.
> > >Taxes you pay for welfare prevent a Marxist revolution. I'd say
> > >that's a pretty worthwhile service.
> > me that means something. I do not wish to pay people to prevent them
> > from revolting. This makes it sound as if those are the only two
> > choices - that there is a certain segment of the population that simply
> > cannot improve their own situations and therefore must be paid off or
> > they will revolt. I reject this.
> The easy way to end this practice is in fact to teach the population in
> question how to do otherwise and to provide mechanisms in which they can.
> These things take time and money. Are you willing to spend your time
> and money teaching people how to improve their lot in life to the point
> revolution is not a viable alternative to them?
> You can check this out. Giving handouts is cheaper than solving the
> various problems people face that lead them into the state where accepting
> handouts seems reasonable. Many of the problems exist so as to maintain
> existing socioeconomic structure.
Exactly. We capitalists have found the cheapest alternative to
communism (don't we always?). Give them just enough to survive,
but not so much that it would put a big dent in our bank accounts,
nor enough that they could actually compete against us on our
own level.
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.economics,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa,alt.nuke.the.USA
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics Works!
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 15:39:35 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bryon Lape wrote:
> > As soon as the
> >government puts the wage and price controls in place to assure control of
> >inflation and costs, so that everyone in this great country can afford the
> >basics for a life with decency:
> Nixon tried price controls; failed miseribly. They also do.
> In Germany, the gov gets 42+% of an individuals income.
And how much of your "income" does your company get? 0% right?
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.economics,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa,alt.nuke.the.USA
Subject: Re: Trickle Down Economics Works!
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 1997 15:32:39 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
James Doemer wrote:
> Sad to say that many of the USENET tax and spenders do not understand the basic
> truth that the boom period of the 50's and 60's had nothing whatever to do
> with the level of taxation on the rich. The war time economy, Korea, and Viet Nam,
> kept the economy rolling, wartime production levels, investment, ect are, with few
> exceptions, always higher then peacetime production levels. If you look at a
> line chart of this century, you will find that line moves up considerably during
> war years, and down during peacetime.
In other words, nearly universal employment through
centralized government planning.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.current-events.usa,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.media,alt.president.clinton,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa,alt.education.alternative,misc.survivalism
Subject: Re: Question Public Schools and the Media
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 22:15:17 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
swilson@sdgweb.com wrote:
> This is always the argument against Home Schooling.
> I have never met an ill mannered or rude Home Schooled person.
> They generally give the impression of being more civilized than their
> publicly indoctrinated counterparts, and seem to have less problems
> with alcohol, drugs, deviant sexual behavvior etc.
Alcohol and drugs are the result of having access to the
rest of society. If there is no supply at home, then there
is no alcohol or drug use. Deviant sexual behavior is a
different matter. If you teach kids to accept that some
are homosexual, those who really are homosexual will more
readily admit it. If you teach kids that homosexuality
is wrong and deviant, then you force kids to repress their
homosexuality in order to be accepted. These are the kids
that grow up to be priests that molest altar boys. If you
teach kids that monogamy is the only acceptable form of
love, then you force kids to repress their own desires
in order to be accepted. These are the kids that grow up
to kill their spouses for adultery.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,soc.culture.europe,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.politics.immigration,alt.skinheads,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.conspiracy,misc.immigration.usa,alt.politics.immigration,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.illuminati,alt.society.anarchy,alt.anarchism,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,soc.culture.europe,alt.nuke.the.USA,soc.culture.canada,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics.reform,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.folklore.military,alt.government.abuse,soc.couples.intercultural,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Proposal for a better election system
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 21:33:05 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
rcf@inetworld.net wrote:
> I don't know if you're a libertarian, but I see this whine from that
> side of the political spectrum a lot. What it generally comes down to
> is that they don't have the political will to get their asses out in
> the streets and convince people that they should vote for their
> candidates.
> See, it's sort of a competition thing. All you have to do is convince
> enough voters that they should go with your candidate rather than the
> other party's candidate. How do you do that? By working your butt
> off in the trenches and not whining about how the system is "fixed".
By marketing. By multi-million dollar TV blitzing. By staging
huge rallies, where you hope they show up for the socializing
and stay for the politics. By hiring hundreds of petitioners
and phone workers to get your petitions signed and to raise
even more cash. Once your name becomes a household word, the
American people are just going to say, "Harry Browne who?"
6.2.97 20:40 Let the people's voice.
18.2.97 18:27 The failed Communist approach.
18.2.97 18:31 Consumer, producer, and stock-holder.
25.2.97 17:24 As the case may be.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.usa,alt.psst.hoy,alt.prophecies.nostradamus,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.canada,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.immigration,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.reform,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,altilluminati,alt.society.anarchy,alt.anarchism,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.nuke.the.USA,alt.politics.reform,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.governmen
Subject: Re: ONLY IN AMERICA - Do useless CEO's get rewarded for their failures, and how!!!
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 19:33:29 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
^OnE MaN^ wrote:
> It is really intersting to find out that despite the clear indications
> that capitalism works much, much better for society at large than
> socialism or communism, people stil cling to the old ideas.Isnt it
> because of the sheer power of the language which was used by
> theoreticians of socialism and their propagandists?
Nope. It's not even because of the sheer power of the
language which was used by theoreticians of CAPITALISM.
It's because of the sheer FREQUENCY of the language used
by the wealthy, because they have the ability to spread
their own excuses as much as they want.
Communism cannot be achieved if you can't vote thieves
out of office. Democracy cannot be achieved if thieves
can buy their way into office.
------
Freedom of speech for the poor, freedom to be heard for the rich.
From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.usa,alt.psst.hoy,alt.prophecies.nostradamus,rec.arts.disney.misc,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.canada,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.immigration,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.reform,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,altilluminati,alt.society.anarchy,alt.anarchism,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.nuke.the.USA,alt.politics.reform,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.governmen
Subject: Re: ONLY IN AMERICA - Do useless CEO's get rewarded for their failures, and how!!!
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:24:08 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Cyndi Bakke wrote:
> > Your failed "communists" were hardly communists, or their rulers
> > wouldn't have been so rich. Soviet communism failed because
> > politicians used their power to obtain money. American democracy
> > failed because the rich used their money to obtain power.
> reason is more because the communist utopia cannot exist as it is so
> contrary to the natural incentives that drive men and women to produce.
The reason a capitalist's notion of communism doesn't work is
simple. The capitalist formulates communism in such a way that
it is doomed to fail. Here are your definitions under the
opposite light:
Communism: Everyone owns a share of every resource. You own
the products of your own labor and thought. No stock holders
are around to skim anything off what you produce. Backed by
a true democracy, where there are no rich campaign contributors
to obscure facts in the media.
Capitalism: Whoever owns a resource (whether they got it by
theft, gift, or sale, it doesn't matter) maintains ownership
by spending money on a police force. The owner refuses to
allow anyone else to use those resources unless they agree
to his terms, which are: I own everything you think and produce,
and I will give you a portion of that if you do a good job,
but if you don't, I'll find someone else (or someTHING else,
as the case may be). Backed by a fake democracy, where the
rich have more influence in any election than the poor because
they have more freedom of speech.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.usa,alt.psst.hoy,alt.prophecies.nostradamus,rec.arts.disney.misc,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.canada,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.immigration,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.reform,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,altilluminati,alt.society.anarchy,alt.anarchism,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.nuke.the.USA,alt.politics.reform,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.governmen
Subject: Re: ONLY IN AMERICA - Do useless CEO's get rewarded for their failures, and how!!!
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:31:29 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Rich Johnson wrote:
> : What does follow is that every dollar paid to stock holder is
> : a dollar taken away from a consumer for a product produced by
> : a worker.
> Or it could be a dollar given up willingly by a consumer along with
> others that were used to pay a worker.
Yes, given up willingly by a consumer, supposedly to pay the
producer of that product (the worker), but skimmed off by the
stock-holder who did no work, except to buy resources from a
government that killed some natives, Mexicans, Brits, and
Tories to get those resources.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.usa,alt.psst.hoy,alt.prophecies.nostradamus,rec.arts.disney.misc,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.canada,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.skinheads,alt.politics.immigration,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.reform,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.conspiracy,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,altilluminati,alt.society.anarchy,alt.anarchism,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.nuke.the.USA,alt.politics.reform,alt.activism,alt.conspiracy,alt.governmen
Subject: Re: ONLY IN AMERICA - Do useless CEO's get rewarded for their failures, and how!!!
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:27:04 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bill Beiter wrote:
> >What does follow is that every dollar paid to stock holder is
> >a dollar taken away from a consumer for a product produced by
> >a worker.
> So therefore the workers and consumers should supply the "capital" to
> buy the factory and equipment and therefore eliminate the stock
> holder!!
No, there would be no such thing as capital. The only claim to
ownership would be that of labor. If you put forth your own
effort to do something, then you own the part that resulted from
your labor. Land ownership would not exist, because land ownership
resulted ultimately from coercion and intimidation.
> Whoops! But that would then make them the stock holders and we're
> right back where we started from ----- or are we just like the failed
> Communist approach???
Your failed "communists" were hardly communists, or their rulers
wouldn't have been so rich. Soviet communism failed because
politicians used their power to obtain money. American democracy
failed because the rich used their money to obtain power.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,soc.culture.usa,rec.arts.disney.misc,alt.politics.immigration,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.republican,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.reform,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.politics.socialism.trotsky,alt.illuminati,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,talk.politics.theory,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.nuke.the.USA,alt.politics.reform,alt.activism,alt.government.abuse,alt.fan.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: ONLY IN AMERICA - Do useless CEO's get rewarded for their failures, and how!!!
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 20:40:51 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Stan Ivester wrote:
> ->> > Ovitz got what he got because that's the deal he negotiated for going in,
> ->> > and that's the deal Disney/ABC accepted.
> ->> A much more relevant question: Would a modest flattening of the reward
> ->> scale significantly reduce incentive? I say NO.
> ->You're probably right. But who would impose such salary and compensation
> ->regulations? Certainly not THE GOVERNMENT!
> Why not the government? In a democracy, the government is the people, so
> why shouldn't the people decide on a maximum/minimum compensation ratio?
Exactly. If it were a true democracy, the government would be
controlled by consumers. And if everyone worked for the government,
then businesses would also happen to be controlled by the
employees.
> Say, the CEO should be able to get 50 times the amount paid to the
> lowest-paid employee. That sounds fair to me, and, if business decide to
> pay their CEOs handsomely, it would provide them the incentive to pay their
> lowest-paid workers decently.
> Of course this would never happen, though, because the way things are
> today, big business has too much influence on government to let the
> people's voice be heard.
Unfortunate, but true. And it doesn't look like they're going
to let up control anytime soon. It would be totally silly for
the rich to contribute money to a politician calling for employee
ownership.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Capitalist startup costs, was Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 17:07:42 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> > A rich man has
> > the right to do anything he damn well pleases, because
> > he does have the money. If I come up with a great idea
> > and I'm rich, then I get all the profit. If I come up
> > with a great idea and I'm poor, somehow I doubt I'd
> > get all the profit, or any profit at all if a rich man
> > hires enough patent attorneys to out-argue my patent
> > attorney.
> Feel free to describe a system that allows individuals the ability to
> start whatever business they want, on a whim, regardless of their
> personal wealth/experience/credibility. Explain in detail where this
> startup money comes from.
In a word, communism. When land and capital are freely
distributed among all labor, then each individual has the
freedom to decide whether he wants to use those resources
to start his own company, join with other individuals to
start a collective company, or endow another individual
with his resources.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Build my house with labor! (was Re: CEO Salaries? What's the Problem?)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 17:16:52 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> Hey Mencken, I asked you if you could find those people who'd build me
> a dream house for free while I watch. Have you found them yet, or have
> you run smack into the reality of your economic moronity?
You mistake technological labor for human labor. Labor
produces wealth, and the advancement of technology is
creating more and more technological labor. In capitalism,
the wealth produced by that labor is going into balloon
trips around the world instead of into your free house.
13.1.97 A dialect with self-esteem.
14.1.97 Long and confusing words.
From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,soc.culture.african.american,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Ebonics Hysteria
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 19:03:23 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
midtowng@slip.net wrote:
> > I really don't understand why so many people are allergic to facts, and
> > why so many people don't recognize the blatant racism in believing that
> > any one language is somehow "better" than another. And that's in spite
> > of many years on the net...
> I have one problem with Ebonics: The speakers of it will be subject to
> discrimination for the simple reason of its origin and predominance of
> speakers. They aren't from another country. They are from a poor,
> undereducated section of society.
I have one problem with Negroes: The individuals of that race will
be subject to discrimination for the simple reason of their skin
color. That is why I support surgical alteration of pigmentation.
I have one problem with Jews: The individuals of that religion will
be subject to discrimination for the simple reason of the
predominance of Christians. That is why I propose we ban synagogues
and indoctrinate all Jews with the New Testament.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory, talk.politics.misc, talk.politics.libertarian, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.activism.d, alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich, alt.society.conservatism, alt.politics.correct, alt.politics.reform, alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, alt.politics.clinton, alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.fan.dan-quayle, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.radical-left, alt.fan.bob-dole, soc.culture.african.american, soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Ebonics Hysteria
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:51:49 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Alan Miles wrote:
> > English. This implies that ebonics is incomprehensible to the average
> > teacher. So what's to understand??? Examples please.
> Nonetheless, like many dialects, "black english" has a consistent
> grammar that differs from standard English. In "black english," for
> example, there's a difference between saying "he smart" and "he be
> smart." No doubt, any speaker of standard english can understand the
> gist of either sentence. But that's not the point. The point is that
> it's harder for a teacher to teach standard english unless he/she
> understands why his/her pupils make this distinction, among others. Is
> this really that incomprehendable?
But why even make the distinction? In the interest of
conformity, why not force all students to spell "colour"
with a 'u' like them proper Brits do it? Why not give
an F to every student who says "to-MAH-toe" instead of
"to-MAY-toe"? Why not force students to use the word
"big" instead of "large" so you wouldn't have to teach
that longer and more confusing word to all students anymore?
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory, talk.politics.misc, talk.politics.libertarian, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.activism.d, alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich, alt.society.conservatism, alt.politics.correct, alt.politics.reform, alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, alt.politics.clinton, alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.flame.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.radical-left, alt.fan.bob-dole, alt.politics.clinton, soc.culture.african.american, soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Ebonics Hysteria
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 18:37:59 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
midtowng@slip.net wrote:
> But ebonics isn't another language. Ebonics is a dialect. A dialect
> which has no history or distinguishing characteristics except for
> poverty.
> There are other ways to build self-esteem.
A great many "languages" started out being dialects.
At one point English didn't have a history either.
At one point, even the Germanic, Romance, and Hindi
languages were one.
You do know that the words "email" and "newsgroup"
have no distinguishing characteristics except for
nerdiness, right? There are other ways to build
self-esteem.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory, talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.socialism, soc.culture.europe, alt.politics.libertarian, talk.politics.libertarian, alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: Property Tax is Extortion
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 17:35:05 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Giovanni 8 wrote:
> >>> We "own" it only because the state uses its guns and clubs
> >>> to keep homeless street bums from entering our property,
> >>> beating us up, and claiming the property for themselves.
> No. We own it because we discovered it or because we traded
> some service or value to the previous owner. We retain it
> because we can defend it against trespassers of all varieties.
I own it because my great great grandfather shot a lot of
Indians and Mexicans for it... not to mention a bunch of
Brits and Tories too. If Hitler had won World War II, then
the Germans would probably own Europe right now, and hey,
if they can defend it against all Frenchmen and Spaniards,
then it must be lawfully theirs.
> > Does anybody own the Moon?
> Not yet. The governments, which had no business extorting funds
> from people to arrange for some of their agents to make the
> voyage, did not claim it. If they had, the claim would not
> be valid.
You know, some homeless bum on the street just sold me
the Moon for $20. Quite a bargain too. Then some other
homeless bum had the gall to dispute my claim to a
piece of property that his own people sold to me. So I
killed him and the rest of his family. And the rest of
the bums in the whole neighborhood, until none were
left to dispute the land that I bought fair and sqaure.
11.1.97 Sloppy English
From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.women,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.bob-dole,alt.politics.clinton,soc.culture.african.american,alt.journalism.criticism,alt.news-media
Subject: Re: Ebonics and all that Jive Talk
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 15:17:39 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Robert Knowles wrote:
> I went to school in the South and the teachers did their best to
> correct the non-standard English used by the poor white children
> who didn't know better. Substitutions for the word "ain't" and
> the elimination of double negatives were the most common topics.
How do we define "correct" English? We are correct because
we have more guns than you? We are correct because we have
more money than you? We are correct because we outnumber
you? Right handers are correct. Protestants are correct.
The Army is correct.
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc, talk.politics.theory, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.activism, alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich, alt.society.conservatism, alt.politics.correct, alt.politics.reform, alt.politics.clinton, alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.fan.dan-quayle, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, soc.women, alt.flame.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.radical-left, alt.fan.bob-dole, alt.politics.clinton, soc.culture.african.american, alt.journalism.criticism, alt.news-media, soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Ebonics and all that Jive Talk
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 17:09:31 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
David Rahfeldt wrote:
> The simple truth is that English is English and that we can either
> choose to properly educate black children along with the rest of society
> or we can offer them a chance to be less with sloppy and improper
> English.
So your definition of sloppy English is any word or sentence
structure that didn't appeared in English text during the
time of Shakespeare? Would you say "large" is more proper
than "big"? I submit that "isn't" is not more proper than
"ain't". There was a time when "isn't" was considered slang,
and maybe employers even refused to hire you if you didn't
say "is not".
> Aspiring to high standards of academic performance or or personal
> ethics, integrity, behavior ... is not supposed to be easy or
> comfortable, merely a way to make a civilized future for mankind.
So you would advocate the elimination of all the following
words from your language:
penis, vagina, fellatio, fornicate, dick, cunt, blowjob, fuck
---------------
"I cannot overemphasize the importance of good grammar."
What a crock. I could easily overemphasize the importance of good
grammar. For example, I could say: "Bad grammar is the leading cause of
slow, painful death in North America," or "Without good grammar, the
United States would have lost World War II." -- Dave Barry
11.1.97 Left-handed English.
13.1.97 Language defined.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory, talk.politics.misc, talk.politics.libertarian, alt.politics.socialism, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.african.american, alt.society.conservatism, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich, alt.politics.reform, alt.politics.radical-left, alt.politics.libertarian, alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.politics.correct, alt.politics.clinton, alt.news-media, alt.journalism.criticism, alt.flame.rush-limbaugh, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.activism
Subject: Re: In Defense of Ivronics!
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:12:34 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Unknown wrote:
> : In other words, the ruling class has the right to
> : force its culture on the working class, forcing it
> : to spend additional school time learning not one
> : dialect, but two, instead of learning math or the
> : sciences... thereby, perpetuating the dominance of
> : the ruling class.
> Oh you're so right ! I have heard the unending clamor from
> these children - "PLEASE TEACH US MATH AND SCIENCE !!!".
> What a load of crap.
It's more like, Fuck this shit teacher giving me an F
in English when I can communicate just fine with
everyone I know, except when I'm talking to anal
retentive school officials who try to correct me
every chance they get. Fuck grades, fuck school, fuck
math and science.
From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory, alt.activism, talk.politics.libertarian, alt.politics.libertarian, alt.journalism.criticism, alt.news-media, alt.politics.clinton, alt.politics.correct, alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.politics.radical-left, alt.politics.reform, talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: In Defense of Ivronics!
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 18:48:44 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Pyotr Filipivich wrote:
> }And why is that? Only white middle-aged men have the scholarly
> }or cultural authority to create such canons right? The simple
> }fact that two kids from the same community have no trouble
> }understanding each other has no bearing on the issue right?
> Course, does two yout's patois could be da kind schucking
> pineapples to fash the bottles & stoppers or command central..
> In otherwords, just because two individuals understand each other,
> doesn't make it a "language". Don't forget "Hip" from the Beat days.
Righto. So what does define a language? When all the
individuals in a community understand each other?
When all the individuals in a tribe understand each other?
When all the inhabitants on a remote Pacific island
understand each other and most of their nearby neighbors?
When all the individuals on Usenet understand what a
colon followed by a right parenthesis (with an optional
intervening hyphen) means?
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory, talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.socialism, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.african.american, alt.society.conservatism, alt.politics.usa.republican, alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich, alt.politics.reform, alt.politics.radical-left, alt.politics.libertarian, alt.politics.democrats.d, alt.politics.correct, alt.politics.clinton, alt.news-media, alt.journalism.criticism, alt.flame.rush-limbaugh, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.activism
Subject: Re: In Defense of Ivronics!
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 16:45:46 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Mike Wooding wrote:
> > > How many of these black kids are offering jobs?
> > In other words, the ruling class has the right to
> > force its culture on the working class, forcing it
> > to spend additional school time learning not one
> > dialect, but two, instead of learning math or the
> > sciences... thereby, perpetuating the dominance of
> > the ruling class.
> It's a cause and effect sort of thing. If you want a succesful
> career amongst English speakers then English seems like one of
> the pre-requisites. Or is it expected that the majority should
> instead accomodate the minority by learning their versions of
> English in order to make them succesful?
Depends what you mean by "English". Do you define
"English" as the language that contains the words
"ablution" (SAT word) and "wont", but not the words
"ain't" and "y'all"? How hard would it be to install
a left-handed pencil-sharpener in your classroom or
a left-handed pair of scissors? How hard would it
be to learn what "y'all" means?
------------------
"I cannot overemphasize the importance of good grammar."
What a crock. I could easily overemphasize the importance of good
grammar. For example, I could say: "Bad grammar is the leading cause of
slow, painful death in North America," or "Without good grammar, the
United States would have lost World War II." -- Dave Barry
From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian, alt.anarchism, talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.radical-left, alt.politics.socialism, alt.society.anarchy, alt.society.labor-unions, alt.fan.noam-chomsky, talk.politics.libertarian, talk.politics.theory, soc.culture.ir
Subject: Re: Property is Theft!
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 16:21:12 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.
Sam Hall wrote:
> >What if (through say computer technology) all the major laws
> >were put up for referendum?
> And the people vote to kill all non whites.
You point out a very important weakness of pure democracy.
And you are right. It isn't easy to stike a good balance
between the will of the majority and something like The
Bill of Rights, which must be protected, yet open to new
changes. But the answer isn't to rely on an aristocracy
to make the decisions. After all, they can also vote to
kill all non whites.
> > What if we elected amateur weekend
> >politicians to represent ourselves on single issues, instead
> >of professional fulltime politicians "representing" us on every
> >issue known to man?
> That's the way this country was started and it worked reasonably well
> until FDR With small, limited government, it would work well.
It is the very fact that government isn't limited that
small-time, single-issue representatives are needed. A
politician alone and without aides cannot hope to fully
grasp every aspect of all the issues. But say I elect
a man and tell him, "You represent me on all issues
regarding abortion, and I support it." I also elect
another man and tell him, "You represent me on all issues
regarding gun-bans, and I oppose them." Then I wouldn't
have to settle for a politician who supports gun rights
but opposes abortion rights.
> >Exactly, if you weren't already independently wealthy
> >and just in it for a power trip, then that's where
> >lucrative book deals and hot stock tips come into play.
> If you got elected to some local office and did a good job, would you
> turn down an offer to write a book about it?
But then, is it more important to have politicians who
want to be elected so they can improve society, or to
have politicians who want to be elected so they can
make a lot of money on their memoirs?
From: gary.nt@ix.netcom.com (Z)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.conspiracy,talk.politics.republican,ca.politics,tx.politics,ny.politics,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.noam-chomsky,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.cabal,alt.flame.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.labor-unions
Subject: Re: HOW DO THE RICH GET THEIRS? BECAUSE THEY SAY SO!
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 23:49:43 GMT
Organization: Netcom
On Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:15:39 -0800, "Clayton E. Cramer"
cramer@dlcc.com wrote:
>JEL wrote:
>> Where do you get this fact? Well over 60% of North American wealth was
>> created by the parents of the current "people" classified as wealthy,
>> not by the current holders of the wealth.
>Do you have a source for this claim? The most recent study of millionaires
>that I have read about found that a majority were first-generation, with
>surprisingly low annual incomes, averaging $120,000 per year. All of the
>millionaires I know came from middle-class homes.
>Clayton E. Cramer Technical Marketing Manager, Diamond Lane Communications
>email: cramer@dlcc.com web page: http://www.cs.sonoma.edu/~cramerc
>Opinions are strictly my own; DLCC doesn't pay me for non-technical opinions.
Well then, it looks like the first major stumbling block to becoming a
millionaire is to obtain a surprisingly low annual income of only
120,000 dollars/year.
F. Prefect
There is a theory that states that if anyone
discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it
is hear,it will instantly disappear and be replaced
be something even more bizarrely inexplicable. There
is another theory that states this has already
happened......D. Adams
Newsgroups: bit.org.peace-corps
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 23:17:29 -0800
Sender: Discussion List for Intl Volunteers PCORPS-L@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU
From: David Johnson pinefarm@UNIONTEL.NET
Subject: Global village
I ran across this in a local paper. I don't know any more about
it except the author said that she lifted it off the net.
If you take all of the world's population and reduce it at its
current percentages to a village of 100 people you would have the
following results:
57 would be Asian
21 would be Europeans
14 would be from North, South and Central America.
8 would be African
70 would be non-white
70 would be non-Christian
50% 0f all the wealth would be in the hands of 6 people, all of
whom would be citizens of the US.
70 would be unable to read
50 would suffer from malnutrition
80 would live in substandard housing
1[one] would have a college education
70 would never have placed or received a telephone call
CJohnYu.96@alum.mit.edu
[email/index]