From: wforeman@primenet.com (William Foreman)
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: Rejecting Dog-Eat-Dog Ultracapitalism?
Date: 9 Feb 1997 10:51:01 -0700
Organization: Primenet

petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich) wrote:
>In article 5db691$a3k@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com,
>Zenoink zenoink@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>In 5d9uk0$1g4$2@news3.microserve.net jhblask@bigpapa.nothinbut.net (Henry Blaskowski) writes: 
>>>As opposed to socialist economies, where you are pretty much guaranteed
>>>to starve.  Well, at least there's not all that uncertainty to worry
>>>about.
>>If people were guaranteed to starve under socialism, why do so many of
>>the "liberated" people in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe
>>interested in going back to it?  Tired of the rich diet they found
>>under the new system??
>       What they are rejecting is the form that capitalism has taken -- 
>dog-eat-dog ultracapitalism and criminal gangsterism, with the winner 
>taking all and grinding the loser into the dirt. Since this seems to be 
>the ideal of many around here, I'd like to see them go to the xUSSR and 
>experience that sort of thing personally.
>       The sort of American and European welfare-statism that the 
>ultracapitalists perpetually whine about are efforts to make capitalism 
>*tolerable*, and to deflect more radical measures, as Michael Lind notes 
>in _Up from Conservatism_ -- Bismarck, Churchill, and even FDR were, at 
>heart, *conservatives*.

Well, sort of.  Technically, they didn't have hearts.  This applies
most specifically to Churchill.
Bill

26.1.97 Totalitarian grammar
28.1.97 Ain't you lilliputian?
29.1.97 08:29 Anglican Japanese heterosexuals.
29.1.97 15:09 Standard mastectomy.
30.1.97 To kill with regulation.
31.1.97 15:42 Taken seriously.
31.1.97 15:52 That ain't ablution.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.education,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,misc.education.language.english,alt.education.alternative,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Why We Say "Standard English - Slavery"
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 17:11:41 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

LQuest wrote:
> >Not. What's important is to teach all of America's children the
> >importance of accepting that people are different, that we don't
> >all have to be clones to work together.  Freedom is when
> >language dictates a grammar book.  Totalitarianism is when
> >a grammar book dictates language.
> If you are saying that America does NOT need a common language in order for
> ALL Americans to improve their opportunity for prosperity through well
> coordinated action then, it is conceptually identical to making everyone obey
> the same traffic laws!  Yeah -- that's the ticket -- lets have some Ebonics
> traffic laws just for black folks!

If you want a common language, then make it a TRUE common
language.  If far more Americans understand the word "y'all"
than understand the word "onerous", why is it that one word
never shows up on the SATs while the other one is all over
it?  If it's more important to teach our kids how to speak
English before teaching them French, then why teach our kids
ancient English before they understand modern English?

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.education,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,misc.education.language.english,alt.education.alternative,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Why We Say "Standard English - Slavery"
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:52:55 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Simon J. Elliott wrote:
> There is debate about whether those examples that you cite, above, are
> incorrect or not. English, and its rules, are constantly evolving.
> That said, it is nonetheless true that to communicate we need to have
> STANDARDs. Focussing on minor grammatical quibbles distracts us from the
> reality that there are a large number of English dialects/creoles that are
> so divergent from standard English that they are intelligible.

And if they aren't "so divergent", why bother regulating it away?
If you don't understand "ain't" or "I be in my office" then it
is *you* who should brush up on your English.  If you don't
understand "penultimate" or "ablution", who cares?
-------
Freedom is when language dictates a grammar book.
Totalitarianism is when a grammar book dictates language.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.education,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,misc.education.language.english,alt.education.alternative,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Why We Say "Standard English - Slavery"
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:42:46 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Adam wrote:
>> All I have to say about this is that it seems to me to be a disservice
>> to students to allow them to use slang
> ....and perhaps of greater concern is that they wont be taken seriously in the
> workplace. Be it an auto repair shop or a board room...

If women aren't taken seriously in the workplace, do
you force them to get a sex change?  It's the managers
who refuse to accept women or slang in their board rooms
that shouldn't be "taken seriously".

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.education,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,misc.education.language.english,alt.education.alternative,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Why We Say "Standard English - Slavery"
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 17:12:35 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Joe wrote:
> > Duh. And the change IS small, but apparently not small enough
> > for small conservative minds. Would it be wrong to teach our
> > kids what "ain't" means?
> Linguistic drift happens all the time. Take for instance
> the sentence "If it happens to someone, it will not be I."
> That sentence is grammatically correct. And yet I'd bet
> that 80% or more of the people on the streets would reply
> that they that it wasn't, if you asked them.
> In fact, my last sentence was NOT grammatically correct,
> because I began it with the word 'and', which is supposedly
> poor English. Yet another anomaly.

No disagreement there.

> I'm not sure what this has to do with ebonics or the original
> topic...

The point is that language evolves. New constructs come,
and old ones go. If something new thrives and becomes
widely understood, then it becomes part of the language.
...unless, of course, you kill it with regulation.

From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.education,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,misc.education.language.english,alt.education.alternative,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Why We Say "Standard English - Slavery"
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 15:09:30 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Michael Huemer wrote:
> >for small conservative minds. Would it be wrong to teach our
> >kids what "ain't" means?  If they really want to be able to
> >communicate, that's a far more useful word than "lilliputian".
> All I have to say about this is that it seems to me to be a disservice
> to students to allow them to use slang -- not because slang is somehow
> objectively wrong, but simply because people in the post-school real
> world will not take you seriously if you talk like that.  If you go
> around saying "ain't" and "I be tired", people think you're uneducated
> or stupid.

And if you show up to an interview with dark skin, breasts,
or a yarmulke on your head, will those "post-school" people
hire you?  If not, then why not get a mastectomy?

From: "M. Luther"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.education,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,misc.education.language.english,alt.education.alternative,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Why We Say "Standard English - Slavery"
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 08:29:47 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Ray Hartman wrote:
> > Not. What's important is to teach all of America's children the
> > importance of accepting that people are different, that we don't
> > all have to be clones to work together.  Freedom is when
> > language dictates a grammar book.  Totalitarianism is when
> > a grammar book dictates language.
> .. You believe that teaching all Americans to speak S_A_E  represents
> .. clone production ?
> .. You will find precious few historical precidents for this
> .. assertion .

And why not?  Only totalitarian governments force all their
people to behave in the same way.  They establish an official
religion like the Anglican church.  Or they force all elementary
schools to teach Japanese instead of Korean, even if the school
is in Korea.  Or they say either you restrain yourself from
homosexual practises or you die in a gas chamber.

From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.education,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,misc.education.language.english,alt.education.alternative,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Why We Say "Standard English - Slavery"
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:59:18 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Herman Rubin wrote:
> >Not. What's important is to teach all of America's children the
> >importance of accepting that people are different, that we don't
> >all have to be clones to work together.  Freedom is when
> >language dictates a grammar book.  Totalitarianism is when
> >a grammar book dictates language.
> Language is a means of communication.  To be able to communicate,
> the meaning must be sufficiently similar for the sender and receiver.
> Language consists of grammar, which is how components are put
> together, and the individual components, words or parts.  Both
> of these CAN change, but changing them changes the language.
> If the change is small enough, it is not a barrier to communication.

Duh. And the change IS small, but apparently not small enough
for small conservative minds. Would it be wrong to teach our
kids what "ain't" means?  If they really want to be able to
communicate, that's a far more useful word than "lilliputian".
God forbid we should change the English language with
Street Talk (TM) like "EMAIL" and "NEWSGROUP"!  What
will the neighbors think?!
--------
"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: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.education,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,misc.education.language.english,alt.education.alternative,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Why We Say "Standard English - Slavery"
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 12:18:12 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

David G. Hughey wrote:
> What is troubling is whether or not the dialetical presentation from the
> kid in question will be labeled as "wrong".  One hears of examples of
> black kids being put down and labeled as "white" if they speak standard
> English.  For this program to work, there will have to be support from
> parents, educators, and civic leaders to teach all of America's children
> the importance of speaking, writing, and understanding standard English
> for future use in college and/or the job site.

Not. What's important is to teach all of America's children the
importance of accepting that people are different, that we don't
all have to be clones to work together.  Freedom is when
language dictates a grammar book.  Totalitarianism is when
a grammar book dictates language.

26.1.97 Lowest common denominator.

From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: misc.education,alt.politics.radical-left,misc.education.language.english,alt.politics.socialism,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,ny.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.republican,talk.politics.theory,talk.radio,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Black Dialect - Not English
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 14:49:47 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Powell Jay wrote:
> Well put. We need to learn to accept diversity. But this will be no easy
> task. As Herman Rubin pointed out, our students in college are reluctant
> to share for fear of "looking stupid." This is a perception that is
> carefully taught in our schools. It comes from the idea that there is a
> "right" way, (the one in the Book), and that all other ways are "wrong."
> So if I accept "the Book," everyone who differs is "wrong." and somehow
> "sinful." How can we develop a tolerant attitude of accepting diversity
> in such an atmosphere?

Throw out the book. Hire teachers who can speak BlackRichWhitePoor
English and teach it all to them with a higher priority than
trying to teach them Shakespeare or French.
-----
Freedom is when language dictates a grammar book.
Totalitarianism is when a grammar book dictates language.

From: "J. Hancock"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,misc.education,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,misc.education.language.english,alt.politics.socialism,alt.education.alternative,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.us
Subject: Re: Black Dialect - Not English
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 02:34:36 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

RAY HERRON SR wrote:
> Of course, it's racists. Any effort to bring everyone up is racists,  we
> can only be non-racists if we agree to lower everyones standards to the
> lowest denominator. Wonder what they are putting in the water where you
> live which makes you think everyone is a racist if they critizise a truly
> nutty idea.

The lowest denominator, in this case, being white middle class
Americans, since they just can't seem to figure out any other
dialect.

27.1.97 Landed freemarketeers.
6.2.97 Owning swamps.
11.2.97 The issue is settled.
13.2.97 Owning land, owning usage.

From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Ownership
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 21:35:14 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

JMH wrote:
> Cars are made entirely from carite, a naturally occurring element.
> Carite must go through various processing steps to produce all
> the various car parts, but the element is not produced.
> I make a car an sell it to you. The value of the carite in
> the car is taxed way from me since it is "land". Next year
> the car's total value may be 50% less than what you bought it
> for but the value of the carite--the car's weight hasn't changed
> any so it has the same amount of "land"--in the car has increased
> 100%.

What happens is that not only is the carite's "value" increased
by turning it into a car, it is also decreased because it is
now less useful for other applications. In a similar example,
if I clear a piece of land and build a parking lot and sell it,
you might tax away the value of the land that I didn't create by
chopping trees and pouring asphalt, however, you've missed the
value I destroyed because I have destroyed the trees.  Because
I had "the right" to clear that land, I took away someone else's
right to produce something else from that land. And because the
value of this right is too difficult to determine, we'll just
have to settle for some sort of welfare.

From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Property Ownership
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 19:34:19 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Morgoth wrote:
> If you go out, and find some land, cut the trees, and never get a
> deed from from some government, that land should be yours
> totally

It is very hard to define exactly what part of the land you own.
There were, of course, small spots that weren't covered by trees.
And it is also hard to define how deep or high your ownership
extends. What you own, is the labor that went into clearing the
land, but not the land itself.  However, if you are depriving
someone else of their right to also put labor into clearing that
land, then it is even more difficult to determine what you own.

From: Gary Forbis forbis@accessone.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: Property Ownership
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 12:19:49 -0800
Organization: AccessOne

Morgoth wrote:
> If you go out, and find some land, cut the trees, and never get a
> deed from from some government, that land should be yours
> totally, since there was not contract between you and the
> government. IF you get a charter to srat a colony, then the lands
> you occupy/clear/etc is the property of the government you got
> the charter from, unless they can not maintain the land from
> anyone else (degredation of land, others invading, etc).
> Then the land belongs to whom ever has the armed might or in the
> modern age, the one who can convince the rest of the world that
> you have the right, then possesses the land.
> Unfortunately in this modern age, we have forgotten the basic
> sovereignty of the individual to own land, free from any
> permission from any government (Alloidal lands). That is what
> civilization has gotten us.

I don't think individuals or even nations ever had a basic right to
own land so I doubt we could have forgotten we have or had such a
right.  Society has developed a peaceful means of transfering 
"ownership" of land because it is more advantageous to the participants
than is war or other violence.
 
> Case in point, Utah was for all purposes an independent nation
> (theocracy), but because the Federal Government had the military
> power, the Feds won in the end.. Not from some right of previous
> ownership, but from the right to take by force of arms if
> necessary to back up a claim.

The lands in Utah were already claimed when the theocracy was built.
That the claim didn't include occupancy is of little concern to those
making the claim.  I doubt there can be any rational basis for
claiming ownership of the land and in the end the issue is settled
by force or the threat of force.

I feel a claim of ownership is a threat of force against all others
who would ignore the claim.
-- 
--gary 
    forbis@accessone.com

From: Gary Forbis forbis@accessone.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: Property Ownership
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 11:59:00 -0800
Organization: AccessOne

Warrl kyree Tale'sedrin wrote:
> Gary Forbis  wrote:
> >Giovanni 8 wrote:
> >> Right.  "Space on the surface of this planet" is not (generally,
> >> though there are numerous exceptions) created.  Land, however,
> >> is created.
> >I really would like to take back the word "land."  Surely there
> >is prescriptive and descriptive use of words.  While I hate to rely
> >upon dictionaries to resolve word use conflicts I think I will do
> >so in this case.
> >While there is a sense in which "land" refers to "a portion of the
> >earth's solid durface distinguishable by boundaries or ownership"
> >one has to go down the list quite a ways in Webster's tenth to get
> >to this definition.  The first definition given is "the solid
> >part of the surface of the earth."
> Which has been created in several places, including Japan, Holland,
> and numerous swamps.

These are the exception not the rule.  Do you believe it appropriate to
define principles from exceptions or rules?  Also maritime laws concerning
ownership of the seas are much more strict than common laws concerning
ownership of the lands.  I wonder if those who fished the seas felt the
draining or filling of the seas was a private taking of the commons?

Swamps are generally considered land and one must first own the land prior
to draining the swamps.  One does not obtain ownership of the land by
draining the swamps.
-- 
--gary 
    forbis@accessone.com

From: romike@hermesnet.net
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: Property Ownership
Date: 27 Jan 1997 11:21:22 -0500
Organization: Hermes Internet Service, Inc., Washington, DC

>                            Re: Property Ownership
On 24 Jan 1997 08:20:59 GMT, otto-jg@free-net.tlh.fl.u-s (Giovanni 8) wrote [responding to the following]:
>> John Locke was among the first who popularized the idea that a man
>> is entitled to the fruits of his labors.  But he also stated that
>> if a man enclosed too much land as his own, that he was obligated
>> to share it.  After all, he did not create it.
>Yes, he did make that mistake, after all, the 1st owner did create it.
>> It seems clear to me that no one can create space on the surface of
>> this planet.  It simply exists.
>Right.  "Space on the surface of this planet" is not (generally,
>though there are numerous exceptions) created.  Land, however,
>is created.  The water was there, but the swimming pool was created.
>The tree was there, but the look-out post was created.  The
>surface area was there, but the ranch, farm, air-strip, court-yard,
>yard, factory site, office site, nature preserve was created.
>jgo

   Your examples all refer to products of human effort, not land. "Land"
refers to a volume of space (not just "dry land"), and the natural
resources within that space (mineral deposits, etc.).  No person has ever
created a volume of space, or a mineral deposit.

   The libertarian philosopher, John Locke, concluded that, since no
person made the land, no person has any more right to land than any other
person.  Any person who owns land of more than average value owes rent to
those who have been displaced from owning land.

   Most of the famous libertarians agreed with Locke's principle, until
early this century, when many of the authors who advocated free markets
stopped addressing the principle of John Locke.  No libertarian has
offered a rebuttal of Locke's principle.

23.1.97 Price controls & rationing.
24.1.97 09:05 Victimless crime.
24.1.97 13:31 Produce or die!
25.1.97 Houses and firemen.
30.1.97 How to tax.
31.1.97 Corruption and criminalization.
11.2.97 Enforce his ownership.
18.2.97 Owning politicians and manipulating media.
21.2.97 Is this moral?
25.2.97 The liberal media.

From: "H.C. Anderson" 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,alt.politics.reform
Subject: Re: Canada's Health Care Waiting List?
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 15:30:12 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Big Oh wrote:
> =| The solution given by fiscal conservatives is to privatize all
> =| schools, with vouchers for the poor.  This would be perfectly
> =| fine IF the ONLY thing any student can use to pay were the
> =| vouchers given to her.  But fiscal conservatives insist on the
> =| right to give their own kids a better education than the poor,
> =| because they know that capitalism will drive their equally
> =| educated kids into the ground if they don't.
> The majority of the lower class residents of Washington, D.C. (which is
> also a majority of all the residents of Washington, D.C.) want vouchers so
> they can get their children out of probably the worst and most expensive
> public school system in the entire nation and the teachers unions, public
> education bureaucrats, and the liberals in Congress totally opposed it.
> Are you telling me that the lower class residents of Washington, D.C. are
> fiscal conservatives?

What I'm telling you is that the MORE you educate the poor
the better. Would you agree to only allow education to be
paid for by vouchers and nothing else, so that schools
would actually compete to educate everyone, instead of
competing to educate the rich?  No, you say, you want the
right to give your own kids a better education than everyone
else so they can get a good job when they grow up.  And that
is the fundamental stupidity of capitalism: be BETTER than
your peers to get ahead, instead of HELPING your peers so
that you all get ahead. Capitalism is little more than
cannibalism.
-------
A liberal is someone too poor to be a capitalist and
too rich to be a communist.

From: "H. Mencken" 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,alt.politics.reform
Subject: Re: Canada's Health Care Waiting List?
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 13:28:23 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Big Oh wrote:
> =| You finally have my full agreement. Now the question is why do we
> =| keep fighting welfare funding?
> Because welfare primarily doesn't work
> A few years ago the conservatives had proposed a reform that would 'wean'
> welfare receipents from the rolls by eliminating the step function in
> receiving welfare

You're right, capitalist welfare DOESN'T work. At least it doesn't
work in getting people off welfare, which is the stated purpose.
It does however work grandly for the underlying purpose: to prevent
revolt and crime, to keep the poor uneducated so that they will
never be able to compete with us.

> =| Why do we promote an education
> =| system that obviously perpetuates the wealthy class?
> When most private
> schools can do the same job for 1/2 - 2/3 of the per student cost of the
> public schools that says there is massive waste in the public education
> system.

The solution given by fiscal conservatives is to privatize all
schools, with vouchers for the poor.  This would be perfectly
fine IF the ONLY thing any student can use to pay were the
vouchers given to her.  But fiscal conservatives insist on the
right to give their own kids a better education than the poor,
because they know that capitalism will drive their equally
educated kids into the ground if they don't.

> =| Guest: "Correction, it's big business owns the media and
> =|   manipulates the politicians."
> The so called 'big businesses' which own the major media hire primarily
> journalists and editors who are products of the major liberal universities
> in Northeastern USA.

It's ironic that when a manager tells his employees to do the
dirty work, the employees will do it according to their own
set of values.  Thus even big media has to settle for liberal
journalists simply because the owners are too lazy to do the
work themselves.
--------
A liberal is someone too poor to be a capitalist
and too rich to be a communist.

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.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Canada's Health Care Waiting List?
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:57:08 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

D. Terry Hazelrig wrote:
> If a grown man steals a piece of candy from a child, is this moral?
> If a government takes from you your hard earned cash, then wastes'
> hundreds of billions of dollars on schemes designed to self perpetuate
> their own little oligarchy(ie; continue to have control over you), is
> this, to your mind, moral?

And if a company doesn't even pay you the cash you earned,
is that moral?  If any army conquers land, oil, or other
natural resources, and then hands it off to a company, is
that moral?  If by using stolen property to create new
wealth, a company denies other people the right to make
use of that property, is that moral?

From: "T. Hobbes" 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.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Canada's Health Care Waiting List?
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 15:40:23 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Big Oh wrote:
> =| > In a truly free society everyone would contribute to the common defense as
> =| > they felt it was worth to them.  If you felt that the common defense of
> =| > your life, liberty, and property was worth $5K/year then that is what you
> =| > would voluntarily give each year or convince someone else to charitably do
> =| > such for you if you were poor.
> =| Quite a just scenario. One in which the poor wouldn't have to pay a
> =| thing if they didn't feel like it. The only catch is, who is
> =| going to settle disagreements?  If a poor man and a rich man both
> =| claim the same piece of land, who is going to win?  Even if the
> =| poor man wins, will he be able to enforce his ownership from the
> =| rich man?
> It is to everyone's best interest to protect the equal rights to life,
> liberty, and property of the poor man because one day they maybe in his
> shoes.
> In Germany they came first for the Communists,
> and I didn'tspeak up because I wasn't a Communist.
> Then they came for the Jews,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
> Then they came for the trade unionists,
> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
> Then they came for the Catholics,
> and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
> Then they came forme,
> and by that time no one was left to speak up."
> -- Martin Niemoeller, 1892-1984 (attributed)

You finally have my full agreement. Now the question is why do we
keep fighting welfare funding?  Why do we promote an education
system that obviously perpetuates the wealthy class?

I heard on a radio talk show once the following conversation:
Host: "So how are we going to fix this, when big business owns
  the politicans and manipulates the media?"
Guest: "Correction, it's big business owns the media and
  manipulates the politicians."

From: "J. Hancock" 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: Canada's Health Care Waiting List?
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1997 21:16:27 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Big Oh wrote:
> =| To Big O -- Powerful points (Extortion, etc.). They mean we can't tax
> =| for anything; even for defending the country, or trying criminals. Now
> =| what do we do??
> In a truly free society everyone would contribute to the common defense as
> they felt it was worth to them.  If you felt that the common defense of
> your life, liberty, and property was worth $5K/year then that is what you
> would voluntarily give each year or convince someone else to charitably do
> such for you if you were poor.  Obviously if the common defense was
> under-funded freedom wouldn't last very long.  This would also reduce
> waste, fraud, and abuse in defense because people are far less charitable
> to operations with high overheads and little to show for the money spent.

Quite a just scenario. One in which the poor wouldn't have to pay a
thing if they didn't feel like it. The only catch is, who is
going to settle disagreements?  If a poor man and a rich man both
claim the same piece of land, who is going to win?  Even if the
poor man wins, will he be able to enforce his ownership from the
rich man?

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.conservatism,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: Canada's Health Care Waiting List?
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 15:03:37 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Koro wrote:
> > It's over a "crime" where both parties are willing.
> > It's over the organized crime and corruption
> > that develops to handle the victimless crime market.
> Agreed.  Legalizing drugs would drive a stake through the heart of
> organized crime.  They wouldn't have anything else to sell on the
> black market.

Yes they would. Prostitution and gambling. Two more
victimless crimes, that through legalization and some
level headed regulation, can help prevent the disease
and corruption that criminalization causes.  But you're
right.  The day we legalize victimless "crime" is the day
organized crime suddenly loses its market.

From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.president.clinton,alt.society.conservatism,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: Canada's Health Care Waiting List?
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 12:40:09 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Lazarus Long wrote:
> >     I mean a free market society where you have a choice of
> >     whether to opt for providing your own protection or subscribe
> >     to any protection agency whether public or private.
> cg> So you are calling for the abolition of public funding
> cg> for the military. If I have enough money to hire my own
> cg> army, I don't need no stinkin' Pentagon bureaucrats who
> cg> waste $300 per hammer.  I don't need no stinkin' legislators to make
> cg> laws.  My army will make my own laws.
> cg> If they really knew what they were doing, they'd
> cg> use the police to make me pay taxes on clothing and heat,
> cg> pay rent to live on property enclosed by their fences.
>     They do... obviously you are not old enough to have dealt with
>     taxation directly.

Exactly, they do. And it is the result of the wealth-
dominated governments under which we both live.
----------
The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as
well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in
the streets, and to steal bread.
        -- Anatole France

From: "J. Iscariot" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.president.clinton,alt.society.conservatism,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: Canada's Health Care Waiting List?
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 12:02:54 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Lazarus Long wrote:
> > cg> Shortages occur without rationing.  Do you really need 5 galloons of
> > cg> milk everyday?  No, so we allot you 1 at a price you can afford. If
> > cg> you want more, then you're going to have to fork over more.
> >     Who determines how much is "needed"?
> cg> Who determines how much police or military protection I "need"?
>     You should...and would in a free market society.

Do you mean "free market" as in everyone pays for their own
armed security guards, or do you mean "democracy" as in voting
for police and welfare funding?

>    Why does the government have to provide essentials? Based on
>    how the costs of any government provided service...who needs
>    $50 loaves of bread?

Who needs thousand dollar military grade toilets?  Ahem, I meant
"personal waste disposal unit"... that oughta justify the price
eh?  And it depends on what you mean by essentials.  Who needs
police when you've got nothing worth stealing?  Who needs bridges
when you've got no car nor any money to spend if you ever get to
the grocery store in the first place?  Who needs firemen when
you don't have a house to burn down?

>   BTW, you didn't answer the question about what happens if more
>   than the minimum is require..or what happens if the ration is
>   not enough..

You mean like education?  How valuable is anybody to society
with just the stuff you learned in high school?  Either you
learn it in college or you need out-of-school training.
One handgun against the Nazis may not be enough, but it's at
least better than one toothpick.

From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.president.clinton,alt.society.conservatism,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: Canada's Health Care Waiting List?
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:31:30 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

fharris@uci.edu wrote:
> I must somehow secure that the dairy farmer produces milk.  I can do this
> by standing by his side with some form of command instrument (weapon, law,
> etc)  or I can force him to trade his milk directly for bread, etc.  The
> latter is a barter system which principly differs from a cash market by
> the medium of exchange.
> Some form of command system must exist.  In a socialist system, we must
> force people to produce, or they will simply free ride off society.  Then
> monitoring becomes very costly.

We only force him to produce if we need what he produces.
We wouldn't have so many people unable to get jobs if we
needed what they could produce.  As more and more unskilled
and semi-skilled labor is replaced by technological advances,
we would have less and less reason to force people to be
productive.

From: "J. Hancock"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.conservatism,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: Canada's Health Care Waiting List?
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 09:05:42 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

fharris@uci.edu wrote:
> > So why hasn't the prohibition on drugs been repealed as it was on alcohol?
> If people are unable to make choices for themselves, then how are
> decisions made?  Clearly, if people cannot be allowed to decide, then we
> must get all the people out of government.

If people are unable to decide for themselves whether
to murder someone, then how are decisions made?  The
question of legalization isn't over freedom of choice.

It's over a "crime" where both parties are willing.
It's over the organized crime and corruption
that develops to handle the victimless crime market.

From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.conservatism,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.medicine
Subject: Re: Canada's Health Care Waiting List?
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 18:28:40 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Jon Gwynne wrote:
> The problem with that is when there isn't enough milk to go around
> and someone figures out a way to get to the head of the milk line
> to get all he can and then sells it to the people who now have to
> go without because the milk-scalpers got it all.  Price-controls
> trade one problem for another when they are applied to goods.  Don't
> believe me?  Try to go and buy front-row seats for the next Rolling
> Stones concert at your local ticketseller.

*IF* there isn't enough milk to go around. Concert lines are
long because there is more demand than supply.  There is no
way you could provide 1 ticket for each person who wants to go.
And you surely can't give everyone half a ticket either.
But if we could easily provide every citizen with one potato
a day, why not?

> You think the profit motive is unique to capitalism?  You've
> never been to a communist country and tried to get something
> on the black market.
>> In any case, if price controls only affect the bare
>> essentials, there is still room for a greed market to
>> develop over the non-essentials, ie. that 2nd gallon
>> of milk.

Your "communist" black market is but an unofficial version
of the "greed market" that develops over that 2nd gallon
of milk.

> Price-controls are not the answer to out-of-control health-
> care costs.  They only work when applied to things which are
> in limited supply... like housing, and then only when they
> allow reasonable profits to be made.

It's precisely when applied to limited supply when price
controls lead to shortages and long lines.  See your Stones
concert example above.

From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.libertarian,rec.sport.football.pro,rec.arts.movies.misc,rec.arts.movies.people
Subject: Re: Bread and Circuses Re: END THE ELITISM- BOYCOTT THE SUPERBALL SPONSORS (and those of "ET")
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 18:09:08 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

dennis@mvmar.mar.urbe.it wrote:
> Margoth@nome.net argued above that the Roman Empire also had its
> welfare programs and diversions (circuses) and argued that these were
> ultimately the sourceof its downfall.
> I don'tknow, it seems hard to imagine a civilization AT ANY TIME which
> had an above-the-village level of organization which DID NOT have some
> kind of food-distribution program (The Egyptians and Babylonians had
> grainaries operated by the king, the Romans distributed grain and
> cabbages to the poor... above that minimum one had to buy on their
> own).  In the middle ages, the feudal lord was similarly held
> responsible for there being at least a minimum of food to go around).
> Similarly, virtually all civilizations had their sporting and artistic
> diversions...  But one would hardly blame the existance of public
> works and welfare programs and the existance of artistic/sporting
> culture as the _cause_ of their collapse.  Without such public works
> projects as the acquaducts cities like Rome would never even exist.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses" ...so they say. But it
wasn't religion alone.  Welfare and entertainment are also
"opiates of the masses."  But hey, it works.  If we need to
bribe peasants to keep them from slitting our throats, so be
it.  If we need to promote division by pitting Green Bay
residents against New England residents, all the while keeping
them happily entertained, so be it.

22.1.97 History of socialism.

From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Capitalist Question
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 13:32:06 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

LQuest wrote:
> >The "history of socialism" is but a history of George
> >Bushes who use that "No New Taxes" call just to get
> >in power.  If they truly believed in socialism, then
> >their top political leaders wouldn't be so rich.
> True!
> >If we truly believed in democracy, then our wealthiest
> >families wouldn't be so powerful.
> But we DON'T believe in Democracy.  We do not have a democracy.  I am amazed
> at the slopiness of folks who insist on tossing that word around as if it
> described the American system of government.  We have a very restricted form
> of Democracy called "Constitutional Republic".  If we had a Democracy then the
> Electoral college would not exist; and Judges could not overturn the results
> of referendum elections.

Yes, and I'm glad we do. I'm glad that our Bill of Rights
protects us from majority rule, or at least makes it a
hassle for the majority to take away minority rights.
However, nowhere in our Constitution does it say that only
the rich should be among the most powerful in America.
That unwritten "law" is instead hidden in every corner
of our electoral process.

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,seattle.politics,alt.politics.radical-left,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Capitalist Question
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:29:57 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

boydk wrote:
> I think you and I are in complete agreement here. I view their offer of
> equality of poverty as a curse and their inability to provide it as a
> laughable example of the incompetence (or perhaps the intentional evil)
> of these systems. What amazes me is that with the history socialism
> offers its followers we still have people in seattle.politics who buy
> into the "compassionate" platitudes mouthed by some of it's organizers.

The "history of socialism" is but a history of George
Bushes who use that "No New Taxes" call just to get
in power.  If they truly believed in socialism, then
their top political leaders wouldn't be so rich.
If we truly believed in democracy, then our wealthiest
families wouldn't be so powerful.

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,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,talk.politics.guns,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,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,talk.environment,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: Thank God for rich people! (was Re: Chest-Thumping Superpatriotism...)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:11:23 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Lee Taylor wrote:
> So then what you are saying is that, for instance:
> Even though my children are not educated in a tax-funded public school,
> I should still pay for someone else's children?
> Even though I don't use the highways in Southern California, I should
> still pay for their maintenance?
> Even though I don't use the city dump or municipal trash services, I
> should still pay the additional 'Waste Site Reclamation' tax added to my
> property taxes?
> Even though I'm not on the municipal water supply, I should still pay
> the 'Municipal Water Services Expansion' tax added to my property taxes?
> No.  I don't think so.

Even though I couldn't care less if Mexicans invaded and
took over the White House, I should still pay the Defense
Department?  No.  I don't think so.
Even though I don't give a shit if my house is flooded,
I should still pay for the funding that goes into
sandbagging my neighborhood?  No. I don't think so.

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.society.generation-x,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.usa.republican,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Political Funding
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 19:58:11 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Claude Du Bois wrote:
> >Not exactly.  There are some corporations that fund Democrats as much as
> >Republicans.  One example is ADM (the "Supermarket to the World").  They
> >have been successful in getting laws passed that mandate the use of
> >ethanol in motor fuels (to reduce CO emissions) instead of better and
> >less costly additives.  ADM distills ethanol from corn.
>         Is this why ADM lent Bob Dole one of there Corporate Aircraft to
> campaign with? I would venture to say that in the last 16 years ADM
> contributed at least 10 times as much to the Republicans as they did
> to the Democrats. The Ethanol Laws were put into place under the
> Reagan/Bush administraion!

Ever wonder why Campaign Finance Reform (TM) is so popular
with both Democrats and Republicans (particularly
non-incumbents), but nothing ever seems to be done? Instead,
they point fingers at each other, "You took more money
than I did!"  The trouble is, if you campaign on a platform
that says the current system favors incumbents too much,
and if you win, then suddenly, "Whoa! I'm the incumbent
now! Hmm, maybe I better take another look at this thing."

22.1.97 They probably killed him.
18.2.97 How else will he eat?

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Ownership
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:40:15 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Giovanni 8 wrote:
> >> Or he would do like the rest of us and get some skill
> >> and get a job or otherwise provide a serves on the market.
> > In other words, the life of a slave.  Instead of asking why
> > he belongs to his master, or why that land belongs to that
> > conquerer, he goes meekly to work.  How else will he eat?
> And then he buys his own land, invents his own products, and
> hires others who wish to work with him to produce them, for
> mutual benefit.

He buys land from thieves and robbers. He invents products
that need the resources provided by thieves and robbers.
And he hires others with money provided by thieves and
robbers, who continue to rob him and his employees despite
having put forth no more effort than writing a check.

From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Ownership
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:00:39 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

JMH wrote:
> > If the caveman wanted food, he went and killed an animal for
> > it, or gathered berries from the forest, or if he was smart
> > enough, grew something on fertile soil. Today, he would be
> > arrested or shot for trespassing.
> Or he would do like the rest of us and get some skill
> and get a job or otherwise provide a serves on the market.

In other words, the life of a slave. Instead of asking why
he belongs to his master, or why that land belongs to that
conquerer, he goes meekly to work. How else will he eat?

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left
Subject: Re: Ownership
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 18:24:29 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Giovanni 8 wrote:
> > A landlord has a piece of paper from the state, saying that, if
> > you want to live on the land described in the paper, you must pay
> > the landlord what he asks.
> It is not just the piece of paper.  One pays rent because it is
> his land that he is allowing you to use, trading value for value
> in voluntary exchange.

How did he get the land?  When caveman walked the earth,
did he and his brothers one day decide to equally split
up all the land among themselves?  What about the other
caveman just beyond the hill that they hadn't noticed?
They probably killed him.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,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,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,talk.politics,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.fan.dan-quayle,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
Subject: Re: Assimilation or Diversification?
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 15:12:10 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Rolf wrote:
> DIVERSIFICATION will eventually equal to DIVISION.
> Just check out those countries with cultural diversification,  like
> Yugoslavia or the former Soviet Union.  Unless there is one national
> language for overall communication and one national pride,  the potential
> splitting crisis will hang in there.

Only if it occurs without acceptance.  As a society,
we have for centuries accepted left-handers in our
midst.  There is no danger that left-handers will go
off and demand their own government... at least not
until we start organized persecution against them.

18.1.97 Rights of monopolies.

From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: UNIONS vs. FISCAL CONSERVATISM
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 11:05:07 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Mike King wrote:
> People should be free to form whatever associations that they deem worthy
> of their effort, provided that no force, coercion  or fraud is used in
> either forming these associations or carrying out the activities of these
> associations.  This freedom should apply to employers as well as employees.
> With so-called "right to work" laws (or other legislation) that require an
> employee to join a union, the above principle is violated.

Do employees have the right to be uncooperative to non-union
members?  Say I'm a new lone non-union member, and for some
reason, the other employees always drag their feet when doing
stuff that I need done and are very unhelpful when I ask
questions... not to mention the fact that I have to eat lunch
alone.  Do the other employees have this right?  My work
performance lags behind the others because of this, and I
can neither get a raise nor even a good review (especially
not a good peer review)... and soon I'm out of a job anyway.

Here's another question: If I'm the lone non-tax payer
in Kansas and everyone else pays taxes to support a
military that is defending the country from the expansionist
claims of Canada.  Does everyone else have the right to
force me to pay taxes?  Do they have the right to force me
to move to Mexico?  Do I have the right to stay in Kansas
because the military doesn't have to protect my home from
annexation into Canada?

From: "J. Iscariot"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: UNIONS vs. FISCAL CONSERVATISM
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:26:00 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

P. Kropotkin wrote:
> Non-corrupt, democratic unions are a legitimate means of self-organization
> of employees. Their overall economic effect can be debated, but one can't
> argue that in a free society the workers can't organize and defend their
> interests through unions.

Unions have as much a right to demand higher wages as monopolies
have a right to demand higher prices, irregardless of the quality
of their service or product.

From: "J. Iscariot"
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.atheism,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.current-events.usa,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Let's Cut Through the "Ivronics," Folks.
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 11:58:54 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Night Daemon wrote:
> Because schools no longer teach standard enlgish.
> Go find a very old grammar book. Then buy a very new grammar book. Compare the
> two. You'll see a difference. And notice that the newer one doesn't even
> properly define terms. English has been lost somewhat over the years, like any
> technology that isn't kept up, it has been perverted.

Also, go find a grammar book from the 14th century.
You'll also notice a big change.  So why not go back
to Ye Olde 14th century English?  Because Standard
Grammar is defined as the grammar I personally learned
when I was in grammar school, that's why.