Latest News

Mark Fergerson wrote:
R. Steve Walz wrote:

Yes, of course anyone can lie.

And, you sidestepped my question. What concerns me here
is not your lying to me, but to yourself.
--------------------------
And that's just your disingenuous posture.


Pretending Rather is not credible because of a misstep he admitted
is disingenuous.

No, stating that he's not credible because he presented
faked documents he _wanted_ to believe to be true, and
wanted to convince his audience were true _in the face of
counterevidence he suppressed_, is reasonable.
------------------------
He told the Truth, he just didn't have proof of it. It's forgivable.


He selectively presented information that supported his
beliefs, and did not present information that contradicted
them, and in fact said that any such information was "not
credible" without stating his criteria for credibility. He
also went out of his way to suppress information on the
source of the faked documents.
---------------------------
Nonsense, he was misled to believe the Truth. It was still True.


After he was exposed he claimed to have "misstepped", yet
did not remedy his failure to report the contradictory
information, nor did he make any effort to report on the
motives of the source of the faked documents. He lied to his
audience and justified it by lying to himself.
----------------------------------
He isn't obligated to tell your falsehoods for you just because
he couldn't prove the Truth.


Any credibility I *DO* have is based on *WHAT* I say,

But if you're lying...

You missed the point. Content determines credibility, not source.

There's the rub. Much of what you claim cannot be
second-sourced.
---------------------------------
Nothing I say needs any proof at all, it's all structural argument
that is based only on the common human experience.

In fact I personally refuse to believe or even hold anything to be
important that cannot be argued solely from structure without any
assertion of spurious factoids.

Anything that is merely evidenciary can always be disingenuously
contradicted by anyone Evil enough to wish to do so, and any kind
of evidence can be undermined by enough repetitious deceit unless
offered in a majority-respected peer-reviewed setting where Evil
is simply denied a voice.

The only cure for Evil is to stifle or kill it.


Examine what is said and why, not who says what.

Great. Provide cites to support your opinions in future.
---------------------------------
Disingenous. As I have said, that is disreputable and invalid.


Nobody believes anyone else unless they agree with them.

Only if they can't distinguish between "truth" and "fact".

No, what I said applies to everyone. People agree NOT based on
whether something is true, but whether they share the same belief.

This contradicts what you said above. Agreement about
"truths" is based on a common belief system which does not
take note of, or deliberately rejects, objectively
verifiable evidence.
------------------------------------
There is no such thing outside a Majority-Respected Peer-Reviewed
milieu, because all falsehood can be misportrayed and all Truth
can be mischaracterized by you who seek to do Evil.

Our True statements are always dishonestly characterized by you
Evil-doers as being mutually contradictory using deceit.
The only cure for this is to torture or kill your kind.


This is the difference between religion and science. In
the latter, agreement comes from the presentation and
examination of _all_ evidence for a given POV, both
supportive and contradictory.
-------------------------------
Any Peer-Review forum that permits your intentionally creative
mischaracterizations violates all principles of Science and Truth.
Any such forum that permits the dogshit you pretend is a POV is
doomed. At some point it must be admitted that no codification
can ever prevent the infinitely creative nature of Evil, and that
such Evil must simply be strangled to death by the Majority Will.

At some point your deceit, lies, and cheekiness should simply be
frightened back into hiding like a child who is intentionally
disruptive and should not be coddled under pretense of reasoning
with your sort.


Rather is comparable to a Baptist tent preacher pounding
his Bible on a lectern, ignoring or shouting down doubters,
then turning his flock against them with pitchforks and
torches lest his lies be exposed.
-----------------------------------
Rather told the Truth. He simply didn't yet have the evidence.


You are one of his faithful because you believe his lies,
and accept his excuses for lying.
------------------------------------
I don't like him or the media at ALL, *I* think they're WAY TOO
RIGHTIST!!!


The way we are changed from external influences is from within,

You used to say that we cannot change our minds from
within at all. Lying again, or changed your mind?

We cannot, through ANY act of supposed "will", change what we
believe, not even the smallest thing. But other things from within
and from without will change us, even if against our "will".

This is either your opinion or a lie.
-------------------
You do not specify the enumeration of our choices in that regard.


Please present
objectively verifiable evidence so I may discern which.
--------------------------------
You are not capable of such discernment, so it isn't appropriate.


below awareness, beyond our control.

True for those that will not even attempt to understand
how their minds work.

Nonsense. You cannot lift yourself into the air, and you cannot
encompasse your own nature with your awareness. Any believed
control is easily proved to be illusory.

Then kindly present a brief, concise proof.
---------------------------
Goedel's Theorem, look it up.


Hold on, I did read it. It comprised four of the five
points on the Bush site.

Yeah, except in the opposite direction.

Uh, no. Same identical points.

So you'd like to pretend that there was no reason to see these men
as adversaries? You're an idiot!

Of course there's no reason for them to be adversaries;
they're from the same socioeconomic stratum, members of the
same "secret society", and have much the same ends in mind.
Their political platforms were conveniences of the moment
and will have as much effect on their subsequent policies as
past examples, which is to say none.
---------------------------------------
Up to a point you're correct, but then you neglect their differences.
That pretty much sums up your failure to grasp here.


Did you fail to actually _read_ the points on both sites
and note the similarity, or did you just prefer to not see
it because it contradicted one of your articles of faith?
-----------------------------------------
Nonsensical toss-off slur.


As for the name-calling, Steve, do you really take the
American political dog-and-pony shows seriously?
-----------------------------------------
I have one well beyond it that I do, of which the American version
is but a sick weak semblance. But the two sides are NOT the same,
one is quite a bit better (less Evil) than the other!


Tax the rich back to the level of the rest of us.
Require any business to pay each person working the SAME per hour.

Dammit Steve, do you have to keep repeating the same old
zero-sum bullshit?

Ain't bullshit. At any moment the economy is finite,

There's your problem, trying to apply calculus to
economics.
------------------
Actually econonists have been doing that since shortly after Leibniz
and Newton.


You make the same mistake every economist from
Adam Smith onward makes; you willfully ignore the fact that
value and cost are in constant flux WRT each other.
------------------------------------
Labor is the only cost, value is that labor. Any other assertion
is merely connivance to steal.


FTM, in your stated ideal economy, a made object's value
must decline over time.
-----------------------
Nope.
Even though pragmatically most items decay/depreciate.


A house built last week would have
less value than one built today, even if they're otherwise
indistinguishable.
------------------------
Ever hear of dry rot? But nevermind, you're prating nonsense.


This makes no sense at all. If you wish
your system to be accepted, you'll have to resolve this kind
of inconsistency.
-------------------------
Nothing you maintain here is remotely my position.


Or find better ways to make things that don't involve
more hand labor.

Absolutely. Don't tell me that you have some delusion that I want
everyone to "plant a garden" or "make things by hand"!!?? By labor
I mean the maintenance and use of state of the art manufacturing by
manufacturing technician workers.

Yeah, I got that. But that means that an hour's labor one
day (before an innovation is installed) will produce less
than an hour's labor the next day after upgrading. Also, an
hour's labor in one factory will produce less than a factory
elsewhere with more efficient technology.
----------------------------------
It does in fact cost more labor to do whatever without any certain
technological amplification. If we did it yesterday without the
tools it took more manpower, and that cannot be denied, and those
workers must be paid. That is ALREADY true in ALL systems.


OTOH are you suggesting that every workplace everywhere
be upgraded simultaneously? Sure, that'll work.
-----------------------------
No, just that that's irrelevant.


How about making us ALL the current equivalent of filthy rich?
You know damn well we're capable of it right now.

You know no such thing, we don't have self-replicating industrial
robots yet. This means we are limited in what we can have and
maintain by how much we can work and to what degree our industrial
base amplifies our production.

So? That doesn't mean that a more efficient distribution
of the output of the present means of production cannot make
everyone the equivalent of filthy rich in terms of not going
without neccesities or even luxuries (depending who's
defining "luxury"). What's stopping it from happening is the
popular addiction to bookkeeping in the form of
artificially-defined credit.
---------------------------------------
If filthy rich means having enough to eat one day and not having to
lift a finger some other day, then you have an ill-defined condition.
Whatever we are, we can be paid the same for our labor on any day you
can name. THAT is what is important.

Credit is altogether unnecessary in its present form. It is used
pretty strictly to buy things that need not even BE bought and sold,
or which can be earned before delivery and during their production
cycle. When a person buys a washing machine they sign up for the
extra labor that the society needs to produce it. If they work the
hours it will be produced by someone else who also signed up to work
ata washing machine plant who wants THEIR product. It is delivered
to them conditional on that work being done, and withdrawn if not
paid for. Whether it sits in a warehouse or his house during its
purchase is pretty unimportant.


"Production amplification" is exactly the reason your
"work to live" scheme is pointless. People used to have to
work dawn to dusk just to eat. That's no longer the case.
It's down to, what, four hours a day (excluding "tax hours")?

We need to share the profit of production entirely equally, and
then we'll see the average buying power triple, when we prevent
the rich from stealing it all.

Exactly; there won't _be_ any "rich" by the old
definitions of accumulated wealth and buying power.
-------------------------------------------
Yup, the formerly rich will be required to produce consumer items
using factory equipment. They will receive the same wage per hour
as everyone else. Their accumulated wealth on paper will cease to
exist when the baks are destroyed, and they will forfeit any more
than an average fair-sized residence to the rest of us.


But as I've tried to explain to you many times, those you
despise as "wealthy crooks" don't count their wealth as
accumulated buying power, but as accumulated ability to
influence and control the lives of those they perceive as
lesser beings. You propose to cure this misperception
through slow death by torture, which completely misses the
point.
-----------------------------------
I think employing those of the formerly rich who accept employment,
and having them work for a living, after they relinquish their
wealth, is sufficient. The rest we can shoot.


So, why do Dems lie?

They don't, except obviously where appropriate and moral to do so.

Interesting; you forgive doublespeak when your side does
it. I don't forgive it at all.

Republican lying to steal versus Democratic lying to steal back,
of course!! Stealing is not forgivable, stealing back for the
victim is a virtue!

Bullshit. Exposing lies does not require lying. Getting
in the habit of lying _for any excuse_ merely makes further
lying easier. This is the doublespeak trap that forced what
_might_ have been Lenin's Socialism in the USSR to become
Stalin's Oligarchy. The leaders first lied to themselves,
then each other (with a wink here and there), then everyone,
because they'd gotten in the habit of not telling harsh truths.
-------------------------------------
Lies and Truth are NOT opposites. Most so-called opposites are NOT,
upon closer examination. When lies are told to oppose the Truth,
that is the only time they're Evil.


You propose the same old thing; set up your Ideal
Socialism on lies, and it will go the same way.
---------------------------------------
No, that's merely you posturing disingenuously.
Everything is founded on lies, some better than others, that's all.
And many lies are the Truth as well.


Now you're merely parroting Kerry's wife.

Irrelevant, she didn't run, and is mildly insane.

She claimed that anyone who disagreed with her husband
was stupid, and you're doing the same for yourself. Simple
elitism.
----------------------------
She happened to be right.
Now, if Laura Bush had said the same thing, why she'd have been wrong.
The fact that Laura Bush might be smarter than she is, is unimportant.
What is disappointing about Laura is how she can be educated and
still blindly believe in the moron she married. He must be good
in bed.


What will you do when
your local Committee decides you're best suited to carrying
nightsoil?

Doesn't happen, ain't no "committee", just Majority Democracy, and
everyone gets the same work and the same chances.

What, you've revised your precious People's Committees
out of existence? How will your State know what the People
need to do?

By Democratic vote, of course, the sub-committees are merely advisory
executive/research organs.

Ah, the "local committes" now pop back into existence,
under a new name.
--------------------------------
Gee, now you're pretending that you're rewriting the future with
your deceit. First you lie about what I said, then accuse me of
changing my mind when I have to correct you.


And if their research indicates there are too many people
doing your preferred job, and not enough nightsoil carriers?
What will you do, move away? You never did answer me when I
asked you about that the first time. Suppose the committee
decides you're too valuable to allow to move away?
--------------------------------------
Everyone gets to do SOME of their preferred job if qualified.
They must also do SOME of the other things that need doing.

If you are specifically skilled you will be required to train
your replacement. Your education is a contract to use it for
the society. Just like astudent loan.


How can any State function if everyone does all the same
jobs? Shit's gonna pile up real quick.

You're becoming confused.
The jobs are all different, but they just PAY the same.

Well, now that the "sub-committees" are back in
existence, no problem.
----------------------------
All you're doing now is attempting to confuse issues.

The "committees" are unrelated to the topic here, but since you had
nothing else you simply decided to be deceptive.

You're caught, you SHOULD feel stupid and embarrassed.


Yeah, right. Which coast do you "live" on?

The Left Coast

Why am I not surprised?

Why do you posture irrelevantly?

Not irrelevant posturing. Please secede ASAP. Then try
living on the resources within your borders.
---------------------------------
One: You haven't the vaguest idea who I am or what I do.
Two: California exports more food and tax money to the rest
of the USA than all but two other states. It's the 7th wealthiest
nation on earth in its own right.


where we have the most productive farms on earth.

Using water stolen from other states.

Who can't use it when they're frozen or parched 7 months of the year.

I live in AZ, one of those places parched seven months of
the year which is exactly when that water is most needed.
----------------------
Your lattitude and solar flux and desertification means that your
land would simply wick it all into clouds.


Oh, wait; the People's Republic of Kalifornia has greater
need because You Say So, right? Try living on your own
rainfall. We can, and have. But the Imperial Valley will dry
back up to the desert it was before it was irrigated with
Colorado River water stolen from other states.
-----------------------------------------
That thing you CALL the "Colorado River" starts HERE from OUR
mountain rainfall!


They're automated and corporate

Which displaced lots of farmers.

Farmers as owners are ridiculous. The arable land belongs to everyone
who eats from it.

By which farming technologies?
-----------------
Any that are used.


You forget that things
change; does that mean you think you have a part-ownership
in land in Sri Lanka that produces grams of saffron? Is it
equal to your part-ownership in land in Kansas that produces
megabushels of corn?
----------------------------------------
Yup. Actually. The Human Species owns it all collectively, we simply
have to establish control over it as a Majority.


meaning the People can run them
just as well as ignorant rich bastards by taking over and controlling
the corportation by Majority Democracy.

Yet those "ignorant bastards" are the ones that set up
those extremely productive farms,

No they weren't. They were set up as" family dynastic farms and
werfe gobbled up when their kids wanted to move to LA.

You left out a couple steps; the "family dynasties" could
not produce at the corporate levels because they couldn't
mechanize the same way. They couldn't afford to do so
because they couldn't reach larger markets. The kids moved
out simply because they were dirt-poor.
------------------------------------------
Nonsense, they were cattle ranches before they got more water.
The kids FOUNDED those big cities!


not a bunch of long-haired Co-op ex-hippies.

Which is also irrelevant and unrelated posturing crap.

Really? Communes are not "family dynasties"; they're
closer to a corporate setup with all members making
decisions, eliminating the takeover steps. Why couldn't they
outproduce their own needs and sell the excess?
-----------------------------
Try because most of them neither had nor wanted land, maybe??


Where are the extremely productive
communes, Steve? There aren't any.

"Communes" weren't FOR that, you stupid fixated redneck.

Because they refused to look beyond themselves, pursuing
the sweet lie of self-sufficiency.
---------------------------------------
Self-sufficiency doesn't take that much, but I've done that
in NE Missouri, but it gets boring.


But NON-profit, publically owned utilities span the nation.

Because they're _prevented by law_ from making profit.
-----------------------------------
A practice we need to expand to EVERY industry in the land!


And don't try to put up utility bonds as counterexamples;
you know damn well they're artificially supported by taxation.

Mark L. Fergerson
------------------------------------
Nope, most of them PAY the govt coffers substantially.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
 
John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:47:48 -0700, Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness
wrote:

We need to share the profit of production entirely equally, and
then we'll see the average buying power triple, when we prevent
the rich from stealing it all.

No, we'd see zero investment,
------------------
Investment isn't necessary. A society that has wealthy whom they
allow to control the capital must have them invest to initiate new
endeavors, but a Democratic Communism need only vote to allocate
extra labor hours to an endeavor, and those produce both materials
and the labor to use them for that.


gross scarcities, and a tripling of
prices through inflation. And that the short-term; it would be worse
longterm.
---------------------
Inflation is caused by the desire by the wealthy to increase prices
to combat wage increases and maintain maximum profit margin. Without
the wealthy and with everyone at the same wage per hour by law, no
price even COULD change, it would not even tbe permitted to.

Inflation is merely the wealthy stealing back the gains the unions
make, except the wealthy steal it mostly from the poor who usually
have no union. In doing so they stratify the society so the union
people think they are better than non-union low-wage workers. The
wealthy buy you off to let them keep enslaving and torturing the
desperately poor.


Exactly; there won't _be_ any "rich" by the old
definitions of accumulated wealth and buying power.

But as I've tried to explain to you many times, those you
despise as "wealthy crooks" don't count their wealth as
accumulated buying power, but as accumulated ability to
influence and control the lives of those they perceive as
lesser beings. You propose to cure this misperception
through slow death by torture, which completely misses the
point.

In the tradeoff between instant consumption and deferred investment,
it is the rich who invest...
-----------------
The money they steal from others.


Working-class people and government are
generally *negative* investors.
-------------------
Called borrowers or debtors, usually for their home they rent or
mortgage, thus paying the wealthy a monthly tribute for what they
actually and rightfully SHOULD INHERIT as their fair share of the
world and human aedifice from our common ancestros who built
everything and lived and worked here for a million years.


Rich people who aren't good longterm
investors lose their wealth to people who are better at it.
-------------------------
Thieves lose wealth to better thieves, doesn't make it less
criminal. We should punish WHOMEVER we find with stolen property!!!


But we live in a society of excess already, so most of the arguments
about class and wealth are moot.
John
------------------------------
Nonsense. The only decent argument is that class and relative wealth
that is gained without actual labor-work must be eliminated!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
 
Mark Fergerson wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:47:48 -0700, Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness
wrote:



We need to share the profit of production entirely equally, and
then we'll see the average buying power triple, when we prevent
the rich from stealing it all.

No, we'd see zero investment, gross scarcities, and a tripling of
prices through inflation. And that the short-term; it would be worse
longterm.

Which appears to be exactly what RSW wants.
-----------------------------
No, that's your lie, and that what I propose would lead us to that
is merely another of your lies.

Investment is simply not needed in a Communism, since the People can
mandate society's "investment" of labor in any new endeavor, altogether
without "funds" of any kind. And with prices set by the labor-hours
required to make something, both inflation is impossible, and scarcity
is as well, since they need only labor to have things, just as in any
real state of nature.


Exactly; there won't _be_ any "rich" by the old
definitions of accumulated wealth and buying power.

But as I've tried to explain to you many times, those you
despise as "wealthy crooks" don't count their wealth as
accumulated buying power, but as accumulated ability to
influence and control the lives of those they perceive as
lesser beings. You propose to cure this misperception
through slow death by torture, which completely misses the
point.

In the tradeoff between instant consumption and deferred investment,
it is the rich who invest. Working-class people and government are
generally *negative* investors. Rich people who aren't good longterm
investors lose their wealth to people who are better at it.

Yup. And when smart investors do their stuff, _everybody_
benefits.
--------------------
Nope, only the wealthy benefit, obviously.
Without the wealthy you would receive a fair wage, which you don't
now!


But we live in a society of excess already, so most of the arguments
about class and wealth are moot.

That's what I was trying to tell RSW. It's approaching
the situation with royalty in the U.K. and other countries
that maintain them for show.

Mark L. Fergerson
------------------------------------
You have no grasp of these issues. The wealthy deprive you of over
half of that which should be yours for your labor, and all of what
is yours in terms of residences you should automatically own at
birth just because of your inheritance from the very people who
built them, your ancestors!

You should gang up on the wealthy and TAKE IT ALL BACK!! It is your
right, and yours for the demanding alone!! The Majority control the
world, not the wealthy!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
 
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:26:55 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:16:25 -0700, Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness
wrote:


But we live in a society of excess already, so most of the arguments
about class and wealth are moot.

That's what I was trying to tell RSW. It's approaching
the situation with royalty in the U.K. and other countries
that maintain them for show.


Someone recently noted that anybody can go to a nearby gas station
mini-mart and, for $6 or so, buy a better bottle of wine than any
French king ever tasted.

John
---------------
Totally unimportant to the issue.
If the peon had to work only an hour a day, and the rich not at all,
I'd still be saying "KILL THE RICH!!"
Of course. What's really important is the killing, isn't it?

John
 
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:25:16 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:47:48 -0700, Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness
wrote:



We need to share the profit of production entirely equally, and
then we'll see the average buying power triple, when we prevent
the rich from stealing it all.

No, we'd see zero investment, gross scarcities, and a tripling of
prices through inflation. And that the short-term; it would be worse
longterm.

Which appears to be exactly what RSW wants.
-----------------------------
No, that's your lie, and that what I propose would lead us to that
is merely another of your lies.

Investment is simply not needed in a Communism, since the People can
mandate...
I don't know what planet you're from, but on Earth the people have
just mandated George W. Bush.
--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, still waiting for
some hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is.
 
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:15:53 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:47:48 -0700, Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness
wrote:

We need to share the profit of production entirely equally, and
then we'll see the average buying power triple, when we prevent
the rich from stealing it all.

No, we'd see zero investment,
------------------
Investment isn't necessary.
Of course not. In SteveTopia, factories grow up from the ground.
--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, still waiting for
some hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is.
 
R. Steve Walz wrote:

Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Yes, of course anyone can lie.

And, you sidestepped my question. What concerns me here
is not your lying to me, but to yourself.

And that's just your disingenuous posture.
No Steve. Below you say:

Everything is founded on lies, some better than others, that's all.
Ergo you admit your idealized Socialism is founded on lies.

And many lies are the Truth as well.
Which is classic doublespeak.

Pretending Rather is not credible because of a misstep he admitted
is disingenuous.

No, stating that he's not credible because he presented
faked documents he _wanted_ to believe to be true, and
wanted to convince his audience were true _in the face of
counterevidence he suppressed_, is reasonable.

He told the Truth, he just didn't have proof of it. It's forgivable.
Sigh. He knowingly lied about the validity of the documents.

The only relevant "proof" was that demonstrating that the
events described in the documents did not occur as claimed.
He had that proof in hand and suppressed it. This is not
truth of any kind, capitalized or otherwise.

But you're so blinded by your addiction to doublespeak,
you appear to be claiming he was "serving a higher truth" or
some such.

He selectively presented information that supported his
beliefs, and did not present information that contradicted
them, and in fact said that any such information was "not
credible" without stating his criteria for credibility. He
also went out of his way to suppress information on the
source of the faked documents.

Nonsense, he was misled to believe the Truth. It was still True.
Even granting that he did not originally know that the
documents and their contents were fabrications, he still
ought to have reported on their diminished credibility _the
instant_ he suspected it.

He did not do that, which is lying by omission.

After he was exposed he claimed to have "misstepped", yet
did not remedy his failure to report the contradictory
information, nor did he make any effort to report on the
motives of the source of the faked documents. He lied to his
audience and justified it by lying to himself.

He isn't obligated to tell your falsehoods for you just because
he couldn't prove the Truth.
He isn't obligated to tell _any_ lies. He _is_ obligated
to tell as much truth as he knows, which he didn't.

Any credibility I *DO* have is based on *WHAT* I say,

But if you're lying...

You missed the point. Content determines credibility, not source.

There's the rub. Much of what you claim cannot be
second-sourced.

Nothing I say needs any proof at all, it's all structural argument
that is based only on the common human experience.
Yet another unsubstantiable claim. Your experience is not
mine, and vice versa. Be extremely careful trying to refute
that statement; you'll be reduced to using "spurious factoids".

In fact I personally refuse to believe or even hold anything to be
important that cannot be argued solely from structure without any
assertion of spurious factoids.
That's nice. That kind of "reasoning" must rest on
untestable assumptions. That kind of structuredstructure an
"opinion".

Anything that is merely evidenciary can always be disingenuously
contradicted by anyone Evil enough to wish to do so, and any kind
of evidence can be undermined by enough repetitious deceit unless
offered in a majority-respected peer-reviewed setting where Evil
is simply denied a voice.
Since you accept no evidence at all contradictory to your
position, I must assume that since there is also none valid
to support your position, that it is exactly equal to any
other such position; namely, it's an "opinion".

The only cure for Evil is to stifle or kill it.
Yep, since you can't out-argue anyone, stifle or kill
them. Say, I was wrong; you're not a fan of Lenin at all.
Actually, you're a fan of Stalin.

Examine what is said and why, not who says what.

Great. Provide cites to support your opinions in future.

Disingenous. As I have said, that is disreputable and invalid.
Then your opinion has exactly no greater weight than
anyone else's, by your own criteria.

Nobody believes anyone else unless they agree with them.

Only if they can't distinguish between "truth" and "fact".

No, what I said applies to everyone. People agree NOT based on
whether something is true, but whether they share the same belief.

This contradicts what you said above. Agreement about
"truths" is based on a common belief system which does not
take note of, or deliberately rejects, objectively
verifiable evidence.

There is no such thing outside a Majority-Respected Peer-Reviewed
milieu, because all falsehood can be misportrayed and all Truth
can be mischaracterized by you who seek to do Evil.
Sure, once you define a "majority" of "peers" as those
that believe the same bullshit doublespeak you do.

Of course, for this to work, you must continue to
characterize anyone who disagrees with you as "evil". You
sound more and more like a preacher.

Our True statements are always dishonestly characterized by you
Evil-doers as being mutually contradictory using deceit.
Oh, I get it; "logic"="deceit".

The only cure for this is to torture or kill your kind.
Same old same old.

This is the difference between religion and science. In
the latter, agreement comes from the presentation and
examination of _all_ evidence for a given POV, both
supportive and contradictory.

Any Peer-Review forum that permits your intentionally creative
mischaracterizations violates all principles of Science and Truth.
Yet your preferred "intentionally creative
mischaracterizations" such as Rather's, and your insistence
that anyone not agreeing with you is evil, are OK. Right. So
much for Science and Truth under your watch.

Any such forum that permits the dogshit you pretend is a POV is
doomed. At some point it must be admitted that no codification
can ever prevent the infinitely creative nature of Evil, and that
such Evil must simply be strangled to death by the Majority Will.
That's right; even the most rabid European Leninists
reject doublespeak these days. When will you catch up?

At some point your deceit, lies, and cheekiness should simply be
frightened back into hiding like a child who is intentionally
disruptive and should not be coddled under pretense of reasoning
with your sort.
Waah.

Rather is comparable to a Baptist tent preacher pounding
his Bible on a lectern, ignoring or shouting down doubters,
then turning his flock against them with pitchforks and
torches lest his lies be exposed.

Rather told the Truth. He simply didn't yet have the evidence.
He lied. There is ample evidence of it, and exactly none
to support the contents of the faked documents he presented.

You are one of his faithful because you believe his lies,
and accept his excuses for lying.

I don't like him or the media at ALL, *I* think they're WAY TOO
RIGHTIST!!!
Don't try to change the subject; we're talking about
Rather's lies.

The way we are changed from external influences is from within,

You used to say that we cannot change our minds from
within at all. Lying again, or changed your mind?

We cannot, through ANY act of supposed "will", change what we
believe, not even the smallest thing. But other things from within
and from without will change us, even if against our "will".

This is either your opinion or a lie.

You do not specify the enumeration of our choices in that regard.
You already did.

Please present
objectively verifiable evidence so I may discern which.

You are not capable of such discernment, so it isn't appropriate.
Oh, right; I'm too stupid. That's a popular fallback in
formal debating; oh, wait, no it isn't.

Try again.

below awareness, beyond our control.

True for those that will not even attempt to understand
how their minds work.

Nonsense. You cannot lift yourself into the air, and you cannot
encompasse your own nature with your awareness. Any believed
control is easily proved to be illusory.

Then kindly present a brief, concise proof.

Goedel's Theorem, look it up.
I am aware of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, and it
simply does not apply to the real world as universally as
you'd like it to.

Hold on, I did read it. It comprised four of the five
points on the Bush site.

Yeah, except in the opposite direction.

Uh, no. Same identical points.

So you'd like to pretend that there was no reason to see these men
as adversaries? You're an idiot!

Of course there's no reason for them to be adversaries;
they're from the same socioeconomic stratum, members of the
same "secret society", and have much the same ends in mind.
Their political platforms were conveniences of the moment
and will have as much effect on their subsequent policies as
past examples, which is to say none.

---------------------------------------
Up to a point you're correct, but then you neglect their differences.
There are no significant differences between _them_. The
only significant differences in their political lives is the
agendas of their handlers.

That pretty much sums up your failure to grasp here.
Sure Steve. Your naivete is showing.

Did you fail to actually _read_ the points on both sites
and note the similarity, or did you just prefer to not see
it because it contradicted one of your articles of faith?

Nonsensical toss-off slur.
Failure to respond.

And where the hell do _you_ get off whining about
toss-off slurs, you Evil, posturing, deceitful,
disingenuous, lying, dogshitting, incapable of discernment,
nonsense-prating idiot?

As for the name-calling, Steve, do you really take the
American political dog-and-pony shows seriously?

I have one well beyond it that I do, of which the American version
is but a sick weak semblance. But the two sides are NOT the same,
one is quite a bit better (less Evil) than the other!
Sigh. Care to be a little less vague?

Tax the rich back to the level of the rest of us.
Require any business to pay each person working the SAME per hour.

Dammit Steve, do you have to keep repeating the same old
zero-sum bullshit?

Ain't bullshit. At any moment the economy is finite,

There's your problem, trying to apply calculus to
economics.

Actually econonists have been doing that since shortly after Leibniz
and Newton.
Yup. And they're all wrong.

You make the same mistake every economist from
Adam Smith onward makes; you willfully ignore the fact that
value and cost are in constant flux WRT each other.

Labor is the only cost, value is that labor. Any other assertion
is merely connivance to steal.
In your fantasy world only.

FTM, in your stated ideal economy, a made object's value
must decline over time.

Nope.
You said exactly that. Want me to Google it up?

Even though pragmatically most items decay/depreciate.

A house built last week would have
less value than one built today, even if they're otherwise
indistinguishable.

Ever hear of dry rot? But nevermind, you're prating nonsense.
Don't be disingenuous. I said _indistinguishable_. Dry
rot does not occur in a week.

This makes no sense at all. If you wish
your system to be accepted, you'll have to resolve this kind
of inconsistency.

Nothing you maintain here is remotely my position.
Want me to Google it up?

Or find better ways to make things that don't involve
more hand labor.

Absolutely. Don't tell me that you have some delusion that I want
everyone to "plant a garden" or "make things by hand"!!?? By labor
I mean the maintenance and use of state of the art manufacturing by
manufacturing technician workers.

Yeah, I got that. But that means that an hour's labor one
day (before an innovation is installed) will produce less
than an hour's labor the next day after upgrading. Also, an
hour's labor in one factory will produce less than a factory
elsewhere with more efficient technology.

It does in fact cost more labor to do whatever without any certain
technological amplification. If we did it yesterday without the
tools it took more manpower, and that cannot be denied, and those
workers must be paid. That is ALREADY true in ALL systems.

OTOH are you suggesting that every workplace everywhere
be upgraded simultaneously? Sure, that'll work.

No, just that that's irrelevant.
No, it measn that workers in plants at diferent upgrade
levels will be producing different amounts per worker-hour.
Unfair! Torture to death the bastard that thought this up!

How about making us ALL the current equivalent of filthy rich?
You know damn well we're capable of it right now.

You know no such thing, we don't have self-replicating industrial
robots yet. This means we are limited in what we can have and
maintain by how much we can work and to what degree our industrial
base amplifies our production.

So? That doesn't mean that a more efficient distribution
of the output of the present means of production cannot make
everyone the equivalent of filthy rich in terms of not going
without neccesities or even luxuries (depending who's
defining "luxury"). What's stopping it from happening is the
popular addiction to bookkeeping in the form of
artificially-defined credit.
<irrelevant repetitious screed snipped>

"Production amplification" is exactly the reason your
"work to live" scheme is pointless. People used to have to
work dawn to dusk just to eat. That's no longer the case.
It's down to, what, four hours a day (excluding "tax hours")?

We need to share the profit of production entirely equally, and
then we'll see the average buying power triple, when we prevent
the rich from stealing it all.

Exactly; there won't _be_ any "rich" by the old
definitions of accumulated wealth and buying power.

Yup, the formerly rich will be required to produce consumer items
using factory equipment. They will receive the same wage per hour
as everyone else. Their accumulated wealth on paper will cease to
exist when the baks are destroyed, and they will forfeit any more
than an average fair-sized residence to the rest of us.
No, the entire concept of wages will be irrelevant.

But as I've tried to explain to you many times, those you
despise as "wealthy crooks" don't count their wealth as
accumulated buying power, but as accumulated ability to
influence and control the lives of those they perceive as
lesser beings. You propose to cure this misperception
through slow death by torture, which completely misses the
point.

I think employing those of the formerly rich who accept employment,
and having them work for a living, after they relinquish their
wealth, is sufficient. The rest we can shoot.
Kill, kill, kill. Same old same old.

So, why do Dems lie?

They don't, except obviously where appropriate and moral to do so.

Interesting; you forgive doublespeak when your side does
it. I don't forgive it at all.

Republican lying to steal versus Democratic lying to steal back,
of course!! Stealing is not forgivable, stealing back for the
victim is a virtue!

Bullshit. Exposing lies does not require lying. Getting
in the habit of lying _for any excuse_ merely makes further
lying easier. This is the doublespeak trap that forced what
_might_ have been Lenin's Socialism in the USSR to become
Stalin's Oligarchy. The leaders first lied to themselves,
then each other (with a wink here and there), then everyone,
because they'd gotten in the habit of not telling harsh truths.

Lies and Truth are NOT opposites. Most so-called opposites are NOT,
upon closer examination. When lies are told to oppose the Truth,
that is the only time they're Evil.
Doublespeak bullshit.

You propose the same old thing; set up your Ideal
Socialism on lies, and it will go the same way.

No, that's merely you posturing disingenuously.
That's me telling you a truth you simply don't want to hear.

Everything is founded on lies, some better than others, that's all.
And many lies are the Truth as well.
Ah, you do understand it. You just want to pretend your
lies are better than anyone else's. Doublespeak.

Now you're merely parroting Kerry's wife.

Irrelevant, she didn't run, and is mildly insane.

She claimed that anyone who disagreed with her husband
was stupid, and you're doing the same for yourself. Simple
elitism.

She happened to be right.
The worst thing about your arrogance is that you can't
even see it.

<arrogant bullshit snipped>

What will you do when
your local Committee decides you're best suited to carrying
nightsoil?

Doesn't happen, ain't no "committee", just Majority Democracy, and
everyone gets the same work and the same chances.

What, you've revised your precious People's Committees
out of existence? How will your State know what the People
need to do?

By Democratic vote, of course, the sub-committees are merely advisory
executive/research organs.

Ah, the "local committes" now pop back into existence,
under a new name.

--------------------------------
Gee, now you're pretending that you're rewriting the future with
your deceit. First you lie about what I said, then accuse me of
changing my mind when I have to correct you.
No, I didn't. You claimed that your precious committees
will make all decisions "according to democratic vote",
includoing who does what for how long. I simply got the name
wrong. Don't be disingenuous.

And if their research indicates there are too many people
doing your preferred job, and not enough nightsoil carriers?
What will you do, move away? You never did answer me when I
asked you about that the first time. Suppose the committee
decides you're too valuable to allow to move away?

--------------------------------------
Everyone gets to do SOME of their preferred job if qualified.
They must also do SOME of the other things that need doing.
And who decides how much "some" is? Not the individual
involved; sounds like slavery to the committee-of-the-moment.

If you are specifically skilled you will be required to train
your replacement. Your education is a contract to use it for
the society. Just like astudent loan.
Ah, right. Nobody will be permitted to get an education
on their own hook obviously, else they can't be enslaved to
your system.

How can any State function if everyone does all the same
jobs? Shit's gonna pile up real quick.

You're becoming confused.
The jobs are all different, but they just PAY the same.

Well, now that the "sub-committees" are back in
existence, no problem.

All you're doing now is attempting to confuse issues.

The "committees" are unrelated to the topic here, but since you had
nothing else you simply decided to be deceptive.
You might simply have corrected my misnaming of your
precious committees. But no, you have to feel superior.

Yeah, right. Which coast do you "live" on?

The Left Coast

Why am I not surprised?

Why do you posture irrelevantly?

Not irrelevant posturing. Please secede ASAP. Then try
living on the resources within your borders.

---------------------------------
One: You haven't the vaguest idea who I am or what I do.
I don't give a flying fuck.

Two: California exports more food and tax money to the rest
of the USA than all but two other states. It's the 7th wealthiest
nation on earth in its own right.
I said, "try living on the resources within your borders".

where we have the most productive farms on earth.

Using water stolen from other states.

Who can't use it when they're frozen or parched 7 months of the year.

I live in AZ, one of those places parched seven months of
the year which is exactly when that water is most needed.

Your lattitude and solar flux and desertification means that your
land would simply wick it all into clouds.
Your ignorance is astounding. BTW the exact same
conditions apply to the Imperial Valley...

Oh, wait; the People's Republic of Kalifornia has greater
need because You Say So, right? Try living on your own
rainfall. We can, and have. But the Imperial Valley will dry
back up to the desert it was before it was irrigated with
Colorado River water stolen from other states.

That thing you CALL the "Colorado River" starts HERE from OUR
mountain rainfall!
Your ignorance of geography is staggering.


<collectivist horseshit snipped>

<historical ignorance snipped>

not a bunch of long-haired Co-op ex-hippies.

Which is also irrelevant and unrelated posturing crap.

Really? Communes are not "family dynasties"; they're
closer to a corporate setup with all members making
decisions, eliminating the takeover steps. Why couldn't they
outproduce their own needs and sell the excess?

Try because most of them neither had nor wanted land, maybe??
Then that kind of commune had no hope of continuing.


But NON-profit, publically owned utilities span the nation.

Because they're _prevented by law_ from making profit.

A practice we need to expand to EVERY industry in the land!
Then from where comes the added capital to pay for
improvements? NOWHERE!

Mark L. Fergerson
 
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:15:24 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
<null@example.net> wrote:

They are absolute slaves to their "wealth acquisition"
behaviors, with no time at all to spare for "nonproductive"
pursuits. Have you never noticed what abysmal morons rich
people tend to be on any subject other than acquiring money?
Not slaves; they mostly do it because they enjoy it.

Have you never noticed that once a wealthy person
acquires interests other than acquiring wealth, the first
thing they do is start giving away as much of it as possible
so they aren't enslaved by it any more?
Most of the really rich people, at least Americans, got that way by
working at something real (Bill, Sam) and kept doing it most of their
lives. And sure, the only really big charitable donors are people who
have a lot of money; they had to acquire it before they could give it
away, for pete's sake.


Get a grip Steve, and yank your political thinking out of
the 19th century. The rest of the world is passing you by.

I've just figured out what the real bone of contention is
between those who "have money" and those who "don't".

The problem isn't how much money you "have" - although the
immediacy of that one obscures the _real_ problem - it's
that most people have to spend _their own_ money, and the
"rich" have a license to spend _other people's_ money. And
just to twist the knife far enough to rub salt into it,
the _other people's_ money usually belongs to the people
who already don't have enough of _their own_ to spend on
stuff in the first place.
But spending isn't primarily what rich people do. Poor people think
about all the things they would buy if they were rich. But the essence
of being rich is *not* spending. A billionaire may have three houses
and ten cars, but not 3000 houses and 10,000 cars. The money that they
don't spend is invested, and *somebody* has to defer consumption in
favor of investment or everything would fall apart.

We in the West live in historically and globally unprecendented health
and luxury for practically everyone, and some people are always
whining about how terrible things are because somebody has more than
them.

John
 
I don't know what planet you're from, but on Earth the people have
just mandated George W. Bush.
And I don't know what planet you're from: you think the United States
is a synonym for the Earth. No, wait. Better yet: you think half of
the United States is the whole Earth. That's actually less than 1%
of the whole world's population, though.
 
John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:40:32 +0100, Guillaume <"grsNOSPAM at
NOTTHATmail dot com"> wrote:


I don't know what planet you're from, but on Earth the people have
just mandated George W. Bush.

And I don't know what planet you're from: you think the United States
is a synonym for the Earth. No, wait. Better yet: you think half of
the United States is the whole Earth. That's actually less than 1%
of the whole world's population, though.


---
Yes. We strive for quality, not quantity.
Pity you missed.

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org
 
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:40:32 +0100, Guillaume wrote:

I don't know what planet you're from, but on Earth the people have
just mandated George W. Bush.

And I don't know what planet you're from:
Uranus, you nitwit.

you think the United States
is a synonym for the Earth. No, wait. Better yet: you think half of
the United States is the whole Earth. That's actually less than 1%
of the whole world's population, though.
--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, still waiting for
some hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is.
 
John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:26:55 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

Someone recently noted that anybody can go to a nearby gas station
mini-mart and, for $6 or so, buy a better bottle of wine than any
French king ever tasted.
John
---------------
Totally unimportant to the issue.
If the peon had to work only an hour a day, and the rich not at all,
I'd still be saying "KILL THE RICH!!"

Of course. What's really important is the killing, isn't it?

John
-------------
No. What is REALLY important is the FAIRNESS!

What is important is The EQUALITY, and the FREEDOM for REAL PEOPLE'S
LIVES that GENUINE ECONOMIC EQUALITY GUARANTEES!! Money *IS* FREEDOM!
IT IS YOUR *LIFE* AND THE LIVING OF IT! IT IS HOURS OUT OF YOUR ONLY
LIFE!!

If you are NOT paid equally and are NOT given your fair share of the
world, then TO THAT DEGREE AND AMOUNT you are UNFREE, TO THAT DEGREE
YOU ARE ENSLAVED!! You should KILL anyone who does that to you!!!

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
 
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 04:10:30 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:26:55 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

Someone recently noted that anybody can go to a nearby gas station
mini-mart and, for $6 or so, buy a better bottle of wine than any
French king ever tasted.
John
---------------
Totally unimportant to the issue.
If the peon had to work only an hour a day, and the rich not at all,
I'd still be saying "KILL THE RICH!!"

Of course. What's really important is the killing, isn't it?

John
-------------
No. What is REALLY important is the FAIRNESS!

What is important is The EQUALITY, and the FREEDOM for REAL PEOPLE'S
LIVES that GENUINE ECONOMIC EQUALITY GUARANTEES!! Money *IS* FREEDOM!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You poor, unfortunate, deluded fool.

IT IS YOUR *LIFE* AND THE LIVING OF IT!
Purest Absolute Bullshit.

IT IS HOURS OUT OF YOUR ONLY
If you are this addicted to money, then I am very sad for you.

If you are NOT paid equally and are NOT given your fair share of the
world, then TO THAT DEGREE AND AMOUNT you are UNFREE, TO THAT DEGREE
YOU ARE ENSLAVED!! You should KILL anyone who does that to you!!!
You _can_ still get medical attention for this disorder.

Good Luck!
Rich
 
Rich The Philosophizer wrote:

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 07:23:27 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

meaning the People can run them
just as well as ignorant rich bastards by taking over and controlling
the corportation by Majority Democracy.

Yet those "ignorant bastards" are the ones that set up
those extremely productive farms, not a bunch of long-haired
Co-op ex-hippies. Where are the extremely productive
communes, Steve? There aren't any.

I see you've engaged the impenetrable Walz.
Steve's not impenetrable; he just has areas of greater
"density" on certain subjects, like all of us.

Mark L. Fergerson
 
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<419EC733.56E7@armory.com>...
Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

That's what I was trying to tell RSW. It's approaching
the situation with royalty in the U.K. and other countries
that maintain them for show.

I can see a day when those genetically predisposed to
excessive wealth acquisition are kept in elaborately gilded
cages, smirkingly waited upon hand and foot and bowed and
scraped to, just to keep them out of everyone else's way.
Come to think of it, it's already happening...
--------------------------------
All it takes is to make theft of all types illegal and unfair wealth
acquisition simply won't be allowed. If these idiots want to work
every hour of every day so that they have no time to enjoy what they
earn, and they can buy unperishable wealth items of value that they
have no time to enjoy, they should probably be made to see a pshrink.
Ok, what's the maximum wealth that you would permit?
 
Tom Seim wrote:
"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message news:<419EC733.56E7@armory.com>...
Mark Fergerson wrote:

R. Steve Walz wrote:

That's what I was trying to tell RSW. It's approaching
the situation with royalty in the U.K. and other countries
that maintain them for show.

I can see a day when those genetically predisposed to
excessive wealth acquisition are kept in elaborately gilded
cages, smirkingly waited upon hand and foot and bowed and
scraped to, just to keep them out of everyone else's way.
Come to think of it, it's already happening...
--------------------------------
All it takes is to make theft of all types illegal and unfair wealth
acquisition simply won't be allowed. If these idiots want to work
every hour of every day so that they have no time to enjoy what they
earn, and they can buy unperishable wealth items of value that they
have no time to enjoy, they should probably be made to see a pshrink.

Ok, what's the maximum wealth that you would permit?
---------------
No owning land, democratic control of all land except residential.
Everyone is entitled to own their home and compound. No sale of
homes, only trade straight across through the aegis of the State
if one desires to relocate.

No owning corporate factories or any industrial equipment except
what you can pursue on your residential compound. No owning stocks
or bonds, no savable money, all exchange is in terms of labor hours
rendered to the State for basic commodities and consumer items.
All grown and made products are rendered to the State for their
agreed labor hours credit amortized over the whole of each product.

If it takes a total of 300 labor hours to make 3000 widgets from
materials mined or harvested to parts composing it, to the final
assemblage, then each costs a tenth of an hour. Unless crippled,
veryone is required to work the democratically agreed minimum hours
to meet basic needs or else they don't eat and it is illegal to even
feed them.

If they want more they sign up for more labor hours over their
minimum, with which to buy consumer items. The only wealth that
would even be possible is in personal property. Used items can be
freely traded at weekly local flea markets.

The State mandates that repair parts be available indefinitely for
anything at cost. If you can make something the rest of us want on
your compound then you can petition to work at home, and be paid for
supplies and tools as well, but otherewise you work at a publically
owned factory or farm.

If you want something and can find enough other people who do you
can get the State to assign labor credit to anyone who wants to make
that item at an agreed exchange rate based on how long other skilled
workers in similar fields agree it would cost in hours of labor.

Everything of this sort is decided locally at the Society meeting
twice a week by whomever shows up to do it. People are lenient
with each other because they want support for their own desires
as well.

You order things before they are produced, and they aren't produced
for your order unless you order them. If we all decide we have enough
stuff for a month or two, we go home and pursue our hobbies after our
minimum hour jobs until enough people want new things. They literally
arrange with others who ALSO want more "stuff" to make it for one
another, via the computerized ordering system between factories that
records all orders for manufacture and all labor hour credit. High
ticket items can be partly paid in advance by labor and partly by
promised future labor, time payment out of your wage to save storage
costs. If you don't work the hours, you forfeit the item till you
do.

All this can be done quite locally in terms of a govt of perhaps
only 5000 people either at public meetings or over the Net. Larger
governance are done via the Net or by study committees that report
back to everyone for grassroots approval.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public
 
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 07:29:50 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Tom Seim wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer <null@example.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.11.20.02.01.44.925063@neodruid.org>...
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:08:20 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:15:24 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
[rich vs. poor stuff]

But spending isn't primarily what rich people do. Poor people think
about all the things they would buy if they were rich. But the essence
of being rich is *not* spending. A billionaire may have three houses
and ten cars, but not 3000 houses and 10,000 cars.

Well, yeah, but here's the thing. To the guy who has no hope of
ever having even one house that he can ever call his own, that
second or third house that the billionaire just conjures up
with a flip of his wrist really, really rankles.

Would they also be pissed off at a millionaire that owns only one
(really nice) house?
----------------
You mean like with ten thousand rooms?
I guess that would depend on to what extremes you must stretch the point
to present your avowed stance on the issue.
--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, still waiting for
some hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is.
 
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 07:29:50 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Tom Seim wrote:

Rich The Philosophizer <null@example.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.11.20.02.01.44.925063@neodruid.org>...
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:08:20 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:15:24 GMT, Rich The Philosophizer
[rich vs. poor stuff]

But spending isn't primarily what rich people do. Poor people think
about all the things they would buy if they were rich. But the essence
of being rich is *not* spending. A billionaire may have three houses
and ten cars, but not 3000 houses and 10,000 cars.

Well, yeah, but here's the thing. To the guy who has no hope of
ever having even one house that he can ever call his own, that
second or third house that the billionaire just conjures up
with a flip of his wrist really, really rankles.

Would they also be pissed off at a millionaire that owns only one
(really nice) house?
----------------
You mean like with ten thousand rooms? If they don't have any and he
made them build it and then made them live there and pay rent?
Betcher fuckin' ass!
R. Steve Walz, I'm ashamed of you.

This degree of unsolicited extrapolation does not speak well of your
objectivity in this issue.

Ah, I give up. It's your choice if you want to go through life as an
all-or-nothing thinker, or as a real person.

;^j
Rich
 
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 08:56:17 +0000, R. Steve Walz wrote:

Tom Seim wrote:
....
Ok, what's the maximum wealth that you would permit?
---------------
No owning land, ...
Two fleas arguing over who owns the dog.
--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, still waiting for
some hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is.
 
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:40:32 +0100, Guillaume wrote:

I don't know what planet you're from, but on Earth the people have
just mandated George W. Bush.

And I don't know what planet you're from: you think the United States
is a synonym for the Earth. No, wait. Better yet: you think half of
the United States is the whole Earth. That's actually less than 1%
of the whole world's population, though.
Can you say, "hyperbole," boys and girls?
--
The Pig Bladder From Uranus, still waiting for
some hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is.
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top