25.2.97 17:42 Dependant on others.
25.2.97 17:47 There is no escape.
25.2.97 17:52 Clubs and rocks.
28.2.97 16:00 Consent by the governed.
28.2.97 16:09 That is called welfare.
4.3.97 17:35 Property rights of the standing army.
4.3.97 18:53 Parasiting off others.
6.3.97 17:33 The world at large.
6.3.97 17:37 The right to work.
11.3.97 18:39 Agree to a given price.
13.3.97 15:32 The idea of property.
13.3.97 18:42 Limited democracy and limited socialism.
16.3.97 Both fiscal and political.
23.3.97 17:41 Call it a duck.
23.3.97 17:47 Determining how much.
23.3.97 17:50 Wages are property.
23.3.97 17:58 The source of all prosperity.
25.3.97 Democratic just because it says it's democratic.

From: "D. Gale" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Violent Ownership
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 1997 12:01:18 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

James A. Donald wrote:
> Socialist because the government controls the means of production, and
> the pursuit of profit is treated as a criminal offence.

And how about the company you work in?  Who controls the
means of production?  The company you work in is probably
like a traditional "socialist" state. How much democracy or
freedom of speech it has probably depends on whether the
management actually believes its employees have ideas.

> Interesting then that whenever socialists have been democratically
> elected, they have found it necessary to censor the press and engage
> in widespread brutal violence in order to impose their will on their
> subjects, for example Allende in Chile and the 1936 Popular Front
> government in Spain.

Interesting that whenever capitalists have been democratically
elected, they too censor the press.  Duh. They own the press
just like autocrats own the press.  The fact is, NOBODY
believes in freedom of expression.  They only believe in
freedom of expression for themselves.  Why?  We're all a
bunch of assholes, who only believe in Good and Evil, with
nothing in between.
-----
I'm surrounded by scarecrows, lions, and tin men.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Violent Ownership
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 20:35:40 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Sam Hall wrote:
> No corporation has ever raped, pillaged, and looted a tenth of what
> socialist governments have.

How do you define a socialist government?  Socialist just
because it says it's socialist?  Democratic just because
it says it's democratic?  Trying to achieve socialism
without democracy is as impossible as trying to achieve
democracy without socialism.  Power and money go hand in
hand.  If you don't have an army to collect taxes, then
you can buy an army and do whatever you feel like.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.reform
Subject: Re: Violent Ownership
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 17:58:05 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Jeff Penrod wrote:
> > As opposed to capitalists, who conquer everyone's
> > resources and wealth, and then use that as an excuse to
> > take what their "employees" produce. And finally
> > establishing an education that brainwashes all future
> > generations of both employees and employers to believe
> > that capitalism was founded on "mutual" agreement.
> > Capitalism grows out of the barrel of a gun.
> Tell me how you are enslaving others when you go to the Safeway to buy a
> bag  of potato chips.  What armament do you use to procure them?

Everything Safeway (and any other company) owns, is simply a
resource, like a stream or a mountain is a resource.  It
simply exists.  "Ownership" of it can only be claimed by force
of arms.  REAL ownership should be decided by mutual agreement.
Some people would call that a democracy.

> Also, I would be interested in why the capitalist nations haven't erected
> walls and fences to keep the exploited in?

Duh.  It's called a democracy.  It's only capitalist marketing
that fools everyone into thinking that capitalism is the
source of all prosperity, while the real source is being
slowly ripped apart by campaign contributions and lobbyists.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Violent Ownership
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 17:50:31 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Jeff Penrod wrote:
> > you earn to make up for what you have taken away. The
> > concept of property includes only your thought and your
> > effort.
> How would one do that if they had by definition no property?  Wages are
> property.

Wages are "property" only in so much as it represents the
amount of work you did.  If it represents the amount of
work someone else did, then it isn't yours and should be
spent educating those you took it from.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Violent Ownership
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 17:47:25 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

James A. Donald wrote:
> > If you are preventing someone from having access to
> > shared property, then you owe him a portion of what
> > you earn to make up for what you have taken away.
> Sounds reasonable:  Cannot argue with that:  The question is how much.
> Well let me see:  Manhattan island was purchased from the Indians for
> some glass beads.  Those indians presumably stole it from other
> indians, but all transfers since then have been peaceful and
> voluntary.

Not the point at all. If "indians" use weapons to keep out
"invaders", then THEY are denying someone access to shared
property.  If you use weapons to keep out "trespassers",
then YOU are denying someone access.  Determining "how much"
is called a real democracy, one with no limits on expression
for ANYONE.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Violent Ownership
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 17:41:24 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Sam Hall wrote:
> >Wrong. It's autocracy that is in retreat everywhere. The
> >places with the highest growth rates are those with the
> >most incentive to work. No slave master taking away what
> >you produce.  No kings taking away what you produce. No
> >presidents or party chairmen taking away what you produce.
> >No company execs or stockholder chairmen taking away
> >what you produce.  Democracy at every level, political
> >and economic, is what creates true incentive.  (And
> >perpetual freedom of expression and debate is what
> >creates the knowledge needed to achieve success.)
> You just defined the free market.

So redefining a "free" market as one without stockholders
eh?  Fine.  Called it whatever the fuck you want.  Are you
ready to implement corporate democracy?  Are you willing to
implement consumer democracy?  You can call it a duck for
all I care as long as you do it.

From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Violent Ownership
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 17:46:30 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Guru George wrote:
> How can violently taking what someone is using, or could use, be seen
> as *wrong* if there is no concept of property?

If you are preventing someone from having access to
shared property, then you owe him a portion of what
you earn to make up for what you have taken away. The
concept of property includes only your thought and your
effort.

> >society found a way to reward producers of not only medicine,
> >but all inventions, without creating inefficiency.
> I don't understand how anybody can talk about 'inefficiency' in
> relation to capitalism at the end of the 20th century.

Trade secrets are inefficient. Copyrights are inefficient.
Giving a cut of a writer's, inventor's, or manufacturer's
production to a share-holder is inefficient.  All across
capitalism, people are forced to reinvent the wheel because
their competition don't want them to get a leg up in the
business.  This is why both fiscal and political
conservatives are afraid to educate the poor to be
anything but underlings.

From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Violent Ownership
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 18:42:59 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Sam Hall wrote:
> >The experiment had a definite conclusion: attempts at "sharing"
> >resources and wealth made everyone equally poor; the draconian
> >government system--needed to try to sustain a social scheme which
> >is directly in conflict with human nature--made slaves of millions.
> If I had read your reply first, I would have not wasted the time to
> answer him. Maybe we should start a fund rasing drive to send all
> these nuts to North Korea.

Wrong. North Korean socialism is about as real as American
democracy. Economic democracy cannot be achieved if you can't
vote politicians out of office.  Political democracy cannot
be achieved if the wealthy are able to buy their way into
office with campaign contributions.  America has succeeded
because a limited democracy has produced a limited socialism:
public education, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Aid
to Families with Dependent Children, anti-trust laws, product
safety laws.  Even patent laws were an attempt to protect
the inventor by regulating the free market.  But patent laws
are inefficient because they prevent society at large from
widely implementing new ideas.  What needs to happen is that
society as a whole should reward the patent holder. Tax.

From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Violent Ownership
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 15:32:02 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Guru George wrote:
> I'm sorry to point out the obvious, but if everyone owns everything,
> then nobody is excluded, therefore the whole point of the concept of
> 'property' is negated, for the point of that concept is to tell us who
> is to control what when.

Quite correct.  It's time we examined the concept of property
itself. Property was invented for 2 reasons. 1) To avoid
further violence after the original conquest... so no
additional lives are lost.  2) To provide incentive to work.
The first, of course, is a bogus reason, because of violence.
The second IS important.  Incentive to work is a very
constructive use for the idea of property.

However, when this concept prevents incentive to work, then it
needs to be replaced.  When a shareholder takes away what you
produce, then that hurts incentive.  When property rights produce
incentive to be inefficient, then it is counterproductive.
This inefficiency is caused by trade secrets, patents, and
copyrights.  There is no incentive to eradicate malaria in
Africa if it will mean less drugs to sell.  It is time
society found a way to reward producers of not only medicine,
but all inventions, without creating inefficiency.

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Violent Ownership
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 18:39:50 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Bill Koehler wrote:
> foundation.  If you object to the amount others make from
> your labor produce it yourself or work for someone else.  But
> if you agree to a price for you labor that take your whining
> elsewhere.

Quite the willful idiot aren't we?  Why is it that I agree
to a given price for my labor?  Because I need to eat.
Why do I not find my own resources?  Because they are
fenced off or under armed guard.  Why can someone else
claim ownership?  Because they paid for stolen land by
using the profit from stolen labor.  All land ownership
is rooted in coercion; and it is this ownership that
enables exploitation to gain more capital.

From: "J. McCarthy" 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: Violent Ownership
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 17:37:32 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

James A. Donald wrote:
> > You can't escape the fact that ownership of any
> > natural resource resulted ultimately from violence,
> > intimidation, and coercion.
> If we waited for unanimous consent, we would still be hunting and
> gathering in the forest.

Exactly. And even unanimous consent at only one point in
history is not enough, it must occur for all of eternity.

> If land is not owned, and somebody puts a plough to it for a few
> years, he surely has a right, from his sweat that has mingled with his
> soil, to get rid of trespassers with a shotgun.

He has a right to what value he added by his own labor.
He does not have a right to prevent someone else from
adding their own labor to produce something. And he
also does not own any of the raw materials that went
into it.  If he has taken someone's right to work and
someone's right to raw materials, then he owes that
person welfare.

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Violent Ownership
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 1997 17:33:07 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Joel wrote:
> >If I buy stolen property from a thief, that is STILL stolen
> >property.  If I hold on to stolen property by hiring goons
> >to protect it, it is STILL stolen property.
> >You can't escape the fact that ownership of any
> >natural resource resulted ultimately from violence,
> >intimidation, and coercion.
> If I purchase "stolen" property am I a thief?  What if I rent "stolen" property?

Perhaps you are if your actions encourage further theft.
What you cannot do is prevent the original owners from
having access to "your" stolen property.  You own nothing
more than the product of your own thought and effort. You
do not own the resources that went into it.  If you have
taken resources from the world at large, then you owe
welfare to the world at large.

From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Violent Ownership
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 18:53:28 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Guru George wrote:
> >> >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?
> >> He might try being productive rather than parasiting off of others
> >And so might the stock-holder and venture capitalist.
> In what way are such people parasites?

As much as a slave's master parasites off his slaves.
Stock-holders and venture capitalists deal in resources
taken by violence, guarded by coercion, and increased
by taking advantage of those who lost their access to
the resources stolen from them.

From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,or.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Violent Ownership [Re: Get me some of that!]
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 17:35:18 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Bill Koehler wrote:
> > And why should it cost anything at all?  Capitalism is why.
> > Think about it, is a country as advanced as we are more
> > able to feed all its citizens, or a country in with almost
> > no technology.  The answer is obvious. And yet, we don't
> > because "it's too damn expensive". Only capitalists deny
> > that the industrial revolution ever happened.
> The last sentence almost gave me a heart attack I laughed so hard.
> Whatever you smoking must be really strong.
> Free bread was tried by the Romans 2000 years ago it was great.
> Till the farmers showed up at the gates of Rome wanting theirs.

Of course, that happens because of the ultimate capitalist
mantra - lack of incentive.  Free bread would not be a
problem if there are other incentives.  How many people do
you think actually work for bread?  I'd wager most are
working for something else, whether it's movie tickets or
ISDN.  Now, as for capitalist incentive, you work as hard
as you can, to produce as much as you can, so your boss or
venture capitalist can make even more money out of what
you produced.  Why can he do this?  Because he claims he
actually owns that title deed, written in the blood and
sweat of everyone who tried to challenge the "property
rights" of the standing army.

From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Violent Ownership
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:09:28 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Guru George wrote:
> >It's only someone else's property because that someone
> >else chased him off with clubs and rocks.
> Well, suppose you're using something, and somebody comes along and
> shoves you aside shouting "I want to use this!"  Would you take kindly
> to it?

NOBODY takes kindly to it. But that is exactly what armies
and governments have been doing for centuries. However, if
by taking something from the land, you are denying someone
else their right to take the same thing, then you owe them
a portion of what you produce.  And THAT is called welfare.

From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Violent Ownership
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 16:00:55 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Cecil H. Cox, Jr. wrote:
> > There is no escape only
> > because employers, masters, and
> > conquerers enforce their claims with threat of violence.
> > But threat of violence is no excuse for denying someone
> > their right to use a piece of land or other resource.
> So did Lenin and Stalin, later so did Mao? Communists are no different.
> Socialism shares misery and suffering.

Land is only conquered if it is taken without unanimous
consent. Your "communists" may have had good intentions
at first, but they failed because without democracy, their
governments lost the consent of the governed and could not
be voted out of office despite stealing from citizens.
American democracy is only a sham of consent by the
governed, because the wealthy have corrupted the electoral
and legislative process itself with campaign contributions
and lobby groups.
-------
Freedom of speech for the poor, freedom to be heard for the rich.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Violent Ownership
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:52:18 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Giovanni 8 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.
> Only if he tried it on someone else's property.

It's only someone else's property because that someone
else chased him off with clubs and rocks.

From: "H. Mencken" 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: Violent Ownership
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:47:24 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Phil Eischens wrote:
> > 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?
> Without going quite as far as calling you "elitist," I submit that this is
> a fair description of life for the vast majority of the working population
> in the world.  (substituting, of course, the word "employer" for the
> emotionally charged words of "master" and "conquerer."
> This is REALITY.  There is no escape from this basic fact of economic life
> short of another Manna Monsoon from ON HIGH.

There is no escape only because employers, masters, and
conquerers enforce their claims with threat of violence.
But threat of violence is no excuse for denying someone
their right to use a piece of land or other resource.

From: "H. Mencken" 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: Violent Ownership
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 17:42:40 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

JMH 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?
> Unless one is able to live in autarky you will be dependant
> on others, and so their slave by your reconing.

He is dependant on others only because others have taken
natural resources by violence, and denied others access
to those resources while they built their own fortunes.

21.2.97 Sure everyone was equal.
23.2.97 10:57 Beg the management, advise the management.
23.2.97 11:31 Duplication of effort.
24.2.97 As natural as feudalism.
28.2.97 17:39 Advance into space.
28.2.97 17:45 Lo and behold.
28.2.97 17:57 Middle-class trivia.
4.3.97 A capitalist's welfare.
5.3.97 Brilliant management.
7.3.97 17:54 Just before everyone starved.
7.3.97 18:05 Population, deforestation, and deserts.
9.3.97 Internal combustion engine.
11.3.97 16:55 Trust & collusion.
11.3.97 17:09 Mine! All Mine!
14.3.97 21:44 The invention of the plow.
14.3.97 22:08 A waste of resources.
15.3.97 I spend 5 years in research.

From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,aus.politics,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Socialist versus Capitalist
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 15:56:51 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

David Nadle wrote:
> > It is the desire to want it all for yourself that drives
> > companies to hide their ideas, hide their inventions, and
> > "hide" their best employees. This capitalist jealousy is
> > what creates inefficiency.  However, capitalism isn't just
> BS.  Companies *sell* their ideas and inventions, and *reward* their
> best employees in hopes of keeping them.

And then hire armed security guards to keep their secrets
from getting out, and legions of patent laywers to waste
their time spending hours and hours looking through obscure
documents.  Does this not strike you as inefficient at all?
Why is there so much malaria and AIDS in Africa?  Because
of patent laws.  Why bother saving lives if we can't profit?
The entire system of using private funding to reward
innovation is stupid.  It gets you hair for rich bald men
instead of food for the hungry.

From: "Z. Beeblebrox" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,aus.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.society.labor-unions
Subject: Re: Socialist versus Capitalist
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 17:59:01 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Peter Wiley wrote:
> There are lots of interlinked ecosystems out there, of varying
> productivity. I'm not going to bother arguing this one with someone
> as ignorant as yourself, but I suggest you go read a few books on
> aquatic ecosystems before running your mouth. You might actually
> learn something.
> I spent 5 years in fisheries research.

Ooo, big talk.  Some medicine man in ancient South Dakota
also spent 5 years in agricultural research.  Decided it was
impossible and declared the buffalo herds are all we can do
with the Great Plains.  So he and his people hunted the plains
like we hunt the oceans now.  And when herds dwindled, they
had a few wars.  It's precisely the lack of knowledge that
keeps our oceans as unproductive as ancient America.  The
cause of this is because the wealthy are too busy ballooning
around the world, instead of educating the public.  Why not
educate the public?  Too many smart people means too much
competition.  God forbid.

From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,aus.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Socialist versus Capitalist
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 22:08:58 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

David Nadle wrote:
>>   Only capitalists want "profit" in everything. The
>>   point is that fiscal conservatives only value education
>>   for their own kids, not kids of the poor, because in a
>>   society based on competition, an educated poor will
>>   probably put you out of business.  So it "profits" the
>>   rich to keep poor just smart enough to work FOR them,
>>   but not smart enough to actually go out and use our
>>   resources BETTER THAN ANYONE currently can.  THAT is
>>   the fundamental flaw of capitalism that holds back
>>   progress.
> The point is that growing something on the ocean when the same thing can
> be obtained on land for much less cost is a waste of resources.  That
> fact is true even under 100% communism.

It would only be a waste of resources to those who weren't
dying of hunger.

> Stop telling me what "refusal to educate the poor" is going to do, and
> start telling me exactly what actions are lacking.  Mere repetition
> won't cut it.

Here they are: put an end to trade secrets, patents, and
copyright laws.  Mass dissemination of information and
technology.  If that measles drug (or corn or CD-ROM)
only cost you $.04 per unit to produce (after production
and personnel costs), then SELL it for $.04 and fuck
the shareholders.  There are people dying out there
because of capitalist greed.  It's time we put an end to
all peer competition.  All of society benefits (or SHOULD
benefit) from a new invention or new medicine.  Society
is what should pay the debt, and then make that free to
whomever that needs it.  Not just because we need to stop
robbing them of raw materials in return for a fraction
of that in "finished goods", but also because it will lead
to a more productive "Third World" that will be able to
produce new knowledge of its own.

From: "J. Hancock" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,aus.politics,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Socialist versus Capitalist
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 21:44:03 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

David Nadle wrote:
>>   The point is that there is an entire ecosystem out there,
>>   able to produce enough food for thousands of species. And
>>   here, idiot capitalists worry about the rising world
>>   population, worry about deforestation, worry about the
>>   growing size of deserts.  And they damn well better be
>>   worried, because it is their hoarding of information and
>>   refusal to educate the poor that dooms this planet to
>>   famine, jealousy, hatred, and warfare.
>  Can you back up your claim with some real-world facts and examples, or
> are you just hot air?

Ok, here we go.  Before the invention of the plow, people
had to fight over what little fertile soil for farm land.
After the plow, people could suddenly stop fighting and
still grow food.  In many mountainous regions of the world,
farmers have learned to grow food in tiers on hillsides.
We don't have to do that in this country because we're not
that desperate.

So it leads me to ask, what else is there that we could
be doing, but DON'T do because our own acquaintances 
aren't starving?  Well, the oceans support a vast amount 
of plant and animal life.  Why don't WE take advantage
of that and plow it (so to speak) for our own agriculture?
Simple, WE don't need it.  And yet WE fear this
planet is doomed to dwindling resources.  It is only
doomed to dwindling resources if we don't TEACH our poor,
so that they can use our knowledge to research new resources
and more efficient methods.  The difference between
capitalism and communism is the difference between trade
secrets and freedom of information.

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,aus.politics,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.reform,alt.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Socialist versus Capitalist
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 17:09:38 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

David Nadle wrote:
> > Capitalist employees work together with the ultimate goal
> > of destroying all competition... at which point, the company
> > itself will break up into divisions, each competing against
> > other divisions until only one is left... and so on.
> > Total idiocy.
> Capitalism does not create competition.  Consumerism does.  Consumers
> create the demand for the product, and capitalists compete to best
> satisfy these demands.

I'll tell you what really creates competition: selfishness.
It is the desire to want it all for yourself that drives
companies to hide their ideas, hide their inventions, and
"hide" their best employees. This capitalist jealousy is
what creates inefficiency.  However, capitalism isn't just
one producer competing with another producer.  Capitalism
is also all the producers competing against consumers. This
is what leads to oligopolies and corporate mergers. What
happens is that consumers want lower prices, which hurts
the producer's ability to fund more product research. This
inefficiency can be solved by consumer-ownership and a
real democracy free from marketing and deliberately obscure
legalese.

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,aus.politics,alt.society.labor-unions,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Socialist versus Capitalist
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 16:55:20 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Aaron Bilger wrote:
> >Capitalist employees work together with the ultimate goal
> >of destroying all competition... at which point, the company
> >itself will break up into divisions, each competing against
> >other divisions until only one is left... and so on.
> You are implying that competing against other companies is bad..
> So when companies don't compete, forming a trust or some other
> kind of collusion, do you think that's good?

Why DO companies merge and share information?  Why DO
countries form alliances like NATO, Warsaw, or the EU?
Because a few smart managers figured out the secret to
cooperation.  HOWEVER, what these "smart" managers can't
seem to figure out is by including even MORE people
within their "trust" (ie. all of humanity), they can
produce even MORE knowledge.  The reason more are not
included is because some refuse to cooperate - and these
are the idiot capitalists who were brought up with only
one ultimate lesson in mind: compete or die.

From: Feline feline@cableinet.co.uk
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,aus.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.socialism.trotsky,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Socialist versus Capitalist
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 1997 18:24:59 +0000
Organization: Cable Internet

David Nadle wrote:
> The point is that growing something on the ocean when the same thing can
> be obtained on land for much less cost is a waste of resources.  That
> fact is true even under 100% communism.  The point is that some things
> are just not done, because the same results can be obtained in an easier
> way.  For instance, you can cook eggs with a nuclear reactor, but it'll
> be a waste of resources if Con Ed builds it, or if the People's
> Liberation Army builds it.  The profit motive is an incentive NOT to
> waste resources.

The profit motive is by definition nothing more than the desire to make
profits. If this can be achieved inefficiently with minimum capital
outlay then that is precisely what will happen. In other words the
profit motive CAN actually encourage inefficiencies in the utilisation
of resources and production procedures.

Consider for example the motor car and the internal combustion engine
which swallows vast quantities of non renewable resources at great
environmental cost when viable alternatives have existed for decades.
The research and developement of alternatives (eg methane, alcohol,
electricity etc. or improvements such as rotary engines) has been
hindered by the vested interests of the oil and vehicle production
industries.

Efficiency is in no way the sole preserve of capitalist production it is
only viable to the extent that it is profitable. Production in a
democratically accountable socialist system for instance would be more
likely to result in efficient systems because a more holistic viewpoint
would have to be taken. In other words profit is not the sole
consideration and the entire production procedure would have to account
for external considerations.

Yours
Feline

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,aus.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Socialist versus Capitalist
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 18:05:44 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

David Nadle wrote:
> > And in fact there are several projects in existence -- some of them
> > strictly for profit and NOT tax subsidized -- which apply agricultural
> > techniques to ocean resources.
> Can you be more specific?  What are we talking about here?  Fish
> farming?  Seaweed?

Who cares WHAT it is?  You think seaweed is disgusting because
you've never had it before?  Typical conservative.  How many
people ate corn before they came to this "New World"?  I bet
you didn't know that lobster was at one point considered food
fit only for slaves.

The point is that there is an entire ecosystem out there,
able to produce enough food for thousands of species. And
here, idiot capitalists worry about the rising world
population, worry about deforestation, worry about the
growing size of deserts.  And they damn well better be
worried, because it is their hoarding of information and
refusal to educate the poor that dooms this planet to
famine, jealousy, hatred, and warfare.

From: "J. McCarthy" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,aus.politics,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.socialism.trotsky,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Socialist versus Capitalist
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 1997 17:54:34 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

David Nadle wrote:
> > and suddenly a lot more people could live there.  So look at
> > our oceans. What do we do to it?  We hunt it, for fish, for
> > shrimp.  Do we grow anything on it?  No, because stupid fiscal
> > conservatives refuse to educate the poor.
> Is it possible that we don't "grow" anything on the oceans because it is
> much more profitable to grow things on land, and that anything "grown"
> on the ocean would be prohibitively expensive compared to the same thing
> grown on land?

Is it possible that ancient Americans also thought it was
"prohibitively expensive" to grow anything on the Great
Plains? So they opted for warfare when buffalo herds
became scarse?  If the world were filled with narrow-
minded capitalists like you, we'd still be back in the
stone ages, hunting and gathering, engaging in clan
warfare just before everyone starved.

> I disagree with your statement that "fiscal conservatives refuse to
> educate the poor," but even if things were different, would that somehow
> make your plan for the oceans a profitable alternative?

Only capitalists want "profit" in everything. The
point is that fiscal conservatives only value education
for their own kids, not kids of the poor, because in a
society based on competition, an educated poor will
probably put you out of business.  So it "profits" the
rich to keep poor just smart enough to work FOR them,
but not smart enough to actually go out and use our
resources BETTER THAN ANYONE currently can.  THAT is
the fundamental flaw of capitalism that holds back
progress.

From: "James Tiberious Kirk" chadm@ee.ogi.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,aus.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Socialist versus Capitalist
Date: 5 Mar 1997 01:14:37 GMT
Organization: Transport Logic

A employee who believes he works for managers and capitalists who are much
smarter than he is probably right.  But unfortunately, probably not because
of brillance on the part of his management. 

Henry Blaskowski jhblask@bigpapa.nothinbut.net wrote in article 5fh98h$md0$3@news3.microserve.net...
> John Bicketts (sfeikema@mach3ww.com) wrote:
> > H.Blask: The idea is to replace the billionaires completely! Instead
> > of having the billionaire run the factory (and skim off the fruits
> > of everyone's work), the employees would run it and keep all they
> > earned. Presumably they would take his factory over.
> >  A socialist society would have no need for billionaires! That is the
> > whole point! Pardon my saying so, but DUH!
> I'll try to get an answer again from a socialist:
>   1) If I start a business, and don't want "the collective" to vote on how
> to run it, do I have to let them?
>   2) If I trust the management of others better than myself, and
> want to use their expertise to work for a highly profitable company,
> am I allowed to?
> In real life, I want option 2 -- I am happy to work for billionaires,
> because it shows they know how to create wealth, and I want to
> work where the money is.
> hblask

From: "H.C. Anderson" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,aus.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Socialist versus Capitalist
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 16:26:12 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Michael Simons wrote:
> >Capitalism is as natural as feudalism. Might makes right.
> >What isn't natural, is democracy and communism.
> >enough to believe that by working together, human
> >civilization might actually be able to make a better life
> >for all its members.
> How is "capitalism" inconsistant with working together.

Capitalist employees work together with the ultimate goal
of destroying all competition... at which point, the company
itself will break up into divisions, each competing against
other divisions until only one is left... and so on.
Total idiocy.

> it really necessary? Similarly with leave loading, Australia must be
> one of the few countries stupid enough to pay its workers more not to
> work than it does to work.

And that I would claim is a capitalist's welfare. You
want everyone NOT in your company to be lazy, to be
unproductive, to be uneducated, because that would just
mean less competition for yourself.  If you actually
spend more on education, help set them up so that they
can produce more and better technology, then they would
drive you out of business... at least in capitalism
they will.

From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,aus.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: Socialist versus Capitalist
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:57:09 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Mike Wooding wrote:
> > Russian "socialism" failed because of a lack of democracy.
> > If you can't vote your politicians out of office, then
> > they will do as they please. They will vote themselves
> > bigger salaries and write checks from the national bank,
> > all the while calling themselves "communists". Sure,
> > everyone was economically equal, but only if they didn't
> > have any power.
>  USSR should have been a resounding success at socialism.
>  They held regular and frequent elections and had a turn
>  out close to 100%.

Sure, as if they had a choice. How many candidates could
you vote for?  Who picked the candidates and who controls
the press?  As opposed to America, where there are in
effect only 2 candidates, because voting for anyone other
than those 2 is equivalent to throwing away your vote,
and thus no one is willing to even try.  And the only
people who control the press are the ones who can buy the
most commercial airtime.  So they spend lots and lots of
money differentiating between Democrats and Republicans,
abortion or no abortion, flag burning or no flag burning,
porno or no porno.  All the most useless middle-class
trivia that only people with too much time on their hands
actually get themselves worked up enough to care about.

From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,aus.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.socialism.trotsky,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Socialist versus Capitalist
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:45:01 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Michael Simons wrote:
> In other words what you are saying is there is not enough resources
> for everyone to have the lifestyle we have. Another way of putting it
> is there is too many people for resources.

What it is, is too many UNEDUCATED people. The American Indians
once thought their resources were limited too, so they fought
constant wars with each other over control of buffalo hunting
grounds.  Then lo and behold, people farmed the Great Plains
and suddenly a lot more people could live there.  So look at
our oceans. What do we do to it?  We hunt it, for fish, for
shrimp.  Do we grow anything on it?  No, because stupid fiscal
conservatives refuse to educate the poor.

From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,aus.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.socialism.trotsky,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Socialist versus Capitalist
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 17:39:04 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

feen@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> Actually no - i am quite enthused by the prospect (i am quite the sci
> fi fan) and if the world continues on its present course that may be
> the only thisng that may save this current system (for better or for
> worse).
> But the problem is environmentally i feel a certain sense of urgency
> and feel that any such advance into space may be too little too late

What it takes to colonize space is knowledge. What produces
knowledge is applied education - even if it's just a million
monkeys on a million typewriters.  The reason education is
not the focus of this or any other capitalist country is
simple: capitalists fear competition, anyone smarter than
themselves. So they only want education for their own kids,
and only give lip service to anyone else's education.

> The only way we will help the third world is by lowering our own
> standard of living. A standard of living  which is only made possible
> by the deprivation of the third world.

What we do is deny them knowledge. We keep all our safely
guarded "trade secrets" because the last thing we want is
for them to industrialize and actually produce some educated
citizens. They might even drive our own businesses bankrupt.
In a world bent on capitalism, everyone fights only for
themselves.  If you are unemployed, capitalists see no reason
to give you enough knowledge to compete with them. Totally
counter-evolutionary.

From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,aus.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Socialist versus Capitalist
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1997 23:07:52 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Michael Simons wrote:
> >Since socialism hasn't been tried yet, I can't cite any examples
> >of it, no matter how you want it qualified.  And I don't see
> >any relevance in what people "started with".
> Ahh, that old chest nut "socialism hasn't been tried yet". You could
> just as easily say true capitalism hasn't been tried yet either.

Capitalism is as natural as feudalism. Might makes right.
What isn't natural, is democracy and communism.  But some
try to achieve those two ideals because they are tired of
fighting, because they believe that destruction is less
productive than building, because they are optimistic
enough to believe that by working together, human
civilization might actually be able to make a better life
for all its members.

From: Mike Lepore notmyaddress@zxzxz.net
Newsgroups: aus.politics,alt.socialism.trotsky,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Socialist versus Capitalist
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 11:31:53 -0500
Organization: The characters in the From field are not my address

>  Yes, the earth (well, more properly the solar system) can
>  be considered to have a finite set of finite resources.
>  This however, does not place any serious limit on how those
>  resources may be combined ... excepting the local entropy
>  which limits one's ability to "re-arrange" that set of

Recognizing the earth's recources as finite is all the more
reason to want socialism.  Capitalism must waste energy and
materials on such socially useless activities as a huge
advertising "industry" whose only purpose is to convince
people to switch brands back and forth and to want things
that they would otherwise not want.  The duplication of
effort in research and development caused by treating 
humanity's scientific discoveries as "trade secrets" is an
enormous source of waste.  All the paperwork-generating
activity in corporations related to guessing what the
competitors will probably do, and what the random noise of
market fluctuations will probably do, is a great undertaking
that amounts to nothing but waste.  Even if socialism
didn't provide the benefit of eliminating the payment of
dividends to support an idle ruling class, just the elimination
of the waste inherent in capitalism would be enough to say
that socialism will greately increase our standard of living
which eliminaitng many hours from the workweek.

Mike Lepore  mlepore@juno.com

From: Mike Lepore notmyaddress@zxzxz.net
Newsgroups: aus.politics,alt.socialism.trotsky,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Socialist versus Capitalist
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1997 10:57:55 -0500
Organization: The characters in the From field are not my address

> > As has been said many a time.
> > ****The USSR was _not_ socialism****
> > It was pretty much nothing more than state capitalism run by a junta
> > of elitist (facist?) bureacrats.
>  Does it become true after "saying" it N times for some value of N?

No - what makes it true is the fact that the workers in the
USSR were related to the economic system as wage-earners
without management power.  Socialism means that the workers'
assemblies would not merely beg the management, advise the
management, etc.; the workers' assemblies would _BE_ the
management.  The USSR never had socialism.  Never even tried
to implement it.

Mike Lepore  mlepore@juno.com

From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,aus.politics,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.socialism.trotsky,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Socialist versus Capitalist
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 17:23:57 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Kym Horsell wrote:
> 15 Feb 1997 Geneva. A new international health survey has
> found Australia has one of the highest life expectancy rates
> in the world. The WHO says the average Aussie woman can expect
> to live more than 80 years, while the avergae man will reach the
> ripe old age of 74. In Russia, the average man is now
> expected to live only 57.4 years -- down from nearly
> 64 years before Mikhail Gorbachev stepped down and Boris
> Yeltsin started Russia's painful transition to capitalism.

Russian "socialism" failed because of a lack of democracy.
If you can't vote your politicians out of office, then
they will do as they please. They will vote themselves
bigger salaries and write checks from the national bank,
all the while calling themselves "communists". Sure,
everyone was economically equal, but only if they didn't
have any power.

As opposed to the American system, where marketing
keeps idiots in office, lobbying and political
contributions sway their decisions, so they vote corporate
contractors bigger salaries and are free to bounce checks
at will, all the while calling themselves a "democracy".
Sure, everyone was politically equal, but only if they
didn't have any money.

19.2.97 Such obvious censorship.
25.2.97 A dollar spent attacking democracy.
27.2.97 The Domino Effect.
28.2.97 15:16 That one great religion.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.impeach.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.government.abuse,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.correct,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.radio.talk,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.clinton,alt.society.conservatism,alt.society.eternal-vigilance
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Subject: Re: Will "reform" end free speech?
Organization: Netcom
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 05:39:13 GMT

In article 331b5e91.24358325@204.177.236.3, John Aquino snafu@kremlin.martyr.com wrote:
>Well, it's unfortunate that the strong conquer and the weak become
>extinct, but that's just the way it is.  We came and took this land
>because we were stronger than those who had it before us and because
>we needed it.

        So if you get mugged, you won't complain about it? After all, 
that mugger was stronger than you in a certain way.
-- 
Loren Petrich                           Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com                      And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html

From: "J. Calvin" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.impeach.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.government.abuse,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.correct,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.radio.talk,alt.society.civil-liberties,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.clinton,alt.society.conservatism,alt.society.eternal-vigilance
Subject: Re: Will "reform" end free speech?
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 15:16:05 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

John Aquino wrote:
> )> when a person or company has the ability to give $100,000 or more and
> )> someone else can't even give $10. Which person has more of a right to
> )> free speach? I do not claim to have the answer, but it is truely a
> )> problem.
> )A problem for sure. The fact is that each dollar a rich man
> )spends on swaying opinions that a poor man can't, is a dollar
> )spent attacking democracy.
> )Freedom of speech for the poor, freedom to be heard for the rich.
> Saying the poor are censored is lunacy.  They can say whatever they
> want - they just don't have the means to say it to as wide an audience
> as someone else.

And here is why they don't have the "means":
1. Someone with more weapons conquered a piece of land.
2. Someone with more weapons continue to drive "invaders" off
   that land.
3. Because "trespassers" have no right to take anything from
   that land, the "owners" of that land now require a kickback
   from anyone that wants to produce something from "their"
   resources.
That is where all inequality starts: violence. And the rich
perpetuate their domination with excuses like yours... they
too have been fooled by that one great religion - Capitalism.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.impeach.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.government.abuse,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.correct,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.radio.talk,alt.society.civil-liberties,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.clinton,alt.society.conservatism,alt.society.eternal-vigilance
Subject: Re: Will "reform" end free speech?
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 17:25:26 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Tony Grundon wrote:
> > A problem for sure. The fact is that each dollar a rich man
> > spends on swaying opinions that a poor man can't, is a dollar
> > spent attacking democracy.
> Politicians love talking about democracy - it's what gives them their power.
> They rarely mention individual rights - it's what limits their power.
> The world has seen an explosion of democracy. But it has not seen an
> explosion of freedom (see China especially). In many countries the people
> have successfully voted themselves into socialism.

Democracy is quite like communism, no? The Domino Effect and all?
Democracy makes sense as much as communism makes sense, give
everyone an equal shot at political and economic power.

> IN EVERY DEMOCRACY there is some group that wants to vote away the rights
> of the other. In America we have the environmentalists who want to remove
> the rights of the farmers to their land, multiculturists who want to use
> affirmative action to limit their employers rights, feminists, gay
> activists, and other liberal pressure groups.

Quite right. Only a government that rules by unanimous vote is
perfect. Of course, unanimous democracy is impractical if
people are ignorant or have different sets of values.

> Now is a time to rediscover your rights:
> You have a right to your earnings.
> You have a right to your property.

You have a right to your property, ONLY if that property did not
result from theft. If you march in with a gang of bandits or a
squadron of tanks, then that property is not yours. If you fence
off property with barbed wire or a moat without unanimous consent,
then that property is not yours.  If you take from your employee
a cut of what he earns, because he has no access to natural
resources that you have stolen, then what he earns is not yours.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.impeach.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.government.abuse,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.correct,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.radio.talk,alt.society.civil-liberties,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.clinton,alt.society.conservatism,alt.society.eternal-vigilance
Subject: Re: Will "reform" end free speech?
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 18:09:43 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

ShelbyW.Stark@w wrote:
> This is hardly an appropriate comparison... asshole! We have a problem
> when a person or company has the ability to give $100,000 or more and
> someone else can't even give $10. Which person has more of a right to
> free speach? I do not claim to have the answer, but it is truely a
> problem.

A problem for sure. The fact is that each dollar a rich man
spends on swaying opinions that a poor man can't, is a dollar
spent attacking democracy.
-------
Freedom of speech for the poor, freedom to be heard for the rich.

From: "M. Luther"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.g-gordon-liddy,alt.politics.socialism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.impeach.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.government.abuse,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.politics.correct,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.radio.talk,alt.society.civil-liberties,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.clinton,alt.society.conservatism,alt.society.eternal-vigilance
Subject: Re: Will "reform" end free speech?
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 21:16:20 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

> In article Pine.SOL.3.91.970217180405.17775A-100000@general4.asu.edu, Tony Grundon achileus@imap2.asu.edu said:
> > Just the fact that it was suggested is too much for me.  Has
> > anyone questioned why the Congressman in question would propose
> > such obvious censorship?

Because to deny the poor a chance to be heard, simply on the
basis of ability to pay, amounts to censorship.
------
Freedom of speech for the poor, freedom to be heard for the rich.

18.2.97 17:41 Government disconnect.
18.2.97 18:09 Freedom of speech for the poor.

From: "M. Luther" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.politics.socialism,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.current-events.usa,alt.conspiracy,alt.president.clinton,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa,alt.education.alternative,alt.philsophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: School vouchers = income redistribution
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 16:27:14 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Best Sellers wrote:
> >You say the people (government) are too powerful?  Then WHO do you
> >advocate giving that power over to?
> It's obvious that you have bought into the "We, the people"
> position on governmnet.  If you truly believe that, there is
> nothing I can say that would convince you that the
> government does NOT have your interests at heart, but those
> of the elite.

Quite right. But the solution isn't to take power out of the
federal government and put it in the hands of local government,
because it would *still* be dominated by the elite, including
privatized schools.  The SOLUTION is to actually achieve real
democracy in this country, by outlawing lobbies, campaign
contributions, and even campaign commercials UNLESS every
citizen is also able to speak her mind on the same station,
for just as long and just as often.

From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.current-events.usa,alt.conspiracy,alt.president.clinton,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa,alt.education.alternative,alt.philsophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: School vouchers = income redistribution
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 18:09:34 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Stilt Man wrote:
> In short, the Constitution was not written to assume the honor of politicians.
> Politicians are nothing if not professional cowards and thieves.  Always have
> been.  Always will be.  The Constitution was written with this grim fact
> in mind, and attempts to assure that no one particular collection of thieves
> can get all they want, and that their efforts to outmaneuver each other can
> do nothing but serve the people.

Of course, what the writers of the Constitution didn't forsee was
the creation of mass media. They thought that as long as one person
was able to speak his own mind, that would be enough. What they
couldn't know was that today, one voice will never be heard. It
will be drowned out by millions of dollars spent on TV, print,
and radio.  Freedom of speech for the poor, freedom to be heard
for the rich.

From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.libertarian,alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.activism,alt.politics.elections,alt.society.conservatism,alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.reform,talk.politics,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.democrats.d,soc.women,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.current-events.usa,alt.conspiracy,alt.president.clinton,alt.society.liberalism,soc.culture.usa,alt.education.alternative,alt.philsophy.objectivism
Subject: Re: School vouchers = income redistribution
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 17:41:10 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Alan Bomberger wrote:
> > "The government" is the people.  When worded that way your message sounds
> > really silly.  You want to take control away from "the people" and give it
> > to... ?
> Give us all a break.  The disconnect between "the people" and the
> government is almost total.  The people do vote but what percentage
> of these votes are informed votes?

The disconnect is caused by marketing funded by those who
have the money.  Politicians don't do what the people want
because they're busy doing what their biggest contributors
want.

18.2.97 19:10 Create inefficiency.
18.2.97 19:19 Maximize profits.
25.2.97 15:45 Competitive violence.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.republican,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: QUESTION: If Economic Growth does not Raise Wages then WHAT GOOD IS IT?
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 15:56:59 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Jim Glass wrote:
> >That's because revenue goes to middle management who just
> >sits around all day, shooting the shit with other middle
> >management. The problem with capitalism is that it has to
> >create inefficiency on purpose in order to avoid putting
> >people out of work and into poverty.
> You know, you're right.  In Soviet Russia, they HAD no
> bureaucratic paperwork, no useless managers, no "retired
> in place" drones, only highly productive comrades joined
> in the great work of creating the Worker's Paradise. They
> were so "efficient" (in contrast to capitalism) that they beat us
> to the Moon

The Soviets were the first ones in space, and people of
many nations continue going back into space. Americans had
to beat the Soviets at something, so they went to the Moon.
But how many nations continue going back to the Moon?

Anyway, the point is that economic dictators fear efficiency
because that will lead to an educated lower class that just
might challenge them economically. Political dictators fear
efficiency because that will lead to educated citizens that
just might challenge them politically.  It happens in both
countries that pretend to be communist and countries that
pretend to be democratic.

From: "H. Mencken" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.democrats.d,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Re: QUESTION: If Economic Growth does not Raise Wages then WHAT GOOD IS IT?
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 15:45:51 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

JMH wrote:
> > The problem with an economy that attempts only to maximize profits
> > instead of supporting its people is that it will maximize profits
> In the capitalists' economy each person attempts to maximize his
> profits but the economic system functions in a way that these
> profits are *minimized*.

In the capitalists' economy, you make use of stolen resources
to produce your own wealth. You deny other people use of your
resources unless they are willing to give you a cut of
everything they produce. Property results from violence and
coercion, and a society based on competition only fuels
violence by promoting hatred, jealousy, and fear.

From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.society.labor-unions,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: QUESTION: If Economic Growth does not Raise Wages then WHAT GOOD IS IT?
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:19:47 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> > This is all true enough if you don't have a third world nation to export
> > jobs to.  But a funny thing, in my neck of the woods in suburban Atlanta,
> > jobs go begging to the extreme.  Help wanted signs everywhere.  But if you
> > inquire as to what these jobs pay it's barley above minimum wage.  If you
> > suggest that offering a better wage might fill the jobs your meet with
> > contempt for even suggesting such a thing.
> Ok, it's not too difficult.  The value of that job to the employer
> is just above minimum wage.  If they payed more, they would actually
> lose money by hiring that person, which is not a feasible way to
> run a business.  Therefore, the job just doesn't get done.

The problem with an economy that attempts only to maximize profits
instead of supporting its people is that it will maximize profits
by replacing people, either with cheap labor elsewhere, or robot
arms at home.  The result is that either the unemployed will
resort to crime when they get too hungry, or you have to support
them with handouts.  But capitalists have to be careful not to
give them too many handouts, or they might actually find the time
to produce a better product and thus force the capitalist into
unemployment.

From: "T. Hobbes" cyu@geocities.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.radical-left,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.republican,alt.politics.socialism
Subject: Re: QUESTION: If Economic Growth does not Raise Wages then WHAT GOOD IS IT?
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:10:07 -0800
Organization: Chruch of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Aisa Rosenbaum wrote:
> Profits in American firms average less than 2%.  Savings in labor or
> any other input are nearly entirely transferred to the consumer
> through lower prices, making consumers (some of whom "labor" in
> other industries) wealthier.

That's because revenue goes to middle management who just
sits around all day, shooting the shit with other middle
management. The problem with capitalism is that it has to
create inefficiency on purpose in order to avoid putting
people out of work and into poverty.  Why do you think so
much of both business and government is bureaucratic
paperwork?

6.2.97 Complaining about injustice.
10.2.97 22:56 Proof by example.

From: "J. Hancock"
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: Speak "Standard English" or lose.
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 23:04:15 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

jim blair wrote:
> And (to belabor the obvious) what the sucessful in the USA DO have in
> common is that they all speak English. And anyone can learn to do that.
> Without "giving up" any other language they may speak.

Anybody CAN learn, but the point is that you can either try to
teach all left-handers to use their right hands, and give them
F's and D's if they don't, and refuse to hire them if they don't,
or you could teach right handers to accept that left-handers
have as much a "right" to be left-handed as they have to be
right-handed.  We're are NOT talking about a completely foreign
language here.  We're talking about what's labeled as "slang"
and "bad grammar" that anybody can understand, but yet, we call
it wrong simply because we can.

From: "J. Hancock"
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: Speak "Standard English" or lose.
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 22:56:25 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

Gene Royer wrote:
> >Be white or lose.
> >Believe in Jesus or lose.
> >Be a Protestant or lose.
> >Be male or lose.
> >Refrain from homosexuality or lose.
> >Use your right hand or lose.
> >Wear red shoelaces or lose.
> Congressman J.C. Watts and Justice Clarence Thomas are not white.
> Neither is Henry Cisneros nor Judge Ito of the O.J. Trial.  And last
> time I looked, neither was Opra.

You point seems to be that your examples prove that racism,
sexism, religious intolerance, and homophobia have absolutely
nothing to do with anybody's chances for success anywhere in
this country.  I think you better stop relying on Rush for
your news.

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: Speak "Standard English" or lose.
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 09:01:21 -0800
Organization: Church of Scientology, Intimidation, and Vast Profits, Inc.

jim blair wrote:
>>  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?
> You can complain all day about how the unjust it is that those who can
> and do speak English get better jobs and make more money than those who
> don't. (True in not just the US but all over the world!) But that won't
> change things.

You can complain all day about how unjust it is that those who
are male and white get better jobs and make more money than those
who aren't.  You can complain all day about how unjust it is
that you damn Jews and homos are beat up and shot.  It just
proves we should convert all Jews to Christianity and Catholics
to Protestants.