13.2.97 17:23 Holding back democracy.
13.2.97 17:36 Planned by the few.
15.2.97 Join together voluntarily.
18.2.97 19:33 Control over inefficiency.
18.2.97 19:43 Conflict of interest.
18.2.97 19:58 Socialism, statism, and central control.
18.2.97 20:03 Blame the government.
18.2.97 20:12 Valid claims of ownership.
20.2.97 17:52 Shelling out money.
20.2.97 18:13 Why lazy share-holders.
22.2.97 Debt and welfare.
25.2.97 12:56 Based on capitalism or education?
25.2.97 13:46 Impracticality is no excuse.
27.2.97 Alone and by itself.
28.2.97 Go out there and ask?
2.3.97 16:59 Still stolen property.
2.3.97 17:03 Carved out of the American Indian.
2.3.97 17:17 Grows out of the barrel of a gun.
4.3.97 People loaf.
6.3.97 Making noise.
7.3.97 Underwriters and fund raising.

From: gurugeorge@sugarland.idiscover.co.uk (Guru George)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 03:27:35 GMT
Organization: Internet Discovery Customer News Service

On Thu, 20 Mar 1997 15:24:49 -0800, "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com wrote:
>> Steve Emerson wrote:
>> > Today's Americans aren't interested in Jimmy Stewart for
>> > their entertainment.  They prefer to watch violence,
>> > death, and mutilation, etc. on television.   They prefer
>> > shows on disasters, accidents, mobsters, mass murderers,
>> > wars, weapons, freaks, lunatics.  They prefer the Roman Coliseum.
>> > They prefer the Hustler magazine sentiments of Howard
>> > Stern and the sadomasochistic sentiments of G. Gordon Liddy.
>> > They prefer to vicariously beat the s**t out of people
>> > on TV whom they either don't care about or hate.  Today's
>> > entertainment is for getting hard-ons from F-16's and tits and ass,
>> > or teasing, sophmoric allusions to such on the sitcoms.  This
>> > is the culture which has been produced.'
>No graven images, be it a flag, a crucifix, a book, a monument,
>Jimmy Stewart, Karl Marx, not even God.  You have a brain. Use
>it. Rand, Locke, Jefferson, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Darwin were
>all wrong in one way, and right in another.  Never confuse
>which parts are which.  LISTEN to those who disagree.
>You might learn something.
>-------
>Thou shalt not make any graven image,
>or bow down before any creation in heaven or on earth.

Well spoken.

- Guru George
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
"A true God needs no adoration, 
and will not be affected by your scorn.
A 'Black Brother' will shrivel without one,
and foam when faced with the other."
- Marcelo Ramos Motta
from Class C commentary to Liber AL vel Legis
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 17:42:01 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Gordon Sollars wrote:
> >You are limited by your
> >capitalism into thinking that "there is only so much
> >airtime" because capitalists decide just how much airtime,
> >how many channels there are, instead of voters.
> When did capitalists decide how many broadcast channels there are?
> Doesn't the FCC, a public commission duly authorized by our democratic
> government, make that decision when they license broadcasters?

And how are these great vehicles of free expression run?
One word: money. Even PBS has to debase itself with
"underwriters" and "fund raising".  There's no such thing
as freedom of expression on our airwaves.  We are all
equal, except the rich are more equal.
-------
Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. - C. Salzenberg

From: "Robert N. Newshutz" newshutz@nospam.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 22:23:26 -0600
Organization: Millennium Communications, Inc.

H.C. Anderson wrote:
> Curt Howland wrote:
> > Vote Libertarian, Jeff. Or rather, vote libertarian
> > even if the libertarian candidate is in some other
> > party, or no party at all.
> The problem with the electoral system in this country
> is that there's no point in voting for anyone but the
> Big Two. You'll just be throwing away your vote... or
> so thinks everyone, so none of them do.  What it needs
> is a system that ranks candidates in order of
> preference. If your first choice got the least amount
> of votes, then your second choice becomes your first.
> Sure, we'll probably never have a clear winner in the
> first round, but it's better than lying to ourselves
> that we actually have a choice of politicians.

No, it is still throwing away your vote to vote for
either wing of the Big Party.  They make a lot of
noise about being opponents, but nobody ends up in
jail when they break the law.  The each get their
repressive measures passed, but none of their
liberating ones.  Don't buy what their selling,
the price is too high.  

A vote for a third party is the only way NOT to
waste your vote.

From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 15:19:50 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Julia R. Cochrane wrote:
> >The real alternative would be neither. Fire anyone who
> >isn't needed, but continue to educate them until one
> >day they can return to replace the person they lost
> >their job to in the first place.  In a society based
> >on capitalism, if you are replaced, you are an utter
> >failure.
> People loaf. Not everybody, but too many. If you pay for more
> schooling for people who get fired, then they don't bother to
> pay for their own schooling while they have jobs and put in the
> extra effort to study evenings and weekends.

People loaf because they don't see a direct correlation
between their hard work and their reward. What happens is
that capitalists have taken power over all reward systems.
You work for me, I take a cut of what you produce, then
give you back a part of the rest. If you work harder, I
may or may not just take a bigger cut for myself.

It's capitalism itself that kills incentive by giving
"ownership" to people who hold deeds written in blood.
It's capitalism itself that hinders knowledge by hiding
"trade secrets" and jealously guarding "intellectual
property", in fear of competition, instead of sharing
it with others so that it could be used to produce more
knowledge.

From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 17:17:54 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Larry Nomer wrote:
> >What is debt anyway?  Debt is basically welfare given by the
> >loaner to the loanee in hopes that it will be returned one
> >day, with a greater value.
> No, a bank loan is _very_ different than welfare.  For a loan,
> both sides voluntarily agree to the loan terms, and recipient
> of the loan is then legally obligated to repay it.  Not at
> all like state-coerced welfare.

At least it's state-coerced by 51% (or the richest however
many percent who actually control the government). So why
do the rich (of all people) set up this welfare system?
Because they fear crime, they fear uprisings, they fear
communism.  They settle for handouts instead of a decent
education because they fear capitalist competition.  True
coercion is preventing employees from using "your" heavily
guarded property unless they agree to give you a cut of
everything they produce. Property ownership grows out of
the barrel of a gun.

From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 17:03:21 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Bill Koehler wrote:
> > Cyndi, the whole damned country was carved out of the American Indian.
> And who did they take it from?  This BS goes nowhere.

Correct. You can't claim land by violence, nor can you claim
it by stepping on it.  Land belongs only to those who are
given it by continuous unanimous vote for all of eternity.
If you can't achieve that, then you owe welfare to everyone
who is denied their right to make a living from the resources
you are monopolizing.

From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 16:59:13 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Cyndi Bakke wrote:
> > Instead, fiscal conservatives ask for government "protection"
> > of the property sold to them by a government that obtained
> > it through violence and intimidation.
> My house was purchased from the heirs of the older lady who had owned it
> before her death.  My computer, lamps, beds, and couches were purchased
> with money my husband or I obtained in selling our labor.

Stolen property, no matter how many times it's resold, is
STILL stolen property.  You own nothing more than your effort
and your thought.  No one has a right to deny anyone else
access to natural resources with guns or fences.

From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 18:09:21 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Gordon Sollars wrote:
> >Perhaps they suffer from the same thing that our government's
> >"democracy" suffers from -- lack of real democracy, where money
> >buys airtime
> There is only so much airtime.  How would you ration it?  Do something
> left liberals and left anarchists have a problem with: explain how
> scarce resources are to be allocated.  Is every political party to get
> public funding?

If impracticality were a reason to deny freedom of
expression, then impracticality would have denied the
exercise of democracy. What are you going to do?  Actually
go OUT there and ASK everyone who the new leader should
be?  Wouldn't it be so much easier to just make the prince
our next king?

The internet is a prime example of freedom of expression
(at least for the ones who can afford it... and the ones
who can afford to spend all day staring at a computer
instead of working in a factory).  You are limited by your
capitalism into thinking that "there is only so much
airtime" because capitalists decide just how much airtime,
how many channels there are, instead of voters.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 14:07:56 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Aaron Evans wrote:
> >What should be taxed are the forms of income that come from
> >privelege instead of personal effort: inheritance, natural
> >resources, the right to use a resource to produce wealth -- be
> >it land, steel, or electronics.
> I would agree that the raw value of land (not the value created
> through the effort of humans, such as houses and crops, but the value
> of the land itself) should be taxed because that land is not the
> product of human effort.
> However, an inheritance is the product of human effort and should not
> be taxed.

Effortless inheritance alone and by itself is not so bad.
However, if that inheritance came about BECAUSE land was
stolen, BECAUSE someone was prevented from exercising his
rights to use natural resources, BECAUSE someone was forced
to fork over a portion of what he produced to the "owner"
of the natural resources, THEN that inherited property is
stolen property.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:46:39 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Cyndi Bakke wrote:
> economy, so land was one of the most valuable resources.  Much of the
> land that the US government parcelled out to citizens and immigrants was
> land that was taken by force from the somewhat more native Americans who
> used the land communally in tribal organizations.
> Again, I come to the conclusion...'so what.'  It is clearly an
> impossibility to even consider attempting to restore the land to these
> somewhat more native Americans.

Impracticality is no excuse for either the denial of property
rights or democratic rights. But that is beside the point.
"Property rights" results only from violence and coercion, and
are therefore not rights at all. Land and resources belong not
to Native Americans nor to the standing army.  Resources belong
to anyone and everyone who wants to use it.  You own your own
effort, you own your own thought, but you don't own the right
to prevent someone else from using those resources.  Thus,
since someone is always being deprived of his rights, welfare
is necessary.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 12:56:46 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Aaron Bilger wrote:
> >Ok, how about this idle theory? In Europe, businesses
> >are less afraid to put people out of work because they
> >have a deep safety net. Here, if you put people out of
> >work, they fall into our poor excuse for welfare, so
> >employers are less likely to layoff workers. Instead,
> >they create new useless jobs and additional inefficiency,
> >like handling paperwork, so that useless employees can
> >continue to feel useful.
> Interesting view.  Assuming your view here, that means we have the choice of a)
> private businesses voluntarily paying people to do relatively useless jobs
> (which is what you claim we have above) or b) government taking money from
> people to pay others to do absolutely nothing useful.  I'll take option a.

The real alternative would be neither. Fire anyone who
isn't needed, but continue to educate them until one
day they can return to replace the person they lost
their job to in the first place.  In a society based
on capitalism, if you are replaced, you are an utter
failure.  In a society based on education, if you are
replaced, you are rewarded for having supported a
system of education that made your own work obsolete.

From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 1997 11:06:15 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Aaron Evans wrote:
> >Canada, a substantially more centralized government than the US, can
> >boast that its citizens have an overall standard of living greater than
> >the US. This stands in contradiction to your "Demonstration".
> Canada is, per capita, far greater in national debt than the U.S..
> Spending more money than you have is, of course, an easy way to raise
> your standard of living, as any fool with a credit card may tell you.
> Is this the solution you suggest?

What is debt anyway?  Debt is basically welfare given by the
loaner to the loanee in hopes that it will be returned one
day, with a greater value.  And so we provide food and
education to the poor in the same way, in hopes that one day,
those educated masses will be able to return our investment
with new ideas and new technologies.  (That is, if we didn't
actually live in a capitalist society and are afraid of
additional competition.)

From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 18:13:27 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Herman Rubin wrote:
> >> The more centrally
> >> controlled the economy, the lower the standard of living.
> >Central planning has little to do with it. If any economy
> >is planned by the few, it will be planned to benefit the
> >few. If any economy is planned by the many, you can bet
> >that the many won't be planning to benefit the few (unless
> >of course they fall victim to marketing).
> The American and British economies in the 19th century were
> not planned.  NOBODY could have planned for the situations
> which arose, which gave opportunities to those who were willing
> and able to stick their necks out, and skillful or lucky enough
> not to get their heads chopped off.

You don't think CEOs and boards of directors plan anything?
What DO they do then? Business strategy decided by a few
party cadres is little different than business strategy
decided by a few corporate chairmen.  But if the chairmen make
bad decisions, the share-holders fire them.  And that's why
capitalism benefits lazy share-holders more than consumers and
employees.

From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 17:52:35 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> > And America is not as good as it can be
> > today, because it does not yet have full democracy. The
> > rich have found a way to hold it back with paperwork,
> > marketing, petition requirements, and obscure legalese.
> Aren't you the one arguing for more politcal control of the economy?
> Won't this increase the problem?

If we actually had a system where anyone could run for
any office without having to shell out money for TV
commercials, money to get petitions signed, money for
clerks to do paperwork, money for food and rent while
they were on the campaign trail, then we might actually
be able elect someone who isn't from the richest 20% or
backed by those in the richest 5%.
---------
Freedom of speech for the poor, freedom to be heard for the rich.

From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:12:01 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Daniel Field wrote:
> > Nope, just killed off the people who really owned the land. Boy,
> > what a success. Bring on that great libertarianism 
> The above opinion represents a complete disregard for history and a
> wholesale misunderstanding of human interaction. It is most accurate to
> consider the Indians as losers in a cultural competition, just as stronger
> tribes routinely superceded lesser ones.

You miss the obvious. Neither mightmakesright nor firstcomefirstserved
are valid claims of ownership. No one ever owned that land, and no
one should now. What you own is the effort you put into producing something
from that land. However, since you also took something from that land,
you also now owe something to everyone that was deprived of
the right to take that same something from the land.

From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 20:03:57 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> > >Government certainly didn't consume half a person's resources,
> > >or even a tenth.  And yet the country was wildly successful.
> > Nope, just killed off the people who really owned the land. Boy,
> > what a success. Bring on that great libertarianism [choke]
> Which particular principle of Libertarianism advocates theft through
> force?  Hint: the government did those things because of too much
> power -- something only the libertarians consistently oppose.

But what solutions do fiscal conservatives offer to rectify
that theft by force?  They don't. They just blame it on the
government and keep holding onto their stolen property.

From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:58:29 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> > I don't think the USSR had the same resources...
> But that was probably all just "a special case" right, and not
> true socialism/statism/central control?

Let's define our terms here.

Socialism, depending on who you talk to, can mean anything you
want it to mean. But ultimately, it comes down to some form of
shared ownership or economic equality. It makes no mention of
any forms of "government".

Statism, I assume, you mean that the state has total control
over every political and economic decision. This makes no
mention of who makes up the state, nor how politicians get
into office.

Central control, if it were truly central, would mean one
person who makes all the decisions.

So if we were going to lay the blame, I'd blame it on "central
control" -- too few people made too many decisions, mostly
benefiting those who did the deciding. Statism, if made up
of a true democracy (or better yet consensus) could do what
no individual alone could do. And socialism, if it means the
lack of concentrated wealth, would lead to less concentration
of power, and therefore more liberty.

From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:43:00 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Max Jacobs wrote:
> Well let's not forget the laws requiring all doctors to have a medical
> degree from a school approved by the AMA.  This keeps the supply of
> doctors small and therefore raises costs.  Whether you are good at
> healing people or not you will go to jail in this country for practicing
> medicine without a license.  Consumers arent allowed to choose. You
> can't exactly have a market failure in an area without a free market.

Quite correct. Our politics are dominated by money, instead
of by consumers. The AMA can afford to have a great lobby
because they already have scarcity and high prices. If we
let the AMA decide what qualifies as a doctor, there is a
conflict of interest. The more doctors they allow, the more
competition they have.  The solution is to take power away
from the AMA and every other lobby.

From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:33:12 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

George Conklin wrote:
> >That's not idle theory but rather unexplained observation.
> >And here is the explanation: the fewer the people who control
> >the economy, the higher the standard of living for those who
> >have control, and the lower the standard of living for
> >everyone else.  It happens in both nations that pretend to
> >be communist and nations that pretend to be democratic.
>    More idle theory.  We know that Europe has medical
> systems which work for a small fraction of the cost of ours.
> We pay twice as much for much less.    Stop quoting idle
> theory, which does not address the fact that libertarians
> have given us crappy medical care.

Ok, how about this idle theory? In Europe, businesses
are less afraid to put people out of work because they
have a deep safety net. Here, if you put people out of
work, they fall into our poor excuse for welfare, so
employers are less likely to layoff workers. Instead,
they create new useless jobs and additional inefficiency,
like handling paperwork, so that useless employees can
continue to feel useful.

From: bilger@cs.purdue.edu (Aaron Bilger)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 21:47:44 -0500
Organization: Purdue University

On 15 Feb 1997 10:29:08 -0500, henryj@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
>In article 3304e1b1.172372207@news.cc.purdue.edu, Aaron Bilger bilger@cs.purdue.edu wrote:
>>On 14 Feb 1997 07:43:40 -0500, henryj@nina.pagesz.net (George Conklin) wrote:
>>>Welfare for corporations is what libertarianism is all about.  
>>*laugh*  Way to troll!  You almost had me thinking you were serious for a while,
>>but such absurd statements make it clear you are joking.
>   Welfare for corporation IS what libertarianism is all
>about.  Great corporations are not mentioned in our
>constitution.  They are a creation of the judiciary, which
>is activist when it comes to creating corporate wealth.  If
>you libertarians keep quoting the constitution, then cite
>the part which created corporations as real people and gives
>them the rights of real people.  Can't do it?  Thought not.  

Careful when you try to attack 'you libertarians'.  I think the constitution a
weak document, which may have had good intent to keep government from becoming
obtrusive and abusing peoples' rights -- but which failed.  I don't argue for
freedom of speech from the first amendment, I don't argue right to bear arms
from the second, I argue from the underlying principles of individual rights.
As far as individual rights go, people are free to join together voluntarily
form companies.  No group has the right to band together and take by force a
tribute (aka 'tax') from citizens and then give it to their company or any other
cause.  Libertarianism -- even those more fixated on the constitution -- support
getting government out of charity on any scale, including corporate.  

The justification of corporations as having independent rights as a human is one
I've not seen addressed by most libertarians, or the Libertarian Party. It is
one thing I certainly disagree with.  Although people can join and form
companies, the company can never be divorced from the company members; doing so
removes liability for the company from the members.  That aspect of (current)
corporations I highly disagree with, and it is an abuse only possible because of
current government recognition and status of them.

Aaron

From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:36:39 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> The US didn't succeed because it was undeveloped; in fact, it
> succeeded despite that fact.  The US succeeded because people
> who are free to succeed and enjoy the fruit of that effort try
> a lot harder than those who are regularly "equalized" in the
> name of social justice.  Also, a free society attracts the best
> and brightest and hardest working among all people.

Yes, relative to the Soviets, America is more free. The
blunder of both systems is that neither is free *enough*.
Freedom is not being forced by fear of death to
do anything - whether by guns or hunger.  The reason the
US has not "succeeded" even more is because capitalism
only allows workers to enjoy a fraction of the "fruit of
that effort". The rest of the "fruit" goes into venture
capitalist pockets.

> The more centrally
> controlled the economy, the lower the standard of living.

Central planning has little to do with it. If any economy
is planned by the few, it will be planned to benefit the
few. If any economy is planned by the many, you can bet
that the many won't be planning to benefit the few (unless
of course they fall victim to marketing).

From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: In libertopia do the poor die?
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 17:23:20 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> By the way, although full Libertarianism has never been tried, up until
> the 20th century, the USA was basically libertarian, and went from
> nothing-but-trees to a leader of the world in standard of living.
> That's a pretty big successful experiment.

Ooo, capitalists love to claim success based on examples.
The reason they rely only on examples is because they
don't have any real explanations for America's "success".
America has succeeded for many reasons, luck not being the
least among them. Immigrant labor also helped. However, one
of the greatest reasons America has been successful is not
because of capitalism, but because political democracy
was able to hold back a rampant free market and thus create
a middle class.  And America is not as good as it can be
today, because it does not yet have full democracy. The
rich have found a way to hold it back with paperwork,
marketing, petition requirements, and obscure legalese.

6.2.97 21:47 Not death or slavery.
6.2.97 21:56 College years.
6.2.97 22:02 Here's the rub.
12.2.97 20:26 Blame the kids.
12.2.97 20:33 Firemen and tutors.
19.2.97 17:26 Whatever you can afford.
19.2.97 17:38 Real competition.
19.2.97 17:47 Wouldn't need a union.
19.2.97 17:50 Voters or dollars?
25.2.97 16:06 Legions of lawyers.
25.2.97 16:14 Bright and brave.
26.2.97 Sheep like you.

From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.education.alternative,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.socialism,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican,az.politics,ca.politics,misc.education,ny.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.republican,talk.politics.theory,talk.radio,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Public Education problems and solutions
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 18:01:08 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Gack wrote:
> Athens had a completely free market in education.
> Sparta had compulsory public education from 7 to 18 yrs of age.
> Sparta was illiterate. Athens founded western civilization.

Perhaps it had something to do with DEMOCRACY instead.
...one where no one had more say just because he had
more guns or more money.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.education.alternative,alt.politics.reform,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican,misc.education,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Public Education problems and solutions
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 19:27:57 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Gack wrote:
> > What will also happen
> > is that there will be kids who won't know the difference
> > between freedom of speech and perjury, the difference
> > between taxation and rent, the difference between starvation
> > and coercion, the difference between political philosophy
> > and religion...
> And yet, it should be amply clear that there are many who
> post here, and I would hazard a guess this number includes yourself,
> who don't know the difference between taxation and rent, say;
> or between starvation and coercion. You couldn't have picked
> examples more calculated to exhibit the confusions *under the*
> *current* *educational* *system* of the posters to this board!

Haha, welcome into my web. It is the capitalist education
system of this country that fools sheep like you into thinking
that there is a difference between taxation and rent. Here is
how starvation and coercion work together:
1. I am hungry and I have no food.
2. I attempt to produce something from raw materials.
3. The "owner" of those raw materials chases me off.
4. How did the "owner" come to possess such raw materials?
5. He bought it from somebody who bought it from somebody who
   bought it from an army who marched across a piece of land
   with guns and sabres, and declared, "This is now the
   property of the United States of America (or King of Spain,
   or whathaveyou)."

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.education.alternative,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.socialism,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican,az.politics,ca.politics,misc.education,ny.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.republican,talk.politics.theory,talk.radio,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Public Education problems and solutions
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:14:40 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Cyndi Bakke wrote:
> > And then you take him downtown, where he's shot accidentally
> > in a drive-by gang war. Why? Because capitalism has taken
> > away all avenues to success from the poor and placed
> > them in the hands of the upper/middle class. The only avenues
> > left for the poor involve guns and drugs (or so they think...
> > because the legal avenues are too well hidden).
> It seems to me that many gangs must be filled with bright and brave
> children, because being bright, they recognize that there is a greater
> opportunity for the gaining of wealth, respect, and achievement (however
> scewed the standard) in the illegal gang and drug markets, which have
> again been created by governmental incompetence (hint...legalize the
> darn things).

Agreed.

> But I don't particularly want to go into making an argument about why
> public funding and public control is generally a poorer option than what
> comes to exist in the private sector when it is freed oppressive
> governmental regulations.

The problem with capitalist education is capitalism itself.
Instead of trying to teach every student, capitalist
competition forces parents to focus on their own children.
Capitalist parents urge discord and conquest, instead of
cooperation and the sharing of knowledge, because they
fear their own kids will be unemployed.  That is the fatal
flaw of capitalism which holds back the advancement of
civilization with racism, crime, and warfare.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.education.alternative,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.socialism,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican,az.politics,ca.politics,misc.education,ny.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.republican,talk.politics.theory,talk.radio,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Public Education problems and solutions
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 16:06:01 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Terry McIntyre wrote:
> : And then you take him downtown, where he's shot accidentally
> : in a drive-by gang war. Why? Because capitalism has taken
> : away all avenues to success from the poor and placed
> : them in the hands of the upper/middle class. The only avenues
> : left for the poor involve guns and drugs (or so they think...
> : because the legal avenues are too well hidden).
> Utter nonsense. Capitalism has not taken away avenues of success;
> the government has. It is the government which says that you
> can't start a business without getting your ticket punched by
> n bureaucrats and paying x license fees and meeting y arbitrary
> requirements.

Capitalism IS the government. Who killed the natives,
Mexicans, Brits, and Tories?  Who continues to enforce
capitalist property rights?  Who can afford to buy
campaign commercials, hire a lobby, or employ legions
of lawyers?  You can't start a business because fiscal
conservatives have all the resources "protected" by
fences, by walls, by legislation, and by armed guard.

From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.education.alternative,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.socialism,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican,az.politics,ca.politics,misc.education,ny.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.republican,talk.politics.theory,talk.radio,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Public Education problems and solutions
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 17:50:19 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

The Lone Man wrote:
> >Sure, but why have teachers fighting over dollars instead of
> >students?  If every student represented the same amount of
> >money, then teachers would actually be teaching students
> >instead of the rich, and they would prefer those with
> >ability instead of those with money.
> Education is big business, pitting unionized teachers against big
> business orientedadministration bolstered by wannabe politicians of
> the varied governing boards of education. It bols down to money, your
> tax dollar type money.

It boils down to people. Do we live in a democracy of
voters or a democracy of dollars?

From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.society.labor-unions,alt.education.alternative,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican,misc.education,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Public Education problems and solutions
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 17:47:32 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Michael Zarlenga wrote:
> : poor schools because of the lack of compition.  The public school system
> : is the largest monopoly, the largest union (NEA), and the largest
> That bears repeating ... the NEA is the LARGEST LABOR UNION IN THE
> COUNTRY.
> Given that, does it surprise anyone that the nation's public schools
> are so expensive and the quality so pathetic?

They wouldn't need a union if they could elect their own managers.
And consumers wouldn't need consumer advocacy groups if we could
vote on the policies of our producers.

From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.education.alternative,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican,misc.education,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Public Education problems and solutions
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 17:38:59 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Gack wrote:
> You can't fix the schools within the system. Its hopeless.
> The only hope is to change the system and institute a real
> competitive marketplace.

Real competition is when schools accept students based on
ability, not ability to pay.  Real competition is when
schools don't care how much funding the kid's family is
going to bring in, because every kid brings in the same
amount of funding.  Real competition is when a school
wants more kids, whether rich or poor, and is not willing
to settle for less kids as long as they're rich.  Real
competition is when private schools can only accept
vouchers as payment and nothing else.

From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.education.alternative,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican,misc.education,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Public Education problems and solutions
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 17:26:01 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Christian Longshore Claiborn wrote:
> >You state that your against vouchers but  not necessarily for public
> >schools.  I you are against vouchers then you think only the rich
> >should be able to send their kids to private schools.  You may say "I
> >don't think that!" but when you kill vouchers my kids are in public
> >school just the same.
> Errr, no.  We currently have a system in which public schools are
> funded with public dollars.  I would end this completely instead of
> replacing it with one in which private schools are funded with public
> dollars.  Your kids would be receiving whatever schooling that you
> could afford them.

So why not end all public funding of our police and fire
departments?  The protection you and your family get should
be only what you can afford them.  Of course, what happens
is that there will be those who can afford no protection and
are at the mercy of those who can.  What will also happen
is that there will be kids who won't know the difference
between freedom of speech and perjury, the difference
between taxation and rent, the difference between starvation
and coercion, the difference between political philosophy
and religion...

From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.education.alternative,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican,az.politics,ca.politics,misc.education,ny.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.republican,talk.politics.theory,talk.radio,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Public Education problems and solutions
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:33:59 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Orville R. Weyrich, Jr. wrote:
> > Here's an alternative. Keep your privatized schools. Give everyone
> > vouchers. No problem so far, right? Here's the rub: you can't pay
> > for education with ANYTHING BUT vouchers. In other words, equal
> > education for members of all classes, and yet, you still have
> > competition among schools to achieve excellence.
> Do you also propose arresting any teacher who agrees to tutor a
> child on the side in exchange for additional payment, like Mme.
> Hillary did for doctors?

Only if they refuse to tutor children who don't pay.
Do we let firemen refuse to put out fires for those
who don't pay?

From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.education.alternative,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.socialism,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican,az.politics,ca.politics,misc.education,ny.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.republican,talk.politics.theory,talk.radio,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Public Education problems and solutions
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 20:26:18 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Orville R. Weyrich, Jr. wrote:
> > Each kid generates two 1/2 vouchers/year, each with a value of 1.  No
> > school can charge more than 1 voucher per semester, or 1/2 voucher for
> > summer school.  Vouchers expire each semester, and cannot be traded or
> > sold.  Quarter system schools can be accommodated.
> You really ARE a died in the wool socialist, aren't you !!!  Heaven forbid
> that some family place greater store in the value of education than
> another and forego recreational expenses to give their kids a better start
> in life.  :-(

Yes, and heaven forbid that some parents like to beat or molest
their own children. But do we let them?  No.  Why?  Because it
ain't the kid's fault who the fuck her parents are.

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.education.alternative,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican,az.politics,ca.politics,misc.education,ny.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.republican,talk.politics.theory,talk.radio,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Public Education problems and solutions
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 22:02:36 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Cyndi Bakke wrote:
> I agree with Mr. Donald wholeheartedly.  But I would like to see those
> who criticize the voucher system or privatization or other reforms
> occassionally offer up an alternative.  The fact is, that what we have
> right now is failing a large number of our children horribly.

Here's an alternative. Keep your privatized schools. Give everyone
vouchers. No problem so far, right? Here's the rub: you can't pay
for education with ANYTHING BUT vouchers. In other words, equal
education for members of all classes, and yet, you still have
competition among schools to achieve excellence.

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.education.alternative,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican,az.politics,ca.politics,misc.education,ny.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.republican,talk.politics.theory,talk.radio,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Public Education problems and solutions
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 21:56:27 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Cyndi Bakke wrote:
> The fact is unless you want to go into one of the learned professions
> (i.e. academician, attorney, teacher, etc.) what you learn in school
> beyond the basic reading, writing, reasoning, logic, and public speaking
> is pretty useless.  Our public education system is still gung-ho about
> instilling a lot of disjointed facts in our children which do not help
> them with sucess in most professions.
> I don't think we should shoot kids who fail, but I do think that we
> should provide an alternative for them.  Vocational high school
> education might be appropriate.

Righto. Vocational education like C++, HTML, Java, TCP/IP. And we
can forget trying to teach them useless lists of obscure vocabulary
words or trying to get them all to talk like the White Upper/Middle
class. If they want to read ancient and obscure literature,
let them waste their college years on fancy words.

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.education.alternative,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.newt-gingrich,alt.politics.usa.republican,az.politics,ca.politics,misc.education,ny.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.republican,talk.politics.theory,talk.radio,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Public Education problems and solutions
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 21:47:05 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

James A. Donald wrote:
> > Shoot the kids who fail? Revive slavery?
> Pumping gas and working and McDonalds is not death or slavery.

A slave works in order to obtain food and shelter. A slave works
to avoid death. A slave does not work for personal fulfillment.
I pump gas in order to obtain food and shelter. I pump gas to
avoid starvation and hypothermia. Pumping gas is not personal
fulfillment.

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

---