What do you think about the part where it's clearly documented that many Nazi storm troopers were homosexuals?
I'm no expert, but it's certainly plausible.
There were two kinds of homosexuals in Weimar Germany. Butch homosexuals who wore black and femme homosexuals who wore pink.
I'm sure homosexuals in Germany wore many colors. I don't know how predominant the arrangement you speak of really was. It's immaterial to the point.
In the concentration camps many of the guards were homosexuals.
This, too, is plausible. Positions like that were probably a magnet for disturbed people, and homosexuality is a typical symptom of sexual abuse.
I'm not refuting that. But your link is not simply an investigation into the higher relative incidence of homosexuality in Nazi Germany (something which I would believe). It is a paranoid, delusional attack on homosexuality in general. Statements like
Although some homosexuals, and many of those who were framed with trumped-up charges of homosexuality suffered and died at
the hands of the Nazis, for gay apologists to portray themselves as historical victims of Nazi persecution, on par with the Jewish
people, is a gross distortion of history, perhaps equal to denying the Holocaust itself.
are blatantly false. The fact that an abnormal percentage of Nazi guards were homosexuals does not negate the extermination of homosexuals as a class.
Similarly, assertions like
In light of the medical record, history and the fact that sodomy represents a corruption of the natural and moral orders of creation, any positive affirmation of homosexuality is totally without merit.
shatter any pretense of impartial analysis.
The authors of this work find homosexuality distasteful, and they have a right to do so. Ever hear of Godwin's law? Equating a thing with Nazism is almost always a futile attempt to build a strawman.
Interestingly, Pat Robertson's comments quoted in the ad were directly related to the subject of this book: "Homosexuality is an abomination. Many of those people involved with Adolf Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals. The two things seem to go together."
expresses well this book's intent. This is not legitimate history, and I hope you don't believe that it is.
When South Africa was considering decriminalising marijuana Clinton pretty much told them that he would destroy their economy in retaliation. Naturally they backed off.
Can you cite a source for this? I could find lame accounts of their ambivalence towards marijuana, but I can't find anything pertaining to US involvement.
Hate to point this out, but the US has regularly killed innocent civilians for decades, except that most Americans wouldn't know coz they are semi-literate about foreign policy.
Yeah. AFAIK, most of that killing was done in the name of the fight against Communism, propping up evil dictators in the Middle East and South America.
I wasn't trying to downplay the evil we've done in the past. If we subverted the British elections and brought the Evil Orwellian ENGSOC Big Brother Party to power, for the sole purpose of cracking down on MP3 copying, then it would be roughly comparable to past American machinations. (Well, Stalin was far worse than MP3 "pirates", so it's not a fair comparison.)
Cop killers don't need to ever see the light of day.
What about people who killed Hitler's cops? Should they be executed? From your blanket statement above, I would have to say you think they should. That seems a bit out of character for you, considering (what I justly believe to be) your views on Hitler.
Magnus Hirshfield wrote: I for one think there should be a competence test before people are allowed to vote.
It might look like this:
True or false:
1. Discriminatory laws against homosexuals are completely justified, because homosexuality is the foundation of Nazism, and furthermore, homosexualists are leading a militant, fascist assault on Christian sexuality.
. . . .
Read the link in this asshole's user info. Or narrow in on some choice selections. I love the part about Playboy (and all pornography) being inherently homosexual!
(There is, of course, a great lesson here: voter "competence" is a subjective measure (the work "incompetent" is arguably pejorative), and thus cannot be fairly implemented. The only fair way I can think of is to let each candidate arbitrarily reject his votes - something which would never be done.)
Re:Of course they should vote...
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
Unfortunately the Democrats have been increasingly embracing social conservatism, which doesn't really leave any option for people who really like the idea of a free country.
Walk down to the nearest government building, board up all the windows, board up all the doors, and spraypaint J A I L on what once was the entrance. Repeat a few thousand times. Then enjoy your free country.
There's always an option. The question is how hard the people will need to be fucked before they exercise that option. Maybe in ten years, when the growth rate has held and they've doubled the number of drug offenders locked up to a million. Or maybe in twenty years, when perhaps one out of every hundred people is behind bars for smoking pot, or maybe on charges of "obscenity". Who knows what they'll have outlawed by then!
Re:There is NO maximum wage!!!!
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
1. We affirm the importance of access to a livable income.
Yeah, it really sucks when your income is not enough to live on. Is any candidate claiming, "Making enough money to survive is an evil comparable to Nazism!" I don't think so.
2. Job banks and other innovative training and employment programs which bring together the private and public sectors must become federal, state and local priorities. People who are unable to find decent work in the private sector should have options through publicly funded opportunities.
In other words, "If you're too lazy, inept, and/or stupid to be at all useful, the government should give you the taxpayers' money for useless work."
3. Workforce development programs must aim at moving people out of poverty - a ?living wage? campaign and ?living wage? standard will go a long way toward achieving this goal.
As opposed to what, aiming to keep people in poverty? That's obvious. What is a "living wage" standard? Either you can survive, or you cannot. All living things have a "living wage" standard, otherwise they would not be alive. And I doubt the efficacy of a "living wage" campaign. What does that mean? TV ads - "You should really go find some work. Really, I mean it. (Brought to you by Big Brother.)" What's that going to do?
4. We urge that a national debate be held and broad public mandate be sought regarding (fiscal and monetary) economic strategies and policies as they impact wages. This debate is long overdue.
Why do we need Ralph Nader to lead a debate? If the people wanted a debate, they would have one. No, the people are sheep and they don't care. Ralph can't change that!
The growing inequities in income and wealth between rich and poor; unprecedented discrepancies in salary and benefits between corporate top executives and line workers; loss of the ?American dream? by the young and middle-class - each is a symptom of decisions made by policy-makers far removed from the concerns of ordinary workers trying to keep up.
The rich is getting richer because the poor is lazy, stupid, and too short-sighted to stop lining the pockets of the rich. Ralph can't change that. Executives make way more than workers because the workers are too lazy, stupid, and short-sighted to risk starting their own enterprise. Mountains of government red tape don't help - Nader likes red tape!
At what point in time was my "American Dream" stolen? And when was the middle class deprived of it? Some strawman! "each is a symptom of decisions made by policy-makers far removed from the concerns of ordinary workers trying to keep up." Yeah, and government is the most notorious, monopolistic policy maker.
5. A clear living wage standard should serve as a foundation for trade between nations, and a ?floor? of wage protections and worker?s rights should be negotiated and set in place in future trade agreements. The United States should take the lead on this front - and not allow destructive, corporate predatory practices under the guise of ?free? international trade.
This strikes me as pseudo-socialist BS. If there really was free trade, the market would set its own "wage floor" based on supply and demand. They claim freedom is just a mask for corporate predators. Hrmmm, government claiming my freedom is a bad, bad thing, and people who like freedom must either be stupid or evil capitalist predators! Great. Corporations have the same rights as you and I, and they can only be "predatory" when the workers are too lazy, stupid, and short-sighted to make capitalism work. But government is the biggest predatory corporation of all! They have guns and thugs, and they demand my business! They steal my rights in order to make me a better customer! Some trade-off.
This is a living wage, not a MAXIMUM wage.
It's a wonderful promise. Will Ralph make the trains run on time, too?
Any attempt by the US (or any other nation) to force it's views onto a non-national site is colonialism, pure and simple.
Idiots love to cry "neo-colonialism". Watch out when you equate any indirect cultural influence to men with guns manipulating indiginous populations into minions of England/France/whatever. DCMA, Carnivore, and litigious culture have not been imposed on your country with one hundredth the brutality of colonialism, if indeed they have been imposed at all. We imposed a litigious culture on your country? How? Did we sail there in massive ships and demand that you address all your petty grievances to the legal system at gunpoint? Right.
You do raise a good point the value of American conceptions of human rights when applied to other cultures. Mentally handicapped members of the left love to defend all human rights. One caveat - other cultures supposedly have less of them. Chinese are born with less rights than the British, and to impose or even expect British rights in China is a travesty against the Chinese culture, or so they say.
The relevance to your assertions of sovereign law is obvious. If laws are the direct codification of rights, then to advocate differing laws is to imply differing natural rights. That's one hell of an implication.
Of course, if laws are merely the way rulers justify their rule, then I agree, your rulers should be allowed to rule in their own special non-American way. Have fun.
What exactly is that link of yours, anyway? What is your relation to it?
From the page:
Conclusion: The Danger of "Gay Rights"
...
I am writing this conclusion to the third edition on the same day that President Bill Clinton has called for "hate crimes" legislation
based on "sexual orientation" (code words for homosexuality). A few days ago, in an act unprecedented in the history of the
presidency, Mr. Clinton aligned himself with the homosexual cause at a fund-raiser for the Human Rights Campaign Fund, the "gay"
movement's largest political action committee.
...
Those whose perceptions of the "gay" movement have been shaped primarily by the popular media may find President Clinton's actions
appropriate, even laudable. Such people have been persuaded that "gays" are society's victims in need of protection. But the "gay"
movement I have seen and investigated is neither benign, nor are its members "victims." It is vicious, deceptive and enormously
powerful. Its philosophy is Machiavellian and its tactics are (literally) Hitlerian.
...
"Gay" political power derives in large part from the public perception that homosexuals are victims. As Kirk and Pill so baldly
admitted in The Overhauling of Straight America, "gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be
inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector." What would happen to the protective instinct of Americans if they knew that many
of the worst villians of the Third Reich were "gay"? How closely would America scrutinize the "gay" agenda if "homoeroticism" were
revealed as the very foundation of Nazism?
...
If the facts in this book are true, and if it is also true that the "gatekeepers" of our public information are deliberately keeping
these facts from us, can we hope to educate our fellow citizens before the "gay agenda" plunges this nation into social chaos?
...
Have we exaggerated the urgency of our task? I think not. The future of America, indeed of civilization itself, depends upon the
preservation of the natural family -- God's model for effective human society and the training ground for healthy human relationships.
Yet the goal of the "gay" movement is the devaluation of the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic (monogamous heterosexual family-centered
marriage) and its replacement with a "gay" affirming pagan alternative.
...
"Gay" strategists choose to employ the biological model of homosexuality for the dual purpose of denying choice and escaping
responsibility. In calling for research into a so-called "gay" gene, their purpose was never to cure or rectify, but to justify
homoerotic conduct and the homosexual identity. "Gays" correctly reason that if sexual behavior is a choice, it carries with it both
responsibility and accountability. Their insistence that homosexuality is "not a choice" functions to bring ever more recruits into
the "gay" fold and keep them there by discouraging them from seeking change.
...
Pragmatically, Playboy (that is, all pornography) manifests a blatant homosexual ethos. Its heterophobia is sustained by an
utilitarian analysis of Playboy images and philosophy. It is not too much to say, that just as the imagery of stained glass windows
and holy cards once initiated, instructed and indoctrinated potential adherents in a religious faith, the didactic images in "soft"
and "hard" pornography similarly initiate, instruct and indoctrinate potential believers in the tenants of its religion, its
homosexual morality.
...
It follows that the current generation of
fatherless youth may be prime candidates for homosexual recruitment. And the same amoral thinking which allows them to consider
homosexuality as a "normal" option may also make them dangerously susceptible to the next Hitler.
I don't speak for the masses any more than anyone else does.
You asserted that republics were superior to democracies, and you did not substantiate that claim, save for an allusion to the authority of the "founding fathers".
You also asserted that political discontent is ineffectual. I disagree - people who believe the political system never changes are naive. If you annoy the masses enough, they grow impatient.
If the number of people in prison for drug offences doubles to a million (and it very well could in a decade) I think "the masses" will do something about it. You disagree?
Didn't mean to come across that way. America has a mixed economy; I was just bringing up the two extremes.
You can't talk about any type of restriction without an enforcing entitity, so even in an ultra-capitalist world we have to have govts. These things are complex social ideas tied up with the idea of govt itself.
That's for sure. And they get far trickier when government is tasked with enforcing equality. I don't even know where to start.
The only question is, does capitalism without an active govt suck less? If so, how much less does it suck?
The number of people who die under a regime is a relatively objective measure of suckiness. By that measure, socialism easily takes the prize. But "socialist states" are usually far from socialist, because true socialism (especially communism) has proved an unreachable ideal. If we had a black box that could eat everyone's money and fairly redistribute it, then communism might have a chance. Even then it would have to be enforced by the black box as well.
Is "true capitalism" an unreachable ideal as well? I think the libertarian fantasy of buying "protection services" and other core government functions off the market are likely unreachable. Would a more tempered libertarianism necessarily be unstable and calamitous? I'm not sure that the Industrial Revolution is a valid example of capitalist catastrophe - working in the factories really was better than the farm (if perhaps only for the change of scenery, a valid reason) and the labor pool was huge. More likely, it was industry working in collusion with the state to ban labor unions and prevent fair negotiations that was responsible. That's obviously a "Buchananite" fascist phemonenon, not a libertarian one.
I don't know if government has really done all that much to stablilze the economy, but I really don't know much economic history. It's hard for me to assess the impact it had. I would think it's hard for anyone to assess.
As far as the environment is concerned, one only need look at Russia to see an example of government intervention hurting the situation - every other concern was neglected in favor of production. The environment was completely ignored, because industry had no incentive to even maintain its own land. Capitalism avoids this neatly, because it's probably in my interest to keep my property unpolluted. Government certainly has less of an interest.
IMHO, the question of the government's place has always been more simplistic. Government is allowed to do things which non-government entities cannot do. This is a BIG advantage, and a BIG risk. Government is unique in its powers. So it is essential to limit the domain of the government to only the things which absolutely must be regulated by it. I feel government has a place safeguarding rights and enforcing contracts. In other fields, I think it is too much of a liability, and I think that government should not be involved in affairs which a normal corporation or group could suffice. Letting government mess with things like prescription drug prices or education is like paying a soldier with a Kalashnikov rifle to open my garage door for me. Sure, he's big, and he could easily do the job, but having him around is just too dangerous. It's insane.
The United States has never been a pure democracy, that wasn't even the intent of the founders of this republic.
Don't appeal to the will of the "founding fathers" to defend a political system. Sure, you can present the ideas they expoused, but ideas have neither origins nor owners.
I don't know if we've prevented the beer-scarfing masses from voting. The petty, hollow issues of our two candidates seem to compliment the petty, hollow lives of beef-scarfers. Bush is an ignorant beer-scarfer!
Politicians feign concern, get elected, and gorge themselves on your money and your freedom. Some representation.
So piss and moan if you like. It really doesn't matter.
That's just inaccurate. First we piss and moan, next we get angry, and then we get even.
Capitalism, even the very laissez-faire variety, is a distribution of resources according to govt control.
I don't understand. Capitalism is simply freedom mapped onto the ecomomic domain. It means I can freely enter into contractual agreements with whomever I please. Government does not control my economic interactions, but it may be appealed to for the resolution of contract disputes. Under socialism, there would be no private (individual-individual) disputes, because there would be no private contracts to dispute. Rather, all contracts would be with the government, and since what differntiates goverment from business is that government can use force to impose its will, there can be no dispute, only coercion. That system sucks infinitely more than paying a streamlined judiciary and police force to enforce free, private contracts. Read Soviet history. A lack of clear property rights is an elevator to hell.
have resources that are distributed in accordance w/ govt rules.
In a free market economy, there can be no goverment interference beyond arbitrating disputes. Otherwise it is no longer free - it's like Big Brother demanding "voluntary censorship" from Hollywood. It's a farce.
Now, yeah, if I "distribute my resources", so to speak, by infringing someone's rights, then that would be the domain of government. However, that is not, in my opinion, any different than enforcing a contract. In economic terms, you and I have an implicit contract forbidding each party from infringing upon the rights of the other. When one of us breaks that contract, then the other's obligations are dissolved - i.e., if you decide to whack me over the head with a 2x4 because I'm ranting, I can kill you, because you have violated that agreement. We entrust government with the power necessary to intervene, if I'm too weak to protect my rights.
Can the 'Net end the need for a government? Well, is there really a need for government in the first place? That's one hell of a question, and I don't have the answer, but I think there is a need for a small, trusted judiciary with a small, trusted legal code. The internet can certainly streamline the process of arbitrating disputes and enforcing rights. Secure cryptographic systems could allow a miniscule government to resolve disputes and mobilize police in an incredibly efficient manner. It could probably be done for an insignificant amount of money.
Laws which protect corrupt "office holders" are wrong and should not be obeyed.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to assassinate people who want to control our lives. It's self defence.
For example, if you took a fourth of my property, told me what I could and could not say, and insisted that you were doing the right thing, and that I was just too stupid to grasp the theory behind it (ring a bell?), I would have the right to kill you in self defence.
Why is it any different if Bill Clinton does it? Would it be any different if Lenin did it? If Stalin did it? If Hitler did it? If Mao Tse-tung did it? If Pol Pot did it?
The political theories granting power to each were equally robust!
Do you think the world would be a better place if we, the people, had not sheepishly accepted their claims to power? Would the world be a better place if we interpreted any claim to power as an assault on our freedom and crushed it?
As Thomas Paine wrote, "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
because of the importance of the election this year (probable Supreme Court Justice replacement, close race, etc.), you should vote for Gore.
It is in the interest of both parties to maintain a level of controversy sufficient to keep the voters alert and receptive, but no more controversy than necessary, or their ideological monopoly might be jeopardized.
For example, the debates have all revolved around this great surplus we supposedly have. Each candidate has his own peculiar way to deal with it. It's absurd - if government takes more money than it has legally appropriated for its services, that money is a crime. It is stolen goods! No law provides for it!
Bush wants to give back a small percentage of it, mainly to the rich. Huh? Give back a portion of it? I thought Bush was supposed to be right-wing!
Gore wants to invest it in government programs. Huh? I thought Congress has to appropriate funds for programs! Maybe it'll be an "executive order", you know, a blatantly unconstitutional circumvention of the Constitution!
Will this make the rest of the system irrelevant? Probably not. Non-information resources are finite and we have to have some system to distribute them....
I don't buy this. What right does government have to distribute anyone's resources, and more than I have the right to "redistribute" your property to my back yard?
Command economies do not work. It's been well proven. They do not save the environment, they do not improve working conditions, and they certainly don't inprove the economy of production. Government "distribution" means stealing everyone's money and giving back half of it in exchange for absolute submission. The other half is split between official luxury and "reforming" those citizens who are not yet completely servile.
Let's face it, humanity is a power hungry monster.
Politics can never end.
Go on, lock your own cell and throw away the key. That's what you're doing.
Humanity is not a power hungry monster. There are a few criminals who are power hungry monsters, however. The Constitution was intended to construct a system where those monsters would be held in check, through multiple checks and balances.
It failed. The people miscalculated, and they grew lazy and apathetic. Our monsters do not feel threatened. No - they feel entitled! Why are they entitled to rape my freedom? "It's in the Constitution!"
When the political establishment degenerates, and the monsters begin to feel comfortable, what is to be done?
Well, we could slay the monsters. It really wouldn't be too hard, if we start slowly and build momentum. Assassinate senators and representatives who have risen to notoriety for their injustices.
There's another related option: expose the illegitimacy of the entire political machine. How? Vote monarchy! The King could simply echo all the stupid and corrupt legislation passed in Congress!
Both of the above must be implemented in tandem, in my opinion. First, you scare the lawmakers and the media into listening. Then you expose all their evils through the universally detested mouthpiece of the King!
Slashdot Mirror
What do you think about the part where it's clearly documented that many Nazi storm troopers were homosexuals?
I'm no expert, but it's certainly plausible.
There were two kinds of homosexuals in Weimar Germany. Butch homosexuals who wore black and femme homosexuals who wore pink.
I'm sure homosexuals in Germany wore many colors. I don't know how predominant the arrangement you speak of really was. It's immaterial to the point.
In the concentration camps many of the guards were homosexuals.
This, too, is plausible. Positions like that were probably a magnet for disturbed people, and homosexuality is a typical symptom of sexual abuse.
I'm not refuting that. But your link is not simply an investigation into the higher relative incidence of homosexuality in Nazi Germany (something which I would believe). It is a paranoid, delusional attack on homosexuality in general. Statements like
are blatantly false. The fact that an abnormal percentage of Nazi guards were homosexuals does not negate the extermination of homosexuals as a class.
Similarly, assertions like
shatter any pretense of impartial analysis.
The authors of this work find homosexuality distasteful, and they have a right to do so. Ever hear of Godwin's law? Equating a thing with Nazism is almost always a futile attempt to build a strawman.
expresses well this book's intent. This is not legitimate history, and I hope you don't believe that it is.
When South Africa was considering decriminalising marijuana Clinton pretty much told them that he would destroy their economy in retaliation. Naturally they backed off.
Can you cite a source for this? I could find lame accounts of their ambivalence towards marijuana, but I can't find anything pertaining to US involvement.
Hate to point this out, but the US has regularly killed innocent civilians for decades, except that most Americans wouldn't know coz they are semi-literate about foreign policy.
Yeah. AFAIK, most of that killing was done in the name of the fight against Communism, propping up evil dictators in the Middle East and South America.
I wasn't trying to downplay the evil we've done in the past. If we subverted the British elections and brought the Evil Orwellian ENGSOC Big Brother Party to power, for the sole purpose of cracking down on MP3 copying, then it would be roughly comparable to past American machinations. (Well, Stalin was far worse than MP3 "pirates", so it's not a fair comparison.)
Cop killers don't need to ever see the light of day.
What about people who killed Hitler's cops? Should they be executed? From your blanket statement above, I would have to say you think they should. That seems a bit out of character for you, considering (what I justly believe to be) your views on Hitler.
Magnus Hirshfield wrote: I for one think there should be a competence test before people are allowed to vote.
It might look like this:
Read the link in this asshole's user info. Or narrow in on some choice selections. I love the part about Playboy (and all pornography) being inherently homosexual!
(There is, of course, a great lesson here: voter "competence" is a subjective measure (the work "incompetent" is arguably pejorative), and thus cannot be fairly implemented. The only fair way I can think of is to let each candidate arbitrarily reject his votes - something which would never be done.)
Unfortunately the Democrats have been increasingly embracing social conservatism, which doesn't really leave any option for people who really like the idea of a free country.
Walk down to the nearest government building, board up all the windows, board up all the doors, and spraypaint J A I L on what once was the entrance. Repeat a few thousand times. Then enjoy your free country.
There's always an option. The question is how hard the people will need to be fucked before they exercise that option. Maybe in ten years, when the growth rate has held and they've doubled the number of drug offenders locked up to a million. Or maybe in twenty years, when perhaps one out of every hundred people is behind bars for smoking pot, or maybe on charges of "obscenity". Who knows what they'll have outlawed by then!
1. We affirm the importance of access to a livable income.
Yeah, it really sucks when your income is not enough to live on. Is any candidate claiming, "Making enough money to survive is an evil comparable to Nazism!" I don't think so.
2. Job banks and other innovative training and employment programs which bring together the private and public sectors must become federal, state and local priorities. People who are unable to find decent work in the private sector should have options through publicly funded opportunities.
In other words, "If you're too lazy, inept, and/or stupid to be at all useful, the government should give you the taxpayers' money for useless work."
3. Workforce development programs must aim at moving people out of poverty - a ?living wage? campaign and ?living wage? standard will go a long way toward achieving this goal.
As opposed to what, aiming to keep people in poverty? That's obvious. What is a "living wage" standard? Either you can survive, or you cannot. All living things have a "living wage" standard, otherwise they would not be alive. And I doubt the efficacy of a "living wage" campaign. What does that mean? TV ads - "You should really go find some work. Really, I mean it. (Brought to you by Big Brother.)" What's that going to do?
4. We urge that a national debate be held and broad public mandate be sought regarding (fiscal and monetary) economic strategies and policies as they impact wages. This debate is long overdue.
Why do we need Ralph Nader to lead a debate? If the people wanted a debate, they would have one. No, the people are sheep and they don't care. Ralph can't change that!
The growing inequities in income and wealth between rich and poor; unprecedented discrepancies in salary and benefits between corporate top executives and line workers; loss of the ?American dream? by the young and middle-class - each is a symptom of decisions made by policy-makers far removed from the concerns of ordinary workers trying to keep up.
The rich is getting richer because the poor is lazy, stupid, and too short-sighted to stop lining the pockets of the rich. Ralph can't change that. Executives make way more than workers because the workers are too lazy, stupid, and short-sighted to risk starting their own enterprise. Mountains of government red tape don't help - Nader likes red tape!
At what point in time was my "American Dream" stolen? And when was the middle class deprived of it? Some strawman! "each is a symptom of decisions made by policy-makers far removed from the concerns of ordinary workers trying to keep up." Yeah, and government is the most notorious, monopolistic policy maker.
5. A clear living wage standard should serve as a foundation for trade between nations, and a ?floor? of wage protections and worker?s rights should be negotiated and set in place in future trade agreements. The United States should take the lead on this front - and not allow destructive, corporate predatory practices under the guise of ?free? international trade.
This strikes me as pseudo-socialist BS. If there really was free trade, the market would set its own "wage floor" based on supply and demand. They claim freedom is just a mask for corporate predators. Hrmmm, government claiming my freedom is a bad, bad thing, and people who like freedom must either be stupid or evil capitalist predators! Great. Corporations have the same rights as you and I, and they can only be "predatory" when the workers are too lazy, stupid, and short-sighted to make capitalism work. But government is the biggest predatory corporation of all! They have guns and thugs, and they demand my business! They steal my rights in order to make me a better customer! Some trade-off.
This is a living wage, not a MAXIMUM wage.
It's a wonderful promise. Will Ralph make the trains run on time, too?
Any attempt by the US (or any other nation) to force it's views onto a non-national site is colonialism, pure and simple.
Idiots love to cry "neo-colonialism". Watch out when you equate any indirect cultural influence to men with guns manipulating indiginous populations into minions of England/France/whatever. DCMA, Carnivore, and litigious culture have not been imposed on your country with one hundredth the brutality of colonialism, if indeed they have been imposed at all. We imposed a litigious culture on your country? How? Did we sail there in massive ships and demand that you address all your petty grievances to the legal system at gunpoint? Right.
You do raise a good point the value of American conceptions of human rights when applied to other cultures. Mentally handicapped members of the left love to defend all human rights. One caveat - other cultures supposedly have less of them. Chinese are born with less rights than the British, and to impose or even expect British rights in China is a travesty against the Chinese culture, or so they say.
The relevance to your assertions of sovereign law is obvious. If laws are the direct codification of rights, then to advocate differing laws is to imply differing natural rights. That's one hell of an implication.
Of course, if laws are merely the way rulers justify their rule, then I agree, your rulers should be allowed to rule in their own special non-American way. Have fun.
What exactly is that link of yours, anyway? What is your relation to it?
From the page:
Do you really believe this bullshit?
I don't speak for the masses any more than anyone else does.
You asserted that republics were superior to democracies, and you did not substantiate that claim, save for an allusion to the authority of the "founding fathers".
You also asserted that political discontent is ineffectual. I disagree - people who believe the political system never changes are naive. If you annoy the masses enough, they grow impatient.
If the number of people in prison for drug offences doubles to a million (and it very well could in a decade) I think "the masses" will do something about it. You disagree?
I'm not a commie, etc.
Didn't mean to come across that way. America has a mixed economy; I was just bringing up the two extremes.
You can't talk about any type of restriction without an enforcing entitity, so even in an ultra-capitalist world we have to have govts. These things are complex social ideas tied up with the idea of govt itself.
That's for sure. And they get far trickier when government is tasked with enforcing equality. I don't even know where to start.
The only question is, does capitalism without an active govt suck less? If so, how much less does it suck?
The number of people who die under a regime is a relatively objective measure of suckiness. By that measure, socialism easily takes the prize. But "socialist states" are usually far from socialist, because true socialism (especially communism) has proved an unreachable ideal. If we had a black box that could eat everyone's money and fairly redistribute it, then communism might have a chance. Even then it would have to be enforced by the black box as well.
Is "true capitalism" an unreachable ideal as well? I think the libertarian fantasy of buying "protection services" and other core government functions off the market are likely unreachable. Would a more tempered libertarianism necessarily be unstable and calamitous? I'm not sure that the Industrial Revolution is a valid example of capitalist catastrophe - working in the factories really was better than the farm (if perhaps only for the change of scenery, a valid reason) and the labor pool was huge. More likely, it was industry working in collusion with the state to ban labor unions and prevent fair negotiations that was responsible. That's obviously a "Buchananite" fascist phemonenon, not a libertarian one.
I don't know if government has really done all that much to stablilze the economy, but I really don't know much economic history. It's hard for me to assess the impact it had. I would think it's hard for anyone to assess.
As far as the environment is concerned, one only need look at Russia to see an example of government intervention hurting the situation - every other concern was neglected in favor of production. The environment was completely ignored, because industry had no incentive to even maintain its own land. Capitalism avoids this neatly, because it's probably in my interest to keep my property unpolluted. Government certainly has less of an interest.
IMHO, the question of the government's place has always been more simplistic. Government is allowed to do things which non-government entities cannot do. This is a BIG advantage, and a BIG risk. Government is unique in its powers. So it is essential to limit the domain of the government to only the things which absolutely must be regulated by it. I feel government has a place safeguarding rights and enforcing contracts. In other fields, I think it is too much of a liability, and I think that government should not be involved in affairs which a normal corporation or group could suffice. Letting government mess with things like prescription drug prices or education is like paying a soldier with a Kalashnikov rifle to open my garage door for me. Sure, he's big, and he could easily do the job, but having him around is just too dangerous. It's insane.
The United States has never been a pure democracy, that wasn't even the intent of the founders of this republic.
Don't appeal to the will of the "founding fathers" to defend a political system. Sure, you can present the ideas they expoused, but ideas have neither origins nor owners.
I don't know if we've prevented the beer-scarfing masses from voting. The petty, hollow issues of our two candidates seem to compliment the petty, hollow lives of beef-scarfers. Bush is an ignorant beer-scarfer!
Politicians feign concern, get elected, and gorge themselves on your money and your freedom. Some representation.
So piss and moan if you like. It really doesn't matter.
That's just inaccurate. First we piss and moan, next we get angry, and then we get even.
Capitalism, even the very laissez-faire variety, is a distribution of resources according to govt control.
I don't understand. Capitalism is simply freedom mapped onto the ecomomic domain. It means I can freely enter into contractual agreements with whomever I please. Government does not control my economic interactions, but it may be appealed to for the resolution of contract disputes. Under socialism, there would be no private (individual-individual) disputes, because there would be no private contracts to dispute. Rather, all contracts would be with the government, and since what differntiates goverment from business is that government can use force to impose its will, there can be no dispute, only coercion. That system sucks infinitely more than paying a streamlined judiciary and police force to enforce free, private contracts. Read Soviet history. A lack of clear property rights is an elevator to hell.
have resources that are distributed in accordance w/ govt rules.
In a free market economy, there can be no goverment interference beyond arbitrating disputes. Otherwise it is no longer free - it's like Big Brother demanding "voluntary censorship" from Hollywood. It's a farce.
Now, yeah, if I "distribute my resources", so to speak, by infringing someone's rights, then that would be the domain of government. However, that is not, in my opinion, any different than enforcing a contract. In economic terms, you and I have an implicit contract forbidding each party from infringing upon the rights of the other. When one of us breaks that contract, then the other's obligations are dissolved - i.e., if you decide to whack me over the head with a 2x4 because I'm ranting, I can kill you, because you have violated that agreement. We entrust government with the power necessary to intervene, if I'm too weak to protect my rights.
Can the 'Net end the need for a government? Well, is there really a need for government in the first place? That's one hell of a question, and I don't have the answer, but I think there is a need for a small, trusted judiciary with a small, trusted legal code. The internet can certainly streamline the process of arbitrating disputes and enforcing rights. Secure cryptographic systems could allow a miniscule government to resolve disputes and mobilize police in an incredibly efficient manner. It could probably be done for an insignificant amount of money.
Laws which protect corrupt "office holders" are wrong and should not be obeyed.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to assassinate people who want to control our lives. It's self defence.
For example, if you took a fourth of my property, told me what I could and could not say, and insisted that you were doing the right thing, and that I was just too stupid to grasp the theory behind it (ring a bell?), I would have the right to kill you in self defence.
Why is it any different if Bill Clinton does it? Would it be any different if Lenin did it? If Stalin did it? If Hitler did it? If Mao Tse-tung did it? If Pol Pot did it?
The political theories granting power to each were equally robust!
Do you think the world would be a better place if we, the people, had not sheepishly accepted their claims to power? Would the world be a better place if we interpreted any claim to power as an assault on our freedom and crushed it?
As Thomas Paine wrote, "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
Or do you really think that Social Security funds Storm Troopers?
Taxes fund Storm Troopers.
Yeah, Storm Troopers.
because of the importance of the election this year (probable Supreme Court Justice replacement, close race, etc.), you should vote for Gore.
It is in the interest of both parties to maintain a level of controversy sufficient to keep the voters alert and receptive, but no more controversy than necessary, or their ideological monopoly might be jeopardized.
For example, the debates have all revolved around this great surplus we supposedly have. Each candidate has his own peculiar way to deal with it. It's absurd - if government takes more money than it has legally appropriated for its services, that money is a crime. It is stolen goods! No law provides for it!
Bush wants to give back a small percentage of it, mainly to the rich. Huh? Give back a portion of it? I thought Bush was supposed to be right-wing!
Gore wants to invest it in government programs. Huh? I thought Congress has to appropriate funds for programs! Maybe it'll be an "executive order", you know, a blatantly unconstitutional circumvention of the Constitution!
Just enough controversy to keep you voting.
Will this make the rest of the system irrelevant? Probably not. Non-information resources are finite and we have to have some system to distribute them....
I don't buy this. What right does government have to distribute anyone's resources, and more than I have the right to "redistribute" your property to my back yard?
Command economies do not work. It's been well proven. They do not save the environment, they do not improve working conditions, and they certainly don't inprove the economy of production. Government "distribution" means stealing everyone's money and giving back half of it in exchange for absolute submission. The other half is split between official luxury and "reforming" those citizens who are not yet completely servile.
Let's face it, humanity is a power hungry monster.
Politics can never end.
Go on, lock your own cell and throw away the key. That's what you're doing.
Humanity is not a power hungry monster. There are a few criminals who are power hungry monsters, however. The Constitution was intended to construct a system where those monsters would be held in check, through multiple checks and balances.
It failed. The people miscalculated, and they grew lazy and apathetic. Our monsters do not feel threatened. No - they feel entitled! Why are they entitled to rape my freedom? "It's in the Constitution!"
When the political establishment degenerates, and the monsters begin to feel comfortable, what is to be done?
Well, we could slay the monsters. It really wouldn't be too hard, if we start slowly and build momentum. Assassinate senators and representatives who have risen to notoriety for their injustices.
There's another related option: expose the illegitimacy of the entire political machine. How? Vote monarchy! The King could simply echo all the stupid and corrupt legislation passed in Congress!
Both of the above must be implemented in tandem, in my opinion. First, you scare the lawmakers and the media into listening. Then you expose all their evils through the universally detested mouthpiece of the King!
Piano wire? Nah - fiber optic cable!
ROFL!