[CTRL] Reichstag Fires on Campus
~~for educational purposes only~~ Reichstag Fires on Campus by William Anderson A recent racial incident at Iowa State University brought to light what has been a scandalous trend in U.S. higher education. For several days, a black male dental school student received numerous racist e-mails, and the campus erupted in predictable rage. Students held rallies and candlelight vigils amid demands for more "diversity training." Alas, the story has an "unhappy" ending. The sender of those e-mails was not a David Duke-loving white racist, but rather another dental students, this one black and female. Once again, a supposed egregious racist attack on black university students was a fraud. Police arrested the perpetrator, but the long-term disposition of the case is in doubt. This was not an isolated incident. In the last few years, there have been a number of "racial attacks" at college campuses in which a student has alleged an assault only to have the authorities find out later that the whole thing was a lie. For example, a white female student at Guilford College, a Quaker college in North Carolina, claimed to have been assaulted by the ubiquitous Angry White Males to punish her for having a black boyfriend. Not only were the perpetrators supposed to have beaten her, but they also wrote racist slogans across her chest, according to her accusation. While it did not take long to find that the student's claims were lies, that was not the end of the story. In fact, her lies were only the beginning, as college officials quickly instituted the dreaded "diversity training" to re-educate the rest of the student body, and many people at Guilford praised the student for "raising awareness of racism." In other words, even though there had been no presence of the dreaded "racism" at Guilford, college administrators were happy to institute what amounted to "struggle" sessions (made famous by the Chinese communists). The student whose lies started the whole thing faced no sanctions from Guilford's administration, and no wonder: her falsehoods enabled those administrators to proclaim a "crisis" that needed immediate resolution. At Emory University a few years before the Guilford saga, a black female student fainted after "discovering" racist slogans written with lipstick hidden under a small throw rug in her dormitory room. After the required anti-racism rallies, candlelight vigils, and implementation of "diversity training," it was found out that the girl had written the slogans herself. Alan Kors of the University of Pennsylvania, Paul Craig Roberts, and others have well documented how these modern re-education sessions operate, but suffice it to say they are not pleasant for their main targets: heterosexual caucasian male students. Why administrators and their supporters find it necessary to force such activities upon youngsters whose families pay big bucks to be on campus is testament to the arrogance of the political left. (Why parents would pay for their children to be put through this humiliation is proof that many middle and upper-class Americans have come to despise freedom itself.) That they must often depend upon contrived incidents is proof that much "diversity" training is an exercise of intellectual bankruptcy. Such tactics, unfortunately, are reminiscent of another very successful fraud: the Reichstag Fire of 1933. On January 30, 1933, Hitler became chancellor (or prime minister) of Germany after his National Socialist Party won 40 percent of the national vote during the 1932 elections. In February, 1933, his band of hoodlums secretly permitted the burning the Reichstag (parliament) building but blamed it on communists and Jews. In the wake of the Reichstag fire, the German parliament gave the Nazis full authority to do whatever they wanted. Rule of law became rule of thuggery, as the government stripped citizens of any rights they might once have enjoyed in that formerly civilized country, including freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and private property rights. The rest is history, as Hitler later joined forces with the communist Josef Stalin to trigger the Second World War. College administrators might not be able to start another world war, but their main sponsor, the U.S. Government, unfortunately, does have that capability. It is easy to target the various frauds in the academic world for this reenactment of the Reichstag fire, complete with totalitarian-style "rules" to counter these fake "upsurges" in racism, but one must always keep in mind that the federal government is the real engine behind this activity. The sorry practice of totalitarian reeducation begins with federal agencies, who have the same practices themselves. Like their college counterparts, federal employees are herded into groups in which middle and upper-class blacks, homosexuals, and females attack white male workers who are blamed for every ill known to humanity, not unlike the accusations Hitler and his Nazi foll
Re: [CTRL] Corporatizing water.
The Government has been 'monopolizing' and selling this for years. Regard$, --MJ In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day 1970 http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] One More Excuse for Seizure of Property
-Caveat Lector- nurev wrote: Are you stupid beyond belief or what? What kind of phony comparisons are you trying to pull here? MJ: There are no phony comparisons -- THINK -- if you believe *I* am dangerous because *I* have gotten shitfaced drunk and gotten in a car and perform to Standard G ... and OTHER people who have NOT ingested alcohol perform at the EXACT SAME STANDARD (G) ... and you choose to do NOTHING to them, then this is as I charged. nurev wrote: If you CHOOSE do drink, then CHOOSE to stay out of the driver's seat. If you CHOOSE to put my life at risk because you are a drunken fool, then I CHOOSE to empower the government to keep you off the road. MJ: I own many kitchen utensils, shop tools, camping/hiking paraphernalia, etc. I *COULD* do damage to you at anytime (not to mention I could simply run you over with the car in a sober state) ... how are you protected? If I am drunk, drive my car obeying ALL of the current 'rules of the road' in an otherwise safe manner ... how has my level of intoxication put you at risk -- merely for being in such a state? Government has no other end but the preservation of Property. -- John Locke nurev wrote: How about the preservation of life over the preservation of property? What a novel concept eh? MJ: One's LIFE *IS* property. Regard$, --MJ Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labor of his body and the work of his hands are properly his. -- John Locke, 1690 DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Free Speech Is Whatever the Government Allows
-Caveat Lector- Franklin Wayne Poley wrote: That says it all. And "human rights" are however the government defines them. MJ: Yes, no rights exist EXCEPT by FORCE. Regard$, --MJ As property, honestly obtained, is best secured by an equality of rights, so ill-gotten property depends for protection on a monopoly of rights. He who has robbed another of his property, will next endeavor to disarm him of his rights, to secure that property; for when the robber becomes the legislator he believes himself secure. - -Thomas Paine, Dissertations on First Principles of Government DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Dictatorship?
-Caveat Lector- Prudy Are you suggesting some sort of dictator as a leader? J FROST wrote: How do you know when you are in a republic/democracy and not a dictatorship? MJ: You liken America to a Dictatorship (itself not inherrantly a BAD concept) ... considering that Anarchy is essentially endless Gang warfare, would it not be more appropriate to consider the US Government as administered by the Duopoly of Republicans and Democrats the most powerful Gang in an Anarchy? J FROST wrote: Except for the fact that we get to vote for our dictators, America is no different than any other dictatorship. In America our dictators push their agenda down our throats on the basis of who is able to give them the greatest bribes. MJ: Yes, contrary to the Constitution which was an attempt to LIMIT the government to specific functions. J FROST wrote: America was supposed to be a representative government . MJ: How so? Per 1789 <--- note, 1789 The President ... was chosen by the electoral college which had to choose 2 candidates (one of which did NOT reside in THEIR state) to effectively cause a runoff (serving as a search committee) for the House to ultimately select The Senate ... was chosen by the State Legislatures The House ... was chosen by cordoned sections of the country that could select ONE representative each The Judicial ... appointed by the President, approved by the Senate Where does the Representation come in? America was supposed to have a government which protected individual rights. J FROST wrote: In the context/days when our government was established there were no phones, tvs or the like. People of areas/districts had to farm and most of them never traveled over 50 miles from where they were born in their whole life. This is where the representatives were conceived. Because the people of a district could not go or even know what was going on, they selected representatives who would ENACT THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF THAT DISTRICT. No I do not recommend that a dictatorship is established, I recommend that the bribed party dictators be destroyed and representatives be forced to represent the will of the people of their districts as designed by the constitution. The constitution was not designed so the "representatives" collude together and force their will on the people, it was designed so that representatives would enact the will of the people of their districts. MJ: The 'will of the people' is a recent invention utilized primarily by those SAME politicians you lambasted previously. May I suggest you READ the Constitution again, this time notice ... We the people in order to accomplish these six (6) ideals, establish THIS Constitution. There are three branches with THESE specific duties and THESE specific criteria to hold office. The Legislature has THESE specifically enumerated POWERS, The President THESE and the Judicial THESE. At any time which these POWERS be inadequate, they can be changed by amendment OR Constitutional Convention. Regard$, --MJ Except in the sacred texts of democracy and in the incantations of orators, we hardly take the trouble to pretend that the rule of the majority is not at bottom a rule of force. What other virtue can there be in fifty-one percent except the brute fact that fifty-one is more than forty-nine? The rule of fifty-one per cent is a convenience, it is for certain matters a satisfactory political device, it is for others the lesser of two evils, and for others it is acceptable because we do not know any less troublesome method of obtaining a political decision. But it may easily become an absurd tyranny if we regard it worshipfully, as though it were more than a political device. We have lost all sense of its true meaning wheen we imagine that the opinion of fifty-one per cent is in some high fashion the true opinion of the whole hundred per cent, or indulge in the sophistry that the rule of a majority is based upon the ultimate equality of man. -- Walter Lippmann DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ==
Re: [CTRL] Dictatorship?
-Caveat Lector- MJ: In regards to America as the constitution plainly states ... [followed by our current bastardized system of statism] J FROST wrote: This is supposed to be a republic so quote all the happy horse shit until you are blue in the face and when you are done, tell me who's will is enacted in a republic: #1 Some minority To PROTECT from FORCE and FRAUD an individual's RIGHT to his OWN life is the ONLY legitimate function of Government as the individual is the smallest of ALL minorities -- see article I, section 8, clauses 2 through 18. [whomever (group or individual) can buy the legislation of hi choice] #2 Politicians should decide what laws the nation should have based on their own agendas... The Constitution enumerates specific areas in which legislation may be enacted -- ALL of these serve to protect ALL individuals from FORCE and FRAUD. [Politicians decide based upon the votes they can buy] #3 The politicians should represent those who bribe them, in which this nation is a political bribery form of government. Close to 90% of the current budget serves to finance schemes which find no legitimacy within the Constitution and are placed their at the insistence of 'interests' and their money AND to sway voters so officials can maintain power. [this nation DOES work on bribery] #4 Politicians should implement the will of their party bosses There are no 'parties' within the US Constitution. [Apparently this has some reality to it.] #5 The politicians should implement the will of God as preachers tell them what God really wants. The constitution separates religion and government. [Politicians regularly implement the agenda of whatever group it hopes to garnish the favor of votes.] #6 The politicians should represent the will of the majority The Constitution prevents such a Tyranny. [Politicians often provide such though certainly AND by no means exclusively OR in great measure] J FROST wrote: No matter what you call a government, politicians enact the will of a segment of people and in that same act they transgress the will of those who have opposing wills. No matter what you call it, in the end results which of the above 6 segments of society get to impose their will on all others? There is little difference in your six examples in the way they are handled today. The society with the MOST liberty upholds an individual's RIGHT to his OWN life as supreme. Regard$, --MJ Property is prior to law; the sole function of the law is to safeguard the right to property wherever it exists, wherever it is formed, in whatever manner the worker produces it, whether individually or in association, provided that he respects the rights of others. -- Frederic Bastiat DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Constitution / religion
-Caveat Lector- J FROST wrote: Kind of funny modern "constutionalist" telling the founding fathers intended separation between church and state when the mc guffy readers ... school books and even the bible was used as doctrine and teaching tools in schools. Imagine that the founding fathers, their children and grand children having the bible taught to them in schools along with daily prayers. When do you imagine the Government involved itself in education on a 'larger' scale? NOT 1789. Regard$, --MJ Our schools have been scientifically designed to prevent overeducation from happening. The average American (should be) content with their humble role in life, because they're not tempted to think about any other role. -- U.S. Commissioner of Education, William T. Harris, 1889 DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Dictatorship?
-Caveat Lector- J FROST wrote: > You have made all kinds of replies to questions I didn't ask. Perhaps we can cut to the chase ... describe what *YOU* believe to be the 'legitimate' form/function of government and WHY (what derivation you reach your conclusion). Regard$, --MJ I have never let my schooling interfere with my education. -- Mark Twain DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Constitution
-Caveat Lector- MJ: To PROTECT from FORCE and FRAUD an individual's RIGHT to his OWN life is the ONLY legitimate function of Government J FROST wrote: Then why does the government protect whores, homosexuals dope users, drunks "rights" If the Constitution protect's an individual's right to his OWN life then why does the government engage in the contrary and sacrifice the lives/rights of some so perverts can have their "rights" MJ: READ again the statement above attributed to me. MJ: The Constitution enumerates specific areas in which legislation may be enacted -- ALL of these serve to protect ALL individuals from FORCE and FRAUD. J FROST wrote: Then why doesn't the Constitution protect us from government's force of taxes, the draft and all other government mandates? MJ: Article I, section 8, clause 1 and its complement amendment 16 permit taxation for the expressed purposes so enumerated within ... J FROST wrote: If the Constitution protects us from fraud, then why isn't the Constitution protecting us from the fraud of every lying politician who calls this a democracy. Why doesn't the Constitution protect us from the fraud of paying taxes for the express of ss and then using that money for other things? MJ: Because the electorate is ignorant and prefers to be cared for to freedom. Government is FORCE ... unless this force is held in check (voters?) what can one doto stop it? Hence my comparison to a gang. Keep in mind there is a difference between the reality of what is plainly written within the Constitution AND what the Government of the United States perpetrates on its people. MJ: The constitution separates religion and government. [Politicians regularly implement the agenda of whatever group it hopes to garnish the favor of votes.] J FROST wrote: The word "separation" is no where to be found in that part of the Constitution... this is more politician fraud that the Constitution does not protect us from. The Constitution states that the government shall make no laws to establish religion or such things concerning laws. The politicians have mocked the Constitution and have enacted laws concerning the Constitution. MJ: You lost me here ... if one 'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof', such is pretty much 'separated'. J FROST wrote: If there is a "separation of church and state" then tell me why in the transcripts of presidents, congress, governors ... while in official capacity ... in public buildings they speak of God, prayer and quote the bible thousands of times every year? MJ: Strawman. I stated nothing in regards to 'separation of church and state'. J FROST wrote: A republic is defined as a government in which the people control the government through representatives. The Constitution speaks of the laws of the people, for the people by the people. Because what the people have a conflict of wills, which segment of people are in control of the government in your dream of a "republic"? MJ: By whose definition? The founders most certainly set up no such system as is evident by the 'leadership' selection AND the limitations upon WHAT may be accomplished by such a government. Regard$, --MJ Pragmatism is the convenient conclusion reached by those who lack the patience or intelligence to formulate a consistant ideology. -- Mark G. Hanley DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] **DOPE SUPPORTERS**
-Caveat Lector- Brown, Jeremy wrote: It appears that, in an attempt to get to the bottom of this, we have painted ourselves into a corner. MJ: ? Brown, Jeremy wrote: This is the old "fire in a crowded theater" argument. MJ: False analogy. One who yells fire in a crowded theater fraudulently incites others to 'stampede'. Brown, Jeremy wrote: Having to choose which freedoms are scared and which are not. MJ: I contend that utilizing the Natural Right standard (also identified within the Declaration of Independence) of an individual's RIGHT to their OWN life 'frees' one to choose for himself (or choose a 'guardian' to choose for him and him alone). Brown, Jeremy wrote: Driving drunk is a proven killer. MJ: So is driving while exhausted -- however, that carries no 'criminality'. Brown, Jeremy wrote: What I am saying is that steps should be taken to PREVENT drunk driving. Education, contracts for life, things like that. MJ: That is not what you previously stated. I have no problem if one desires to utilize his OWN resources in an attempt to encourage others. Brown, Jeremy wrote: I AM afraid of dying, especially such a wasted and pointless death as being run down by Joe Jock coming home from the Mellow Tiger after a real bender. MJ: Perhaps we should eliminate automobiles. :) As to Frosty's fallacy of logic ... that most certainly must be why we had so many Heroin adict children at the turn of this century when every corner 'drug store' sold heroin to anyone who asked. Regard$, --MJ No nation was ever drunk when wine was cheap. -- Thomas Jefferson DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Howard: DOPE SUPPORTERS
-Caveat Lector- Edward Britton wrote: chiding MJ: There is a stark difference between OBSERVATION and insult. Regard$, --MJ You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself. -- Galileo DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] [prj] DOPE SUPPORTERS
-Caveat Lector- nurev wrote: This is how modern society is organized. If you don't like it, move to Libertaria. MJ: Whatever the MOB says goes? Certainly a Tyranny easily identified by another name. Regard$, --MJ A Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. A Republic: The flock gets to vote for which wolves vote on dinner. A Constitutional Republic: Voting on dinner is expressly forbidden, and the sheep are armed. Federal Government: The means by which the sheep will be fooled into voting for a Democracy... DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] [prj] DOPE SUPPORTERS
-Caveat Lector- nurev wrote: This is how modern society is organized. If you don't like it, move to Libertaria. MJ: Whatever the MOB says goes? Certainly a Tyranny easily identified by another name. nurev wrote: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I've heard this song before. But do keep it up. This is what keeps Libertarians irrelevant as a political group. MJ: Ad hominem, straw man. Regard$, --MJ We won't dispassionately investigate or rationally debate which drugs do what damage and whether or how much of that damage is the result of criminalization. We'd rather work ourselves into a screaming fit of puritanism and then go home and take a pill. -- P.J. O'Rourke DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] [prj] DOPE SUPPORTERS
-Caveat Lector- nurev wrote: This is how modern society is organized. If you don't like it, move to Libertaria. MJ: Whatever the MOB says goes? Certainly a Tyranny easily identified by another name. nurev wrote: You keep calling groups of people a mob. MJ: Only where warranted. nurev wrote: Surely not every human grouping is a mob in your adolescent philosophy is it? Ad hominem, straw man nurev wrote: There are gangs, and tribes, and citizens, and teams, and consumers, and populations. But you see us all as mobs. No wonder you don't have the courage to live in a democracy. MJ: I am not interested in being ruled by the whim of 50%+1 of the population. I prefer liberty. Regard$, --MJ It is the besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which the masses of men exhibit their tyranny. -- James Fenimore Cooper DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] OT: People Asking Questions (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- MICHAEL SPITZER wrote: From another list I'm on: Question: I am not a pilot, or an airplane mechanic, so I ask this from a position of ignorance and seek responses from those more expert. I was reading the accounts of the plane accident, and from what I could make of it, the plane was on its final descent to land. Approximate speed was something under 100 mph, given the top speed of the plane was about 150 mph. The pieces being found are things like pieces of seats, one wheel, a wing strut, a piece of landing gear, etc. In other words, small pieces of a very badly broken apart plane, a plane whose fuselage was ripped apart badly enough to tear the very seats apart. Does this seem logical to you? The pieces descriptions sound to me like what would happen if the plane exploded, not something that would happen if it ditched in the water on final approach. Am I just ignorant here? Yes. Water would be like concrete at the speed it *might have* hit. The speed you cite is horizontal, not vertical. Find the WEIGHT of the plane, the cited altitude and utilize some Physics for a better 'picture'. It is quite possible that the plane was in a 'powered dive' when it hit the water -- which could certainly exceed its horizontal maximum speed. You could only 'guess' the speed at impact, but assuming the plane merely 'dropped' from the last reported altitude will provide its MINIMUM (or approximate since weights of the passengers, fuel and luggage would have to be estimated). Regard$, --MJ There is no authority except facts. Facts are obtained by accurate observation. Deductions are to be made only from facts. -- William Boeing DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] The Federal Reserve Bank is a Private Company
-Caveat Lector- The Myth of the 'Independent' Fed by Thomas J. DiLorenzo Ever since its founding in 1913, the Fed has described itself as an 'independent' agency operated by selfless public servants striving to 'fine-tune' the economy through monetary policy. In reality, however, a nonpolitical governmental institution is as likely as a barking cat. Yet, the myth of an 'independent' Fed persists. One reason this myth persists is that statist textbooks have helped perpetuate it for decades. >From 1948 until about 1980 Paul Samuelson's Economics was the best-selling introductory economics text. Generations of students were introduced to economics by Samuelson. Although not as popular as it once was, Samuelson's text (now co-authored with William Nordhaus) is still widely used. According to the 1989 edition: The Federal Reserve's goals are steady growth in national output and low unemployment. Its sworn enemy is inflation. If aggregate demand is excessive, so that prices are being bid up, the Federal Reserve Board may want to slow the growth of the money supply, thereby slowing aggregate demand and output growth. If unemployment is high and business languishing, the Fed may consider increasing the money supply, thereby raising aggregate demand and augmenting output growth. In a nutshell, this is the function of central banking, which is an essential part of macroeconomic management in all mixed economies. For about the past fifteen years the top-selling economics text has been Campbell McConnell's Economics, which echoes Samuelson and Nordhaus's idealistic statism: Because it is a public body, the decisions of the Board of Governors are made in what it perceives to be the public interest ... the Federal Reserve Banks are not guided by the profit motive, but rather, they pursue those measures which the Board of Governors recommends ... The fundamental objective of monetary policy is to assist the economy in achieving a full employment, noninflationary level of total output. These are mere wishes, not statements of facts, for there is voluminous evidence that the Fed -- like all other governmental institutions -- has always been manipulated by politicians. The Fed as a Political Tool When the Fed was founded, it was controlled by two groups, the Governors' Conference, composed of the twelve regional bank presidents, and the seven-member Federal Reserve Board in Washington. In 1935 the Fed was reorganized to concentrate nearly all power in Washington. Franklin Roosevelt 'packed' the Fed just as he later filled the U.S. Supreme Court with political sycophants. Roosevelt appointed Martinet Eccles, a strong supporter of deficit spending and inflationary finance, as Fed Chairman, although Eccles had no financial background and lacked even an undergraduate degree. In those years the Fed was really run by Eccles's political mentor, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr., and thus ultimately Roosevelt. Later presidents were no less willing to influence supposedly independent Fed policy. According to the late Robert Weintraub, the Federal Reserve fundamentally shifted its monetary policy course in 1953, 1961, 1969, 1974, and 1977-all years in which the presidency changed. Fed policy almost always changes to accommodate varying presidential preferences. For example, President Eisenhower wanted slower money growth. The money supply grew by 1.73 percent during his administration -- the slowest rate in a decade. President Kennedy desired somewhat faster money creation. From January 1961 to November 1963, the basic money supply grew by 2.31 percent. Lyndon Johnson required rapid money creation to finance his expansion of the welfare/warfare state. Money-supply growth more than doubled to 5 percent. These varying rates of monetary growth all occurred under the same Fed chairman, William McChesney Martin, who obviously was more interested in pleasing his political master than in implementing an independent monetary policy. Martin's successor, Arthur Burns, was such a staunch supporter of Richard Nixon that he lost all professional credibility by enthusiastically endorsing Nixon's disastrous wage and price controls. Even though his staff informed him in the fall of 1972 that the money supply was forecast to grow by an extremely robust 10.5 percent in the third quarter, Burns advocated ever faster growth before the election. The growth rate in the money supply in 1972 was the fastest for any one year since the end of World War II and helped re-elect Richard Nixon. However, President Ford called for slower monetary growth as part of his 'Whip Inflation Now' program, and the Fed complied with a 4.7 percent growth rate. But when Jimmy Carter was elected, Burns again complied with presidential wishes by stepping up the growth rate to 8.5 percent. Carter did not reappoint Burns, but the latter's successors were equally cooperative. The money supply
Re: [CTRL] GATE$: MY DOUGH WILL GO BEFORE I LOG OFF
-Caveat Lector- T Nohava wrote: http://www.nypost.com/news/1315.htm GATE$: MY DOUGH WILL GO BEFORE I LOG OFF By KIRSTEN DANIS Company Press Release SOURCE: Gates Learning Foundation; William H. Gates Foundation Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations Issue Statement on Returning Their Wealth To Society REDMOND, Wash., Aug. 2 -- Contradicting an article that appeared in this weekend's Sunday Times(London), Bill and Melinda Gates have no imminent plans to give away the entirety of their wealth, according to Trevor Neilson, a spokesperson for their foundations. According to Neilson, Bill and Melinda Gates have endowed two foundations with $11.3 billion to support initiatives in global health and learning. Since establishing the William H. Gates Foundation and the Gates Learning Foundation, the couple has expressed a desire to return the majority of their wealth back to society. They have made several significant gifts to global health and learning initiatives and will continue to make these gifts on a regular basis. CONTACT: Trevor Neilson of Gates Learning Foundation, 425-882-1200, ext. 28. Regard$, --MJ Nobody dies nowadays of fatal truths: there are too many antidotes to them. -- Nietzsche DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Joseph McCarthy's charges 'now accepted as fact'
-Caveat Lector- http://www.ctrl.org/"> -Cui Bono?- the_extremist: Jon Utley, a former foreign correspondent in Latin America and a longtime commentator for the Voice of America, is the Robert A. Taft Fellow for Constitutional and International Studies at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Kris Millegan: Notice the players. old propaganda to dredge up old fear divisions. MJ: This is NOT evidence but ad hominem and red herring fallacy. The recently 'made public' archives of the Soviet Union not only support McCarthy, but demonstrate his 'scratching of the surface' in this regard. If you have contrarian evidence ... let's see it. Regard$, --MJ [The New Deal gave us a] state-supported economic system that will continue to devour a little at a time the private system until it disappears altogether. -- John T. Flynn, Journalist, 1948 http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] On Corporate Power (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- http://www.ctrl.org/"> -Cui Bono?- Spitzer: Read this and then tell me if there is ANYONE that still thinks that corporate money and power does not determine policy making in this country? MJ: Power for politicians determine 'policy' in this country -- buying votes. This is accomplished by MANY groups ... not only 'corporations'. One author called it 'peddling pull'. Look at the budget for an eye opener. [Easily solved by enforcing the plainly written constitution] Regard$, --MJ It was a new kind of class war -- the people as citizens versus the politicians and their clients in the public sector. Irving Kristol http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] A Thomas Sowell Editorial
Bill OK...5 million posts a day is one thing but now we're subject to every right-wing republican's editorials too??? Yuck! Please cease the insanity! MJ Why not explain WHY Dr. Sowell's piece is 'nonsense' rather than utilizing Hillary Clinton's tact at diverting attention from substance and to personalities -- real or imagined. Regard$, --MJ The road to tyranny, we must never forget, begins with the destruction of the truth. -- Bill Clinton http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] A Thomas Sowell Editorial
MJ Why not explain WHY Dr. Sowell's piece is 'nonsense' rather than utilizing Hillary Clinton's tact at diverting attention from substance and to personalities -- real or imagined. Bill Who said it was "nonsense"?? MJ Note 'nonsense' in quotes ... this was implied. Bill It probably is but I didn't say that it was...I simply lamented the fact that this fellow is posting TONS of info and now he's posting right-wing editorials... MJ Yes, and I was simply pointing to your use of logical fallacy. ... in particular ad hominem. Regard$, --MJ It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry. -- Thomas Paine http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] China-trade vote: The bribes have it? No, the ignorant is simply misguided.
Waste your vote! Vote for Patrick Buchanan! Protectionism and the Destruction of Prosperity By Murray N. Rothbard Protectionism, often refuted and seemingly abandoned, has returned, and with a vengeance. The Japanese, who bounced back from grievous losses in World War II to astound the world by producing innovative, high-quality products at low prices, are serving as the convenient butt of protectionist propaganda. Memories of wartime myths prove a heady brew, as protectionists warn about this new "Japanese imperialism," even "worse than Pearl Harbor." This "imperialism" turns out to consist of selling Americans wonderful TV sets, autos, microchips, etc., at prices more than competitive with American firms. Is this "flood" of Japanese products really a menace, to be combated by the U.S. government? Or is the new Japan a godsend to American consumers? In taking our stand on this issue, we should recognize that all government action means coercion, so that calling upon the U.S. government to intervene means urging it to use force and violence to restrain peaceful trade. One trusts that the protectionists are not willing to pursue their logic of force to the ultimate in the form of another Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Keep Your Eye on the Consumer As we unravel the tangled web of protectionist argument, we should keep our eye on two essential points: (1) protectionism means force in restraint of trade; and (2) the key is what happens to the consumer. Invariably, we will find that the protectionists are out to cripple, exploit, and impose severe losses not only on foreign consumers but especially on Americans. And since each and every one of us is a consumer, this means that protectionism is out to mulct all of us for the benefit of a specially privileged, subsidized fewand an inefficient few at that: people who cannot make it in a free and unhampered market. Take, for example, the alleged Japanese menace. All trade is mutually beneficial to both partiesin this case Japanese producers and American consumersotherwise they would not engage in the exchange. In trying to stop this trade, protectionists are trying to stop American consumers from enjoying high living standards by buying cheap and high-quality Japanese products. Instead, we are to be forced by government to return to the inefficient, higher-priced products we have already rejected. In short, inefficient producers are trying to deprive all of us of products we desire so that we will have to turn to inefficient firms. American consumers are to be plundered. How To Look at Tariffs and Quotas The best way to look at tariffs or import quotas or other protectionist restraints is to forget about political boundaries. Political boundaries of nations may be important for other reasons, but they have no economic meaning whatever. Suppose, for example, that each of the United States were a separate nation. Then we would hear a lot of protectionist bellyaching that we are now fortunately spared. Think of the howls by high-priced New York or Rhode Island textile manufacturers who would then be complaining about the "unfair," "cheap labor" competition from various low-type "foreigners" from Tennessee or North Carolina, or vice versa. Fortunately, the absurdity of worrying about the balance of payments is made evident by focusing on inter-state trade. For nobody worries about the balance of payments between New York and New Jersey, or, for that matter, between Manhattan and Brooklyn, because there are no customs officials recording such trade and such balances. If we think about it, it is clear that a call by New York firms for a tariff against North Carolina is a pure ripoff of New York (as well as North Carolina) consumers, a naked grab for coerced special privilege by less efficient business firms. If the 50 states were separate nations, the protectionists would then be able to use the trappings of patriotism, and distrust of foreigners, to camouflage and get away with their looting the consumers of their own region. Fortunately, inter-state tariffs are unconstitutional. But even with this clear barrier, and even without being able to wrap themselves in the cloak of nationalism, protectionists have been able to impose inter-state tariffs in another guise. Part of the drive for continuing increases in the federal minimum-wage law is to impose a protectionist devise against lower-wage, lower-labor-cost competition from North Carolina and other southern states against their New England and New York competitors. During the 1966 Congressional battle over a higher federal minimum wage, for example, the late Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY) freely admitted that one of his main reasons for supporting the bill was to cripple the southern competitors of New York textile firms. Since southern wages are generally lower than in the north, the business firms hardest hit by an increased minimum wage (and the workers struck by unemployment) will be located in the south.
[CTRL] Anti-trust, Anti-truth
~~for educational purposes only~~ Anti-trust, Anti-truth By Thomas J. DiLorenzo Joel Klein, the third-rate lawyer/political hack who is in charge of the government's Microsoft persecution, recently tried to rationalize the lawsuit by saying that it was in keeping with the long history of consumer protection regulation, beginning with the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. In reality, the history of antitrust has been a history of politically-inspired witch hunts launched against America's most innovative and entrepreneurial businesses. In the June 1985 issue of the International Review of Law and Economics I showed that the industries accused of "monopolization" by Senator Sherman and his colleagues in 1890 were expanding production four times more rapidly than the economy as a whole for the decade prior to the Sherman Act (some as much as ten times faster) and were dropping their prices even faster than the general price level was falling during that deflationary period. The trusts "have made products cheaper, have reduced prices," admitted Congressman William Mason, who nevertheless was in favor of an anti-trust law. He was in favor of the law because he, and most of his congressional colleagues, wanted to protect less-efficient businesses in their districts from competition. Antitrust has always been a protectionist racket. Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, the grossly biased judge in the Microsoft case, has frequently compared Bill Gates to John D. Rockefeller, thereby perpetuating another statist myth -- that Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company was a "monopoly." But Standard Oil caused the price of refined petroleum to fall from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to 5.9 cents by 1897 while stimulating an enormous amount of innovation in the industry, just as Microsoft has stimulated innovation in today's computer industry. For this great service to consumers, Rockefeller was prosecuted and forced to break up his company. In his masterpiece, Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure, Dominick Armentano carefully examined fifty-five of the most famous antitrust cases in U.S. history and concluded that in every single case, the accused firms were dropping prices, expanding production, innovating, and generally benefiting consumers. It was their less-efficient competitors who were "harmed," as they should have been. For example, the American Tobacco Company was found guilty of "monopolization" in 1911, even though the price of cigarettes (per thousand) had declined from $2.77 in 1895 to $2.20 in 1907, despite a 40 percent increase in raw material costs. In what is perhaps the best example of nonsensical double-talk in antitrust history, in 1944 Judge Learned Hand found Alcoa guilty of "monopolizing" the virgin ingot aluminum market by employing "superior skill and foresight" which the judge feared had "forestalled" competition by those businesses with less skill and foresight. He condemned Alcoa for being extremely adept at correctly anticipating market demand for its product and then supplying that demand, to the "exclusion" of its less efficient competitors. Alcoa "embraced every new opportunity" with a "great" organization, said the judge, and manned the organization with "elite business personnel." It was obvious to the confused and befuddled Judge Hand that gaining market share through entrepreneurial excellence should be illegal. In 1962 the government forbade the Brown Shoe Company, which had 1 percent of the shoe market, from acquiring Kinney Shoes, which also had a 1 percent market share. A company with 2 percent of the shoe market, according to the government, constituted a monopoly. In 1969 IBM, the Microsoft of the day, had a 65 percent market share in the computer market and was sued by the government for allegedly monopolizing the industry. IBM was mired in a court battle for thirteen years before the government finally gave up on the case. In the meantime, the company was eclipsed by Intel and other competitors while Microsoft had just produced, in 1981, its first copy of MS-DOS. The government's assault on IBM undoubtedly weakened the company and weakened the level of competition in the industry as well. This has happened time and again as a result of Quixotic antitrust prosecutions. In 1962 the government forced the Schwinn Bicycle Company to divorce itself from its network of dealers; foreign competition eventually drove Schwinn into bankruptcy. General Motors was never prosecuted, but because of the company's fear of antitrust it was official company policy from 1937 until 1956 to never let its market share top 45 percent, for any reason. This fear of antitrust prosecution contributed to the industry's dramatic losses in market share to the Japanese and German automakers during the 1970s and '80s. RCA was prohibited by antitrust regulators from charging royalties to American licensees, so the company licensed its products to Japanese companies. The entire Japanese electr
Re: [CTRL] Background checks stopped more than 200,000 gun buys last year
Eagle 1 Could this mean that the system IS working? MJ No. There is absolutely no possible method for determining whether or not this Constitutional violation stopped or prohibited *any* person from obtaining a gun. It might have prevented a person from purchasing a gun at a 'background' check outlet ... Alternately, why have these 200,000 violators not been persecuted (intended)? Regard$, --MJ Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one. -- Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist 1764 (1743-1826) http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] What a pathetic democracy.
Joshua2 If we're REAL lucky we can get the biggest, most corrupt government on earth to pass laws that will shut down one of its most lucrative operations. Legalized bribery. How to do this? By encouraging the self same slime to accept ' finance reform ' or some watered down facsimile thereof, as a rider on the Space Based Weapons Bill, A.K.A. Son of Star Wars, A.K.A. SDI. MJ Why not simply remove ALL of the 'payoffs'? Reduce government to its legitimate function of protecting ALL individuals from force and fraud? Removing more individual rights serves ONLY to exacerbate the problem. Joshua2 Is this what Capitalism has done to the American democratic experiment? MJ No. Joshua2 Granny D has overexerted herself on her long admirable journey across America. Let the bastards stink from the head. SDI is a cure much worse than the disease. MJ The 'idea' is good ... the method for implementation is wrong. Regard$, --MJ No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words "no" and "not" employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights. - Edmund A. Opitz http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED] http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] How it's done. American politics and the illusion of democracy. #1
-Caveat Lector- http://www.ctrl.org/"> -Cui Bono?- Nurev: All of the "acceptable" candidates running for President of the United States of America are rich, white, Protestant, Capitalist, Internationalist, Free Traders. MJ: Bullshit. They have NO interest in capitalism OR Free Trade. Regard$, --MJ It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. -- William G. McAdoo http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soap-boxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Free Trade, Mercantilism, and Empire
-Caveat Lector- http://www.ctrl.org/"> -Cui Bono?- ~~for educational purposes only~~ Free Trade, Mercantilism, and Empire by Joseph R. Stromberg HOW TO HAVE 'FREE TRADE' Most people these days outside of certain left-wing and right-wing populist circles understand that global trade tends to increase the prospects and prosperity of all people and nations that share in it. Unfortunately, much confusion exists as to what "free trade" actually is and how one goes about getting it. For many in the US political and foreign policy Establishment, the formula for having free trade would go something like this: 1) Find yourself a global superpower; 2) have this superpower knock together the heads of all opponents and skeptics until everyone is playing by the same rules; 3) refer to this new imperial order as "free trade;" 4) talk quite a bit about "democracy." This is the end of the story except for such possible corollaries as 1) never allow rival claimants to arise which might aspire to co-manage the system of "free trade"; 2) the global superpower rightfully in charge of world order must also control the world monetary system. Alas, there may be some problems with this formula. Problems or not, proponents of the American Empire have put forward the United States as the one and only Last-Remaining-Superpower on hand and the only such superpower with the needed moral qualifications to rule the world. This last bit derives from our having published somewhere in our remote past a couple of high-sounding public documents even if we haven't paid much attention to them of late. The proponents of endless American world police work expect to play a role in making the world as "orderly as a Baptist convention presided over by the Honorable Cordell Hull" (to quote Charles Beard). Thus their advocacy may not be entirely without self-interest. I hasten to add that I am not opposed to self-interest, enlightened or otherwise. I merely note that it seems to work better in the purely private sector. "A man is never so innocently employed as when he is making money," as the great Dr. Johnson said. It is the "public spirited" self-interest of policy makers which worries me. 'FREE TRADE' CONSIDERED AS FREE TRADE The formula outlined above was decidedly not the 18th and 19th-century liberal view of free trade. Free traders like Richard Cobden, John Bright, Frederic Bastiat, and Condy Raguet believed that free trade is the absence of barriers to goods crossing borders, most particularly the absence of special taxes tariffs which made imported goods artificially dear, often for the benefit of special interests wrapped in the flag under slogans of economic nationalism. That was the point, for instance, of the Anglo-French treaty of 1861 which abolished a whole array of restrictions. A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO 'FREE TRADE ... Classical free traders never thought it necessary to draw up thousands of pages of detailed regulations to implement free trade. They saw no need to fine-tune a sort of Gleichschaltung (co-ordination) of different nations' labor laws, environmental regulations, and the host of other such issues dealt with by NAFTA, GATT, and so on. Clearly, there is a difference between free trade, considered as the repeal, by treaty or even unilaterally, of existing barriers to trade, and modern "free trade" which seems to require truckloads of regulations pondered over by legions of bureaucrats. This sea-change in the accepted meaning of free trade neatly parallels other characteristically 20th-century re-definitions of concepts like "war," "peace," "freedom," and "democracy," to name just a few. In the case of free trade I think we can deduce that when, from 1932 on, the Democratic Party with its traditional rhetoric about free trade in the older sense took over the Republicans' project of neo-mercantilism and economic empire, it was natural for them to carry it forward under the "free trade" slogan. They were not wedded to tariffs, which, in their view, got in the way of implementing Open Door Empire. Like an 18th-century Spanish Bourbon government, they stood for freer trade within an existing or projected mercantilist system. They would have agreed, as well, with Lord Palmerston, who said in 1841, "It is the business of Government to open and secure the roads of the merchant." British historians John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson have referred to this as "the imperialism of free trade." Quite so, provided we don't confuse it with the genuine free trade espoused by anti-imperialists such as Cobden and Bright. (You know that the other side has done well in the semantic war when you have to put words like "genuine" in front of formerly uncontested concepts.) Here, John A. Hobson despite his confusions with respect to the alleged "overproduction" in advanced capitalist economies was directly in the line of real fre
Re: [CTRL] Criminalizing Homelessness
-Caveat Lector- MJ: Government should serve ONLY to provide ALL individuals protection fron FORCE and FRAUD ... certainly that should take closer to 5% of one's earnings rather than 50% plus. Edward Britton wrote: This would be fine, but how would the government "know" whom to protect inasmuch as there is a significant portion of our population with no political voice. Therefore this governmental attribute you hold so dear becomes a defense mechanism for the elite. Hence the present chasm, in this nation, between the have's and the have-not's. MJ: Not at all ... Jefferson identified Natural Rights in the Declaration of Independence. THIS -- an individual's RIGHT to his OWN life -- is the standard for our moral nation AND for a free society. If the government merely upheld this standard by protecting ALL ... your emotive concerns regarding 'haves' and 'have-nots' (whatever that might entail) has no bearing. What you describe above is what we are currently saddled -- a government which has exceeded the limitations imposed upon it ... utilizing its monopoly of legalized force to 'grow' its power. In exchange for votes, the G takes money from productive citizens and redistributes it to the elderly for instance. May I recommend: Frederic Bastiat _The Law_ http://www.bomis.com/cgi-bin/ring.cgi?page=2&ring=bastiat MJ: For the Government to 'care for' or 'provide for' these urban outdoorsmen (who are reaping the net result of the CHOICES they made) it must first TAKE from others. How is this 'fair' to those 'gripers' you describe above? Edward Britton wrote: A) How do the mentally impaired fall under your rubric of "reaping the net result of the choices they make"? How do those families--specifically children-- displaced by economic down-turns fall under the rubric of "net result of choice"? B) It is fair by nature of the fact that the aforementioned gripers reap a disproportionately large benefit from life in this society. MJ: A. The 'mentally impaired' are the responsibility of the parents that freely chose to procreate. A2. If one had a TRUE concern for children they would REVERSE the current course for their care -- supplying THEM to the means rather than the means to their irresponsible parents. B. ANYONE can benefit from a FREE society (which ours certainly is NOT at current) MJ: Throwing around emotives like 'Social Darwinists' ... if one has the RIGHT to survival ... he has the RIGHT to enslave another for such a purpose. Edward Britton wrote: "Social Darwinism" is hardly an emotive and hardly a term that I coined. It refers to a general belief in the social equivalent of survival of the fittest. Such a doctrine is fine in feudal systems, but once a social system has been formed for the mutual benefit of all (civilization), such doctrines become antiquated--or would if not revived by those of rightist bent. Choose one: feudal system or civilization (representative democracy or otherwise) and be willing to pay the price for your decision. MJ: How exactly does one with a desire for treating every person to the SAME standard equate to 'social darwinism'? I do not subscribe to the 'strawman' attempts you assert above ... I merely believe EACH and EVERY individual has a RIGHT to their OWN life with Government serving its legitimate function by subjagating FORCE to this standard. [note I have ONLY addressed someone FORCING another to aid in THEIR cause -- the ideal of charity has NOT been broached.] MJ: Yes, this is typical ... blame *ANYONE* but one's self. Who -- exactly --made those choices which placed you in the predicament? Edward Britton wrote: In this/my case, you are partially correct. I was to blame for not having adequately prepared myself financially (at nineteen, such concepts were sort of abstract :-)). My employer took it from there by downsizing me during the initial stages of Reagan's "trickle-down" economy. MJ: More emotive chichés ... which are truly meaningless. Need I LIST the various choices you made which placed you in your dilemma? Do you believe one has the RIGHT to a job? MJ: When one is free to make his own decisions, how is it another's fault when the results prove deficient? Edward Britton wrote: This is the key deficiency in the understanding of those of rightist affiliation: a great many people fall prey to circumstances beyond their control, and well outside the realm of choice. One can stretch the philosophy of "blame the victim" only so far before the argument becomes rediculous. MJ: 'Blame the victim' ... ??? There is a powerful craving in most of us to see ourselves as instruments in the hands of others and thus free ourselves from the responsibility for acts which are prompted by our own questionable inclinations and impulses
Re: [CTRL] Flaw in Capitalist system
-Caveat Lector- nurev wrote: You guys are hilarious. Capitalism can not exist without the State. MJ: I contract with you ... I pay you $20, you paint my front porch. THIS is capitalism. Where is the state you were requiring? Capitalism requires the State to be absent ... once it rears its head into the 'bargain' one no longer has capitalism, but some sort of mixed-economy. Regard$, --MJ Capital is a result of labor, and is used by labor to assist it in further production. Labor is the active and initial force, and labor is therefore the employer of capital. -- Henry George DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Flaw in Capitalist system
-Caveat Lector- Jeff Russo wrote: I contract with you... I pay you $20. You do NOT paint my porch. I now have two options: 1) hunt you down and get my money back or kill you. 2) Use some sort of legal recourse, provided by the state, to solve this dispute. MJ: A. I do not 'pay' until the job is completed. :) B. A 'private' mediator does just as well as a State system. The 'State' in your example does NOT factor into the exchange, which is what is required for Capitalism. When the painter has to be licensed it is no longer capitalism. It is then a mixed system. Regard$, --MJ The meaning of economic freedom is this: that the individual is in a position to choose the way in which he wants to integrate himself into the totality of society. -- Ludwig von Mises DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Flaw in Capitalist system
-Caveat Lector- MJ: I contract with you ... I pay you $20, you paint my front porch. THIS is capitalism. Where is the state you were requiring? Das GOAT wrote: First off, it's NOT capitalism. It's simply an economic exchange -- "barter," mediated by money, i.e., a transferable "right" to goods at value, "earned" by labor, traded for labor. Now, if you contracted with me to paint your front porch, it cost me $20 in labor and materials to do it, and you only paid me $10 --making MONEY "FOR NOTHING," but your PROFIT of $10 only paid for by MY loss-- THAT would be capitalism. MJ: No force here only your stupidity in contracting without concern for you benefit -- unless of course it was your intention for charity. Capitalism is the social system based upon private ownership of the means of production which entails a completely uncontrolled and unregulated economy where all property is privately owned. But the separation of the state and the economy is not a primary, it is only an aspect of the premise that capitalism is based upon: individual rights. Capitalism is the only politico-economic system based on the doctrine of individual rights. This means that capitalism recognizes that each and every person is the owner of his own life, and has the right to live his life in any manner he chooses as long as he does not violate the rights of others. Das GOAT wrote: Well, you just defrauded and robbed me, breaching our contract -- and contracts are a matter of "law," enforceable by the State through its legal system. MJ: You freely entered into the contract to provide the service in which that contract was fulfilled (see example above). No fraud or force, your strawman fallacy. Regard$, --MJ A totalitarian state thrives on propaganda, and there is no more effective way to limit thought than to control the language itself. By changing definitions of words through continual association, any serious discussion involving the concepts that the words represents becomes hopelessly muddled. The words "democracy," "hate" and "racism" immediately comes to mind. -- Thomas Sowell DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Flaw in Capitalist system]
-Caveat Lector- Ric Carter wrote: Meanwhile, all the previous writers in this thread seem to assume Capitalism is about fee-for-service, then argue whether a State has a role in resolving disputes between contractor and contractee. MJ: Non sequitur, strawman ... proving this person cannot reason logically. Ric Carter wrote: T'ain't so. Capitalism is about acquiring and manipulating CAPITAL, about owning and controlling the means of production of material goods. Capitalism is thus about POWER. In any non-trivial society, many conflicting interests will contend for power, resources, influence; a representative gov't serves as the lubrication between those interest, a way for the social "machinery" to run without seizing-up and melting-down. How well any specific gov't institutions serves that purpose, is debatable. Capitalism is the social system based upon private ownership of the means of production which entails a completely uncontrolled and unregulated economy where all property is privately owned. But the separation of the state and the economy is not a primary, it is only an aspect of the premise that capitalism is based upon: individual rights. Capitalism is the only politico-economic system based on the doctrine of individual rights. This means that capitalism recognizes that each and every person is the owner of his own life, and has the right to live his life in any manner he chooses as long as he does not violate the rights of others. As demonstrated in the previous example no government intervention is required; but more specifically, once the government steps in, capitalism ceases. Regard$, --MJ Property is prior to law; the sole function of the law is to safeguard the right to property wherever it exists, wherever it is formed, in whatever manner the worker produces it, whether individually or in association, provided that he respects the rights of others. -- Frederic Bastiat DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Flaw in Capitalist system]
-Caveat Lector- Ric Carter wrote: T'ain't so. Capitalism is about acquiring and manipulating CAPITAL, about owning and controlling the means of production of material goods. Capitalism is thus about POWER. In any non-trivial society, many conflicting interests will contend for power, resources, influence; a representative gov't serves as the lubrication between those interest, a way for the social "machinery" to run without seizing-up and melting-down. How well any specific gov't institutions serves that purpose, is debatable. MJ: Capitalism is the social system based upon private ownership of the means of production which entails a completely uncontrolled and unregulated economy where all property is privately owned. Ric Carter wrote: What is the basis for this statement? MJ: Reality? Ric Carter wrote: If the US founders accepted this view ["completely uncontrolled and unregulated economy"], why did they empower Congress to regulate commerce? MJ: To ensure free trade between the several States. Ric Carter wrote: Can you name any viable society that hasn't regulated commerce? MJ: Nope, hence the absence of a capitalist society in all of history. Ric Carter wrote: Doesn't unregulated commerce lead to monopoly/cartel and/or drug-lord-style competition? [I use 'commerce' as a shorthand term for any commercial activity.] MJ: Two types of monopoly: Coercive requires government; Natural which is desired but has never existed. As long as ENTRY into the marketplace is unencumbered, no monopoly is possible. It is government and their 'tinkering' which creates advantage to some over others and prevents access. MJ: But the separation of the state and the economy is not a primary, it is only an aspect of the premise that capitalism is based upon: individual rights. Capitalism is the only politico-economic system based on the doctrine of individual rights. This means that capitalism recognizes that each and every person is the owner of his own life, and has the right to live his life in any manner he chooses as long as he does not violate the rights of others. As demonstrated in the previous example no government intervention is required; but more specifically, once the government steps in, capitalism ceases. Ric Carter wrote: Does the concept of the primacy of "individual rights" preclude any individuals from joining in free association, incorporating as groups to engage in commercial, charitable, governmental or other activities? MJ: Within the Natural Rights Ideal [see the Declaration of Independence], a group can posses no ADDITIONAL rights than each of its members. Ric Carter wrote: Do corporations [public or private] have more, equal or less rights than individuals? MJ: A Corporation is an entity created by the Government and as such has the FORCE of government to ensure its privileges. Ric Carter wrote: In a representative democracy, who is the protector of individual and corporate rights? MJ: In a democracy, there is no 'protection of individual rights' as everything is subject to the whim of the majority. The US was envisioned and Constitutionalized as a Representative Republic which granted specific functions to its government -- all of which serve the legitimate functions of government. Ric Carter wrote: Shall a society form and empower a gov't to represent the varied interests of members of that society, to mediate between conflicting interests, to adjudge and protect the rights of those members? Isn't this what the US Constitution is about? MJ: No. The US Government was to 'mediate' between the several States and other nations ... ensuring protection of all from force and fraud (see the individual powers in Article I, Section 8). Ric Carter wrote: IMHO proclaiming that individuals have absolute rights over groups is as bogus and dangerous as proclaiming that groups have absolute rights over individuals. A viable, vibrant society requires mechanisms for balancing the interests/rights/responsibilities of all its members, individuals and groups alike. MJ: An individual [see the DoI] has a right to his own life. All other rights are borne from this basic ideal. For a government to provide this 'balance' between individual rights and groups of individuals' rights serves only to provide some with a legislated advantage over others. Ric Carter wrote: The mechanisms: gov't & law. Yup, this equates to POWER. Strip our representative gov't of power, and where will it flow? Into which nonrepresentative institutions would you invest power? Do private, commercial, corporate boards of directors consider your interests when making their plans? Should they? MJ: Government derives its legitimate functions as a collective application of an individual's right to his own li
Re: [CTRL] Flaw in Capitalist system]
-Caveat Lector- nurev wrote: Ah, here is the crux of the problem. This person, and and capitalists in general would like everyone to take on their belief system. Individualism, individual rights, and the ever so lovely PROPERTY IS PRIOR TO LAW. These twisted apostles of greed and arrogant stupidity are just simply selfish bastards inventing justifications for their sorry assed selves. Who in their right mind would claim that " property is prior to law?" Not only isn't this factual in all of human evolution, but it's a pathetic indication of a warped and sick personality. Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labor of his body and the work of his hands are properly his. -- John Locke, 1690 Did Man precede Government? Regard$, --MJ He that judges without informing himself to the utmost that he is capable, cannot acquit himself of judging amiss. --John Locke, 1690 DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Flaw in Capitalist system]
-Caveat Lector- MJ: Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labor of his body and the work of his hands are properly his. -- John Locke, 1690 Das GOAT wrote: I'm waiting for someone to claim that the "property" owned by Capitalists is "theirs" by virtue of being "the work of their own hands." MJ: Any 'person's' property is theirs whether by THEIR exchanges or through the GIFTS of others. I am not certain WHAT you are attempting above, could you elaborate? Das GOAT wrote: Give me one example of Capital Assets --factories, industrial machinery, etc-- that was not secured with BORROWED money and paid off by profits from the work of OTHER PEOPLE's hands, i.e., labor which the Capitalist didn't perform. MJ: Why should anyone be prohibited to 'dispose' or 'invest' their earnings in whatever manner THEY desire? Why should anyone be prohibited from entering a contract to provide x for y? Das GOAT wrote: Can Capitalism exist without BANKS and the Stock Market? MJ: Yes. Regard$, --MJ Laissez faire does not mean: Let soulless mechanical forces operate. It means: Let each individual choose how he wants to cooperate in the social division of labor; let the consumers determine what the entrepreneurs should produce. Planning means: Let the government alone choose and enforce its rulings by the apparatus of coercison and compulsion. -- Ludgwig von Mises DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] THE CRADLE OF CRIME
-Caveat Lector- THE CRADLE OF CRIME What is crime and what are its causes? by Fulton Huxtable Unless you can answer these two questions, you will never be able begin to take the steps necessary to reverse the surge in crime we have witnessed in the past 50 years. The rise in crime has been a bull market of evil, going up one year, dropping off perhaps for a year or so, then taking off again to ascend to new records, leaving us with the only dividend it pays: a wake of death, destruction and property loss. There is little wonder many do not feel safe on our streets or safe even in their own homes. As you will see, this mushrooming of crime will continue in America as long as statism continues to grow. We could double the budgets for all of our police departments and it would not stop the process which has taken place over the last five decades?it would likely bring us a temporary drop in crime (such as the momentary lull which we reportedly have today, in 1997), but crime would only resurge and resume its steady climb to new highs. And, as you will come to understand, this bull market of crime will only come to an end when one of two things happen: when we begin the political process of heading back toward freedom in this country or when America collapses into totalitarianism. Only when we see one of these two events take place will we see the beginning of a bear market in crime: a steady, consistent decline in criminal activity. Crime is any activity which a government makes illegal. Under the rule of statists, such as we have today, there are all sorts of activities which have been made illegal and criminal activities, which in fact are not properly crimes at all. In a free society, the government is dedicated to the protection of individual rights. There is only one way for one individual to violate your right to life and liberty: by the initiation of force, either directly or indirectly. It is only the initiation of force by one individual against another which should be made a crime and outlawed. A murderer murders, a rapists rapes and a robber robs by means of the initiation of force against the victim. And it is precisely this type of crime that has terrified so many in this country and has given rise to a growing concern, even desperation, about how we are going to stop this savagery brought to us by criminals. In fact, what very few understand is this epidemic of crime has been brought to us by statists. As you look at a baby only a few months old, it seems impossible that such a child could gradually be transformed, over the years, into a criminal who would perhaps, some day, murder you. To most, it is incomprehensible the child could grow up to be some sort of monster, yet we all know this happens with some children. And when we look at a murderer, like Charles Manson, it doesn't seem possible he was ever like that innocent baby only a few months old. How does a human being go from the innocence of a child to the evil of a criminal? What process is behind this metamorphosis of a child into a criminal? What starts a child down the path to becoming a criminal? The answers to these questions will lead to an understanding of the origins of crime and why we have so much of it today. Each of us comes into this world innocent, with a blank, empty mind, but one which quickly begins absorbing much about the world around him. Once a child begins walking and talking, he has self-mobility and he has reached the point in his mind's development that he is grasping ideas. At this stage of his life, he is beginning to develop ideas about what is true and what is right and wrong. As he gets older, he realizes he has the capacity of choice, to take one course of action or another and he realizes the only way to make a choice is to have a reason for choosing one course of action over another. Every choice involves the necessity of the child, in effect, asking: Which way should I go?? Some children, to the best of their ability, answer this question with a reason which seems to make sense, but this takes work, mental work, thinking which at times may be difficult. The fact that a child has to learn how to think, that it takes effort, leads some children to give up in frustration, saying, in effect, to hell with it, and simply begin making choices based on their feelings. A spoiled brat standing before his mother, having a tantrum, yelling: ?I just want it, give it to me now!? is an example of such a child. This is the first step toward criminality and the beginnings of irrationality in a child. But even among such children, only a small minority of them ever become criminals?something else has to take place later on in the child?s mind. The child who acts on whim, not honest reasons to justify his actions, still cannot escape the awareness that he must have some reason, honest or not, to justify what he is doing. His nature as a human being does not permit him to be unaware of this. An honest youngster gives
Re: [CTRL] Michael: Flaw in Capitalist system]
-Caveat Lector- von Mises: Laissez faire does not mean: Let soulless mechanical forces operate. It means: Let each individual choose how he wants to cooperate in the social division of labor; let the consumers determine what the entrepreneurs should produce. nurev wrote: This is nonsense when the means of communication and mind control in the form of advertising is monopolized by the " producers." Consumers get to choose from what the producers offer them. Not the best, just the most profitable. There is no invisible hand. Just visible greed. MJ: No one is FORCED to purchase *anything* (except Government). So long as this same entity does not prevent entry into the marketplace, *anyone* may 'offer' alternatives. Regard$, --MJ Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -- Milton Friedman DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Michael: Flaw in Capitalist system]
-Caveat Lector- MJ: No one is FORCED to purchase *anything* (except Government). So long as this same entity does not prevent entry into the marketplace, *anyone* may 'offer' alternatives. nurev wrote: That's right. No one is forced to buy food, or shelter, or transportation, or education, or health insurance, or entertainment, or life saving drugs. No one is FORCED to obtain money in a money based economic system. The alternative, of course, is simply to die.In your ideal world of freedom, all have the freedom starve, freeze, or work for the likes of you. MJ: What happens [in your ideal world of pull-peddlers who plunder and redistribute] when the productive cease their activities? nurev wrote: You Libertarians are pathetic and ridiculous. MJ: As stated numerous times, I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a Libertarian. nurev wrote: You guys may be dumb enough to equate freedom with the free market, but just about everyone else knows that the free market = widespread slavery for working people. MJ: What is a 'working person'? Millions of people labor each and every day ... from the 'sweep boy' to the 'CEO'. Regard$, --MJ As property, honestly obtained, is best secured by an equality of rights, so ill-gotten property depends for protection on a monopoly of rights. He who has robbed another of his property, will next endeavor to disarm him of his rights, to secure that property; for when the robber becomes the legislator he believes himself secure. - -Thomas Paine, Dissertations on First Principles of Government DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] How the pie is sliced. Concentration of wealth.
-Caveat Lector- Wealth is CREATED, not distributed. Regard$, --MJ It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry. -- Thomas Paine DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] How the pie is sliced. Concentration of wealth.
-Caveat Lector- MJ: Wealth is CREATED, not distributed. Das GOAT wrote: Even ENERGY can be neither created nor destroyed, just redistributed. 'Twould seem even God has less "power" than an ideological Capitalist. MJ: False analogy. Wealth is NOT energy. Regard$, --MJ Few skills are so well rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. -- Thomas Sowell DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] How the pie is sliced. Concentration of wealth.
-Caveat Lector- MJ: Wealth is CREATED, not distributed. nurev wrote: I'm talking about on EARTH, Mr. Johnson. MJ: I am merely POINTING at REALITY. Regard$, --MJ It is an affront to truth to treat falsehood with complaisance. -- Thomas Paine DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] More on Racial Profiling
-Caveat Lector- Das GOAT wrote: "Thousands of local police nationwide were trained in the use of 'racial profiling' by the DEA, as part of its 'Operation Pipeline,' a federally funded anti-drug program." Racial profiling by Walter Williams NEW JERSEY GOV. CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN fired Col. Carl Williams, her state police superintendent, after he told reporters that minority groups were more likely to be involved in drug trafficking. Williams was already under fire by black ministers and civil-rights groups accusing the State Police of racial profiling, a practice of targeting minority drivers for traffic stops and searches in the war against drug trafficking. Whitman said she fired Williams because his comments "are inconsistent with our efforts to enhance public confidence in the State Police." Let's look at racial profiling. If God were a state trooper, He wouldn't be involved with the imperfection and indignity of racial profiling --- not because He's good but because He knows all. God would know who is a drug trafficker and who's not. Mere mortals like us don't know everything. Unlike God, we face a world of costly and incomplete information, and that means we have to do a lot of guessing and playing hunches. Part of that strategy requires the use of indicators that have varying degrees of reliability. Physical characteristics, including race, are among those indicators that can tell us things. Thus, we can benefit from learning to employ cheap-to-observe characteristics as proxies for more-costly-to-observe characteristics. Race is a cheap-to-observe characteristic that, while imperfect, is nonetheless sometimes useful. I've hailed taxis in downtown Washington, D.C., at night, only to watch the driver pass me up and pick up a white passenger down the street. As often as not, the driver was black. Was the driver a racist? Or was he using my skin color as a proxy for an undesirable destination such as a high-crime neighborhood or as a proxy for the probability of being robbed? He was racially profiling me, but he was wrong in my case. It is never pleasant to be a victim of racial profiling, but whom should I blame: the taxi driver who's not God and is simply doing what he can to protect himself? Or should I blame black thugs who prey on taxi drivers, making them leery about picking up black customers at night? My physician practices racial profiling. Even though my PSA is 2.3, he is very aggressive about the slightest change. He's also aggressive about treating my mildly elevated blood pressure. He doesn't know anything certain about my individual risk of prostate cancer and hypertension-related diseases. Not being God, he uses the medical evidence about blacks in general to make guesses about me. Should I take a cue from Whitman and fire him for making assumptions about me based upon my race? What about racial assumptions the New Jersey State Police may make? According to the 1997 FBI Uniform Crime Report, 63 percent of the 65,624 drug arrests were minorities (50 percent blacks and 13 percent Hispanics). Since blacks are only 13 percent of the total population, it means law enforcement officials can assign a higher probability that a drug trafficker is a black more so than other racial groups. In terms of arresting drug traffickers, doing disproportionate traffic stops on blacks will have a higher payoff than traffic stops on say Japanese, Orthodox Jews or 75-year-olds. Statistics about the grossly disproportionate number of blacks involved in drug trafficking is no comfort to the law-abiding black who is stopped and searched. It's humiliating and demeaning, not to mention inconvenient. But with whom should we be angry: police officers or those who've made black synonymous with crime? Of course, an alternative is not to stop cars at all. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Say "NO" To Socialized Health Care Today!
-Caveat Lector- nessie wrote: Not all of the "rest of the working class" CAN pay for their own health care, at least not if they want to also eat food, wear clothes and live indoors. Keep their cell phones, two cars, beepers, credit cards ... MJ: Pfewww Government has been involved in medicine since before any of us were born. And over the past 30 years its involvement has grown rapidly. Its policies are the cause of medical care's high cost and the difficulty of obtaining health insurance -- the two problems the politicians now propose to cure with more government. Here are 18 ways the state of your health, the quality of medical service you receive, and the price you pay are affected by federal or state government interference. Physicians 1. Licensing: Government restricts your access to health care by forbidding you to seek advice and treatment from an unlicensed physician. And laws forbid nurses and other experienced healthcare specialists from performing many services -- even though they may be qualified to do so and would charge less than a doctor. So you MUST go to a licensed physician for almost any care at all. If his fees seem high, it may be partly because the government limits the competition he must face, and partly because he has to charge you for the costs he pays to stay in good standing with state and federal regulators. 2. Restricted access to care: Today 'telemedicine' makes it possible for your doctor to transmit tests and X-rays to non-local physicians who have more experience or more sophisticated equipment for analyzing a particular problem. This increases your chance of being cured -- and cured quickly. It also can be cheaper because it bypasses trial-and-error treatment and eliminates the need to travel long distances for consultation and treatment. But many states prohibit you and your doctor from consulting a doctor who is not licensed in your state. 3. Litigation costs: Government courts have fostered a litigation explosion that makes malpractice insurance extremely expensive for your doctor. To limit this expense, many doctors will not take on new customers, and some have left the profession altogether. This reduces the supply of doctors and lifts medical costs even higher. Doctors have to guard against any possibility of a lawsuit. So your doctor may order expensive tests for you -- to assure that later you will not complain in court that he failed to explore every possibility. If you could agree in advance that you would not sue for malpractice except in certain specified circumstances, the doctor could afford to charge you less. And if he could refuse to treat anyone who did not sign such an agreement, he could charge you a lot less. Unfortunately, government courts in most states refuse to honor such an agreement. And physicians can be sued just for turning down a patient. Medicines & Medical Devices 4. FDA approval: Government keeps you from obtaining any medicine that it has not yet approved. Getting a new drug approved from the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) costs a company on average $300 million -- and can take as long as 10 years. By the time the drug finally gets approval, it may have been available for years in other countries -- while you were stuck with a less effective, more expensive alternative. 5. Foreign products: And because drug companies in other countries do not have to run the FDA gauntlet, medicines often cost much less overseas -- and in some cases are available only overseas. It would be nice if you could order these medicines, which would save money and allow you more choices. But you cannot, because the government usually will not let you. And if you get caught trying, they may even put you in jail -- even if the drug you were buying is the only known cure for a fatal disease. 6. Cost in lives: The FDA claims to save lives by keeping unsafe drugs off the market. But the drugs banned here do not cause bodies to pile up in countries where the drugs are legal. On the contrary, Americans die because the FDA forcibly prevents them from taking the drugs they need. For example, the FDA approved propranolol for limited use in 1968, but refused to allow it to be used for angina or hypertension. Then it reversed itself and approved the drug for angina in 1973 -- and then for hypertension in 1976. A study by Arthur D. Little, Inc. estimated that roughly 10,000 Americans died for lack of propranolol every year the FDA prevented their doctors from treating them with it. Dr. Mary J. Ruwart, a scientist with Upjohn Co., says more Americans may have been k
Re: [CTRL] Say "NO" To Socialized Health Care Today!
-Caveat Lector- William Hugh Tunstall wrote: There's always a certain percentage of the population that is unable to work for a variety of physical/psychological reasons...disabilities, mental health problems, etc. MJ: Does this provide them with a 'special right' to steal from others or have their agent do so for them? As to 'healthcare' ... getting the government OUT of all facets will reduce the costs to 5-10% of current ... restrict Government to its Constitutional limitations and one effectively doubles their income ... this provides MORE resources which go farther to those who would prefer to spend other people's money on their pet causes -- in other words, this allows people to put THEIR money where their mouth is. William Hugh Tunstall wrote: First off, the government subsidizes businesses, bails out foreign despots around the world, while it simultaneously also does a splendid job of ensuring that those who have will get more This more spectacular "free ride" at taxpayer's expense tends to be ignored. MJ: This phenomenon is not limited to 'businesses', but *any* voting block which can ensure their [party/representaive] reign. Most of the quid pro quo is nowhere mandated, but the dumb masses fail to grasp those items necessary to make up the fourth branch of the government (educated electorate). William Hugh Tunstall wrote: The majority of welfare recipients are children. This is false. 33% of ALL government expenditures go to the elderly. William Hugh Tunstall wrote: They had the misfortune of being born to the wrong parents. MJ: Are you willing to advocate the correction of this 'misfortune' or do you prefer to grow it be 'rewarding' the undesired behavior? William Hugh Tunstall wrote: So, what's the answer? Well, it's definitely NOT more deregulation, MORE handouts for big business, and a "free ride" for the privileged classes in America. MORE "free trade" and MORE "open borders" will only continue to destroy us. MJ: In a word, bullshit. The solution ... in five words, 'get out of the way'. William Hugh Tunstall wrote: We need to change the political agenda and place American issues first on the list. MJ: Can you cite some examples/suggestions? Regard$, --MJ Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. -- Noah Webster DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Lloyd: How Christianity Harms the Race
-Caveat Lector- Edward Britton wrote: There is a saying that both creme and scum rise to the top, and in that regard, surely this essay is a fine example of the latter. MJ: No problem here -- certainly a legitimate opinion/review. Edward Britton wrote: I want to personally thank you for posting this, because without the efforts of such individuals as yourself, the near-satanic activities and thought processes of Libertarian/anarchistic "intellectuals" would go totally un-noticed. MJ: Why the necessity for the ad hominem, non sequitur and other red herring nonsense? I specifically read this piece AFTER reading the drivel of this post and saw absolutely no tie to anything in conjuction with the Libertarian platform as outlined on www.lp.org. Could you be more specific? Is it that those persons do not share your quest for providing for some by raping, stealing and enslaving others? Edward Britton wrote: Alas, in order to irradicate cockroaches, one must first expose them to the light. MJ: Your slip is showing. Regard$, --MJ They say cream rises to the top. However, among government employees, the cream tends to leave after a few years, allowing mediocrity to rise to the top. -- Thomas Sowell DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] More on Racial Profiling
-Caveat Lector- William Hugh Tunstall wrote: I find it interesting that Williams does NOT ask WHY D.C. is filled with "black thugs." The blame-game is a tricky affair. First off, we have to ask ourselves exactly why it is that we live in a country in which crime is an acceptable way of life for so many citizens? MJ: When the government desires to act as parent and sets the example ... the immorality problem in this country is the legalized theft, rape and enslavement of a once free nation. With freedom/liverty/equality and its resulting prosperity comes responsibility ... no greater efforts have been exerted than those to remove consequence and accountability. Regard$, --MJ Responsibility by definition means answerable or accountable for. And what is a person responsible for? Everything he thinks, says or does. Why? Because no matter what or whom one can blame for the circumstances of his life, he is still stuck with the consequences of everything he thinks, says or does. People can be terribly unreliable but never irresponsible. Thus there is no way a person can be irresponsible because everyone is answerable or accountable for everything he thinks, say or does, does not do or neglects to do. Until people fully realize that they are totally responsible for their lives, we as a society collectively will be operating under a false and distorted assumption of what responsibility means. -- Sidney Madwed DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Say "NO" To Socialized Health Care Today!
-Caveat Lector- William Hugh Tunstall wrote: I find libertarianism to be not only a flawed approach to political and social issues...but also a dangerous one. extension of logical fallacy MJ: I have never claimed nor am I a Libertarian. I see your use of ad hominem and the straw man run deep. I do, however, realize most people fear liberty, freedom and equality ... preferring the rape, enslavement and theft of some at the benefit of others. Regard$, --MJ Conservatism is sometimes a symptom of sterility. Those who have nothing in them that can grow and develop must cling to what they have in beliefs, ideas and possessions. The sterile radical, too, is basically conservative. He is afraid to let go of the ideas and beliefs he picked up in his youth lest his life be seen as empty and wasted. -- Eric Hoffer DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Say "NO" To Socialized Health Care Today!
-Caveat Lector- William Hugh Tunstall wrote: Whenever this government tries to help people, it does a miserable job. Why? Because in case you haven't noticed, for the most part, Americans, in general, hate the poor and the working class. BULLSHIT. Regard$, --MJ A man receiving charity always hates his benefactor -- it is a fixed characteristic of human nature. -- George Orwell Starting from this foundation of our constitutional faith and proceeding to inquire in what part of the Constitution the power of making appropriations for internal improvements is found, it is necessary to reject all idea of there being any grant of power in the preamble. When that instrument says, "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity," it only declares the inducements and the anticipated results of the things ordained and established by it. To assume that anything more can be designed by the language of the preamble would be to convert all the body of the Constitution, with its carefully weighed enumerations and limitations, into mere surplusage. The same may be said of the phrase in the grant of the power to Congress "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;" or, to construe the words more exactly, they are not significant of grant or concession, but of restriction of the specific grants, having the effect of saying that in laying and collecting taxes for each of the precise objects of power granted to the General Government Congress must exercise any such definite and undoubted power in strict subordination to the purpose of the common defense and general welfare of all the States. -- Franklin Pierce _First Annual Message_ DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Say "NO" To Socialized Health Care Today!
-Caveat Lector- William Hugh Tunstall wrote: I feel sorry for you, MJ, if you equate humanitarian care for the elderly and the indigent with "stealing." MJ: I said no such thing. You confuse words with concepts AND you also confuse CHARITY with government theft. William Hugh Tunstall wrote: We have a moral and ethical responsibility to care for one another. MJ: How does this involve FORCIBLY taking money from some and providing it to others? William Hugh Tunstall wrote: My claim still stands. Welfare cuts hurt children the most. Do some research on the subject. MJ: Yes, you may claim such, but that does little to change the facts of WHERE the majority of the money goes ... which is to the elderly. THIS is contrary to your ORIGINAL 'claim'. Children learn by example ... when they view theft, rape and enslavement of others as OK, what 'model' do they seek to emulate? William Hugh Tunstall wrote: Outside of reading Thomas Sowell, Ayn Rand, and your usual right wing fare, have you ever journeyed into the heart of You are as well versed in the logical fallacy of ad hominem as many others within this forum. What those people you list above and elsewhere may or may not have said has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the statements I put forth. If you can refute *MY* statements kindly speak to them directly rather than clouding the issues. Regard$, --MJ The classic redistribution-of-wealth mentality works this way: A and B get together to impose a tax on C so they can give his money to D, who out of a mix of envy of C, gratitude to A and B, and selfishness, then votes for A and B again so they can repeat the process next year. A and B justify playing Robin Hood by claiming that C has plenty of money and, in any event, has a social responsibility to help 'the needy'. Of course, D is 'needy'. -- William Stanmeyer DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] SA-social conditions
-Caveat Lector- A totalitarian state thrives on propaganda, and there is no more effective way to limit thought than to control the language itself. By changing definitions of words through continual association, any serious discussion involving the concepts that the words represents becomes hopelessly muddled. The words "democracy," "hate" and "racism" immediately comes to mind. -- Thomas Sowell DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Say "NO" To Socialized Health Care Today!
-Caveat Lector- William Hugh Tunstall wrote: Since you quote Bastiat, von Mises, Jefferson, Lysander Spooner, Thomas Sowell with frequency, the connection with libertarianism is rather obvious, isn't it? MJ: These persons are liberals and possibly libertarians in the loose sense but certainly NOT Libertarians. This does NOT change *my* words into theirs nor is it logically acceptable to make attempts at such. William Hugh Tunstall wrote: Are you going to tell me that your values and philosophy are NOT shaped by libertarian thought? MJ: Actually moreso by 'trial and error', examination, reasoning and looking at reality. William Hugh Tunstall wrote: Ad hominem? On the contrary, I have the utmost respect for your erudition. However, I do question just exactly how tolerant you are of individuals who do not share your philosophical perspective. ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM Argumentum ad Hominem is literally "argument directed at the man". The Abusive variety of Argumentum ad Hominem occurs when, instead of trying to disprove the truth of an assertion, the arguer attacks the person or people making the assertion. This is invalid because the truth of an assertion does not depend upon the goodness of those asserting it. William Hugh Tunstall wrote: Examine your statement below: because I disagree with you, I am characterized by you as being afraid of "liberty, freedom and equality." But you also go further: presumably, by way of your own ad hominem attack on me, I am now classified as an individual who wants to "rape," "enslave," and benefit from "theft." A rather strong ad hominem attack on me MJ: Actually, pointing at reality. If YOU will read my statement below, you will plainly see that the subject of my comment was NOT you (unless of course you are trying on shoes for fit). (snipped for brevity) On Sun, 6 Jun 1999, M.A. Johnson wrote: I have never claimed nor am I a Libertarian. I see your use of ad hominem and the straw man run deep. I do, however, realize most people fear liberty, freedom and equality ... preferring the rape, enslavement and theft of some at the benefit of others. Regard$, --MJ There are mighty few people who think what they think they think. -- Robert Henri DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Say "NO" To Socialized Health Care Today!
-Caveat Lector- William Hugh Tunstall wrote: Adam Smith recognized that there were some services which the "free market" cannot provide for citizens. MJ: What has Adam Smith to do with anything? William Hugh Tunstall wrote: Please clarify your position. Are you against All taxes? MJ: No. William Hugh Tunstall wrote: You would like to abolish the government altogether..or just eliminate those programs that you think are forms of "stealing"? MJ: No government, Anarchy, would tend toward endless gang warfare. I do NOT wish to abolish government. William Hugh Tunstall wrote: Since "government theft" seems to be an integral concept in your philosophy, please expand on this. Just exactly what do you mean. MJ: Government theft is an integral part of reality. My philosophy is built upon the subjagation of might to the individual's RIGHT to his OWN life (natural rights). I favor/affirm/support/endorse liberty, freedom and equality. Regard$, --MJ no snappy quote so as to avoid confusion DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Say "NO" To Socialized Health Care Today!
-Caveat Lector- William Hugh Tunstall wrote: A man or woman's character is meaningless in America. It is the possession of wealth that matters. Of course, you or I might judge individuals differently; but for the most part, Americans judge and evaluate one another on the basis of material possessions: the clothes one wears, the car one drives, the house one lives in. MJ: Fallacy of ad hoc, gross generalization and wild ass guess. William Hugh Tunstall wrote: WHy do I believe that? Well, I've lived in California, Washington, Kentucky, New York, Washington and North Dakota. In my own experience, it is money that talks, bullshit that walks. MJ: Fallacy of anecdotal evidence. William Hugh Tunstall wrote: There are individuals who scrub toilets for a living, who work hard, struggle against incredible odds to provide for their families, and in this country, they go unrecognized and unrewarded. Do you think Americans care about these honest, hardworking individuals who play by the rules? Not really. No. Americans are interested in and fascinated by those who possess wealth... and as a society, we encourage our children to "get up there" by whatever means necessary, so that they won't have to know the day-to-day indignities of what it's like to be poor. To be poor and without property in a society that worships property and possessions means that your life is at the disposal of others. So, if you lack property, and your mom and dad were not loaded, you have to sell whatever you can to survive. Well, what can be sold? Talents, skills, labor... some sell their bodies, Mr. Johnson. In Thailand, poor moms and dads sell their female children to brothels. MJ: Nice emotive speech, but what has it to do with reality? William Hugh Tunstall wrote: Given the fact that if you don't sell yourself to others in order to survive, you won't eat, it's not surprising that the majority of those who sell themselves are VERY interested in doing anything and everything to make their masters happy. Whatever ethical or moral concerns one might have, become less important in the struggle for survival. Not surprisingly, crime has always been a very problem...among all social classes. Remember the success of the Godfather movie? The line between criminal and legal behavior is a fine one... many saw the Corleone family as heroesmisunderstood entrepeneurs who were only supplying people with what they want. And so human beings become commodities, things to be bought and sold in the marketplace of life, to be bought and sold by those who DO have the money. The transformation of human beings into things bothers me... SOmehow, I don't find it inspiring. Perhaps, it's because I believe human beings have a spiritual nature, and there is something fundamentally wrong about reducing human beings down to the level of objects. And there is something fundamentally wrong about a society that values money more than they value the wellbeing of their own children. I would suggest that if we truly were so concerned about the poor and the problems of poor children, we would change our priorities. But that's not likely, is it? MJ: Not certain where you are driving this bus ... call me stupid, but can you reduce this diatrible into a two or three sentence assertion? Regard$, --MJ I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means -- except by getting off his back. -- Leo Tolstoy DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Income, taxes and demagoguery
-Caveat Lector- Income, taxes and demagoguery by Thomas Sowell WHEN YOU HEAR POLITICIANS and intellectuals talking -- often very loudly -- about "the rich," do you ever wonder who they are talking about and how much money those "rich" people make? And do you ever wonder why those who are making so much noise about the rich don't just come right out and tell us what kind of money they are talking about? Instead, we hear about the top 10 percent or the top 5 percent. But why so squeamish about saying how much money that represents? There is a reason for all this noise about the rich and for all the silence about how much money is involved. Talking about the rich is politically very useful for whipping up envy and getting support for heavy taxes. But the incomes of most people in the top 5 or 10 percent are a lot less than most Americans would consider rich. If the incomes of all the people in an American household adds up to $72,000, that puts them in the top 10 percent of all households. But, when a husband and wife make $36,000 apiece, most of us would not consider them rich. Nor would we be likely to think that putting heavy taxes on them would be a good idea. Any attempt to lower the taxes of such a couple is guaranteed to bring out the noisy demagogues in Congress, denouncing "tax cuts for the rich" because people in the top 10 percent would benefit. But the only people whose taxes can be cut are the people who are paying taxes -- mostly people in the upper brackets, who are not rich. Even the top 5 percent of households do not usually fit what most of us would consider to be the rich. If all the incomes in your household add up to $127,000, then you are one of those top 5 percent who are so rich that the government thinks it should be taxing you like mad. That's $63,500 apiece if husband and wife are both working about what mid-level civil servants would make. Or, if only one person is working and earning the whole $127,000 alone, that is about the average salary of a college president -- and much less than the average income of a college athletic coach. It is nowhere in the ball park compared to the incomes of top lawyers, corporate executives or professional athletes. What about the really rich people --- the ones with their own private jets and mansions here and there? There are such people but there are not enough of them to affect the statistics very much. Moreover, genuinely rich people usually have tax accountants to go with their jets and mansions, so that they can keep their jets and mansions. The people who really get hit hard by taxes that are supposed to be aking the rich are ordinary people who happen to be at the stage of their lives where they are earning more than they did in years past and more than they will be earning in the future. These are largely people in their 50s or early 60s who have worked their way up to a decent income and are seeing much of it drained away by politicians who proclaim that "the rich" ought to pay "their fair share." This "fair share" is as completely undefined as "the rich" themselves. The demagogues don't dare talk specifics in either case or people will start to see through them. If we look at wealth instead of income, it becomes even more obvious that "the rich" are not a different class of people but largely people in older age brackets who have accumulated some money in a pension fund, paid off most of their mortgage and put a little money aside to see them through retirement and the illnesses of old age. The average net worth of households headed by someone 65 years old or older is more than 10 times the net worth of households headed by someone under 35 years of age. But these aren't different classes of people, because everyone who is 65 or older was once 35 or younger. Many of the statistical "poor" are just as fictitious as the statistical "rich." For most Americans, being in the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution is strictly a transitional phase. More of them rise to the top 20 percent than remain at the bottom, and the rest of them are scattered all in between. Most Americans are likely to have incomes in the top 10 percent at some point or other during their lives. So when politicians start talking about taxing the rich, send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always,
Re: [CTRL] Revising Capitalism/ rebuttal.
-Caveat Lector- Nurev: No matter what changes and inovations Capitalism goes through, there always remains the deadly constants. 1- Private ownership of large amounts of capital ALWAYS causes concentration of wealth into few hands. With that ALWAYS comes control and exploitation of society. MJ: This is both absurd AND false. Take the greatest malignment of all 'Robber Barons', John D. Rockefeller. The efficiencies of economies of scale and vertical integration caused the prices of refined petroleum to fall from over 30 cents a gallon in 1869 to 10 cents by 1874 and to 5.9 cents by 1897. During the same period, Rockefeller reduced his average costs from 3 cents to 0.29 cents per gallon. The production of refined petroleum increased rapidly throughout this period of increasing dominance by Standard Oil as well, as increased competition was provided by Associated Oil and Gas, Texaco, the Gulf Company, and 147 independent refineries that had sprung into existence by 1911 -- the year in which the government forced the breakup of Standard Oil. Contrary to popular mythology, Standard Oil's market share DECLINED from 88 percent in 1890 to 64 percent by 1911. Because of intense competition the company's oil production as a percentage of total market supply had declined to a mere 11 percent in 1911, down from 34 percent in 1898. Certainly 'exploiting' society with high prices for profit, squeezing out competitors and sticking it to anyone he could find. Nurev: 2- Capitalism, like cancer, is defined by growth. The ecology of the planet can no longer tolerate systems based on waste and growth. MJ: This is both absurd AND false. The key to stopping pollution is the hallmark of capitalism: private property. The reason that it is so easy to pollute rivers, oceans, the air, and land is because they are publicly owned. Since public property partially belongs to everyone, no one person takes care of it, and property with no real owner is easy to pollute. However, if all property was privately owned, then no one could dump in a river that they owned only a section of because the waste would drift into another person's part of the river, thus violating their property rights. The same applies to beaches and oceans. If the ocean was divided up into privately owned portions, then no one could pollute their part of the ocean without the pollution spilling into someone else's property. Also, if the beaches and parks were privately owned and the owner charged money for people to use his land, then it would be in his economic self-interest to keep his beach or park clean and pollution free so people would frequent his property more than his competitors. It is through this same self-interest that points to the absurdity of 'waste' you claim above. Nurev: 3- Capitalism is theft. Its success depends on how much the capitalist can steal from the worker on one end, and the buyer on the other. MJ: There is no FORCE involved. The 'Capitalist' seeks to fill a market with a product people 'need' or have a 'perceived need'. In a capitalist society all workers are free to choose who they are going to work for. So if a worker doesn't like the terms that an employer is offering them for a job, they can simply look for work elsewhere until they find a better job, or not accept any job at all. Just because a worker doesn't like everything about his job doesn't mean he is being 'exploited'. For someone to be exploited they have to be physically forced to work against their own will. It is only a government, not a businessman, that has the type of power necessary to force people to work against their own judgment. Employers must compete for the services of their employees. If an employer offers lower salaries or poorer working conditions than other employers in a given field, workers will seek to work elsewhere, and the employer will lose his employees and go out of business. This means that it is in the economic self-interest of employers to provide higher wages and better working conditions than their competitors. Wages are not risen or lowered because an employer is kind or cruel. Wages, like all other commodities, are subject to the law of supply and demand. It is an inevitable consequence of capitalism, through the accumulation of capital and the widening of labor markets, that workers' wages rise and their choices of employment increase over time. It is the lean toward capitalism, not monopolistic unions or 'pro-worker' legislation, that brought the pre-industrial serf out of his misery. Nurev: 4- Capitalism causes mental illness in the form of addiction to money. MJ: Non sequitur. Nurev: 5- No Capitalist is really supportive of competition. Competition is wasteful and chancy. Monopoly is the true aim of capitalists. MJ: A coercive monopoly is exclusive control in a fie
Re: [CTRL] Say "NO" To Socialized Health Care Today!
-Caveat Lector- William Hugh Tunstall wrote: Why do you feel the need to play these little, crappy rhetorical games? MJ: I am 'playing' no games. Let us take the most basic example of late: libertarian (lîb´er-târ´ê-en) noun 1. One who believes in freedom of action and thought. 2. One who believes in free will. Libertarian (lîb´er-târ´ê-en) noun A member of the Libertarian Party While I certainly have tendencies toward the first ... the second was yours and others charge within this forum (of course until your LAST post in which you changed concepts). All we have within this medium is words, many people cannot discern what another is stating when they are not clear. Furthermore, too many people fail to address the concepts, ideas and words which are put forth ... instead opting for fallacies which serve to get rid of the whole problem -- at least in their imagination. They also confuse words with concepts. Which topic would you like to address? Welfare? Start by citing the Constitutional article, section and clause or amendment which empowers the Federal Government to forcibly take one person's property and provide this to another. Tell me then how this is moral ... when that same government forbids an individual from the same action. Regard$, --MJ For the honor of American understanding, we will not believe that the people have been allured into the adoption of the Constitution by an affectation of defining powers, whilst the preamble would admit a construction which would erect the will of Congress into a power paramount in all cases, and therefore limited in none. On the contrary, it is evident that the objects for which the Constitution was formed were deemed attainable only by a particular enumeration and specification of each power granted to the federal government; reserving all others to the people, or to the states. And yet it is in vain we search for any specified power embracing the right of legislation against the freedom of the press. Had the states been despoiled of their sovereignty by the generality of the preamble, and had the federal government been endowed with whatever they should judge to be instrumental towards the union, justice. tranquillity, common defence, general welfare, and the preservation of liberty, nothing could have been more frivolous than an enumeration of powers. -- Jonathan Elliot _Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution_ DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Shootings a boon to home education [a bard bonus]
-Caveat Lector- Howard R. Davis III wrote: Life Magazine made a list of the individuals who had the most effect upon our civilization during the last millenium. At the top of the list was Thomas Alva Edison. When his teacher told his mother that he would never amount to anything because of his learning disability (of course, back then she probably would have said he was retarded), his mother took him out of school and he got the rest of his education from his mother (and reading most of the books at the local library). The Education of Thomas Edison by Jim Powell [Mr. Powell is editor of Laissez-Faire Books. He has written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Barron's, American Heritage, and more than three dozen other publications.] This article is from The Freeman, February, 1995. Copyright (c) 1995 by Foundation for Economic Education, Inc. In 1854, Reverend G. B. Engle belittled one of his students, seven-year-old Thomas Alva Edison, as "addled." This outraged the youngster, and he stormed out of the Port Huron, Michigan school, the first formal school he had ever attended. His mother, Nancy Edison, brought him back the next day to discuss the situation with Reverend Engle, but she became angry at his rigid ways. Everything was forced on the kids. She withdrew her son from the school where he had been for only three months and resolved to educate him at home. Although he seems to have briefly attended two more schools, nearly all his childhood learning took place at home. Thus arose the legend that Thomas Alva Edison (born February 11, 1847) became America's most prolific inventor -- 1,093 patents for such wonders as the microphone, telephone receiver, stock ticker, phonograph, movies, office copiers, and incandescent electric light -- despite his lack of schooling. For years, he looked the part of the improbable, homespun genius: five feet, 10 inches tall, gray eyes, long hair that looked as if he cut it himself, baggy acid-stained pants, scruffy shoes, and hands discolored by chemicals. Later he took to wearing city clothes -- black. On more than one occasion passersby mistook him for a priest and respectfully tipped their hats. Yet Edison probably gained a far better education than most children of his time or ours. This wasn't because his mother had official credentials. She had taught school, but only a little. Nor was it because his parents had money. They were poor and lived on the outskirts of a declining town. Nancy Edison's secret: she was more dedicated than any teacher was likely to be, and she had the flexibility to experiment with various ways of nurturing her son's love for learning. "She avoided forcing or prodding," wrote Edison biographer Matthew Josephson, "and made an effort to engage his interest by reading him works of good literature and history that she had learned to love -- and she was said to have been a fine reader." Thomas Edison plunged into great books. Before he was 12, he had read works by Shakespeare and Dickens, Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, David Hume's History of England, and more. Because Nancy Edison was devoted and observant, she discovered simple ways to nurture her son's enthusiasm. She brought him a book on the physical sciences -- R. G. Parker's School of Natural Philosophy, which explained how to perform chemistry experiments at home. Edison recalled this was "the first book in science I read when a boy." It made learning fun, and he performed every experiment in the book. Then Nancy Edison brought him The Dictionary of Science which further spurred his interest. He became passionate about chemistry, spending all his spare money buying chemicals from a local pharmacist, collecting bottles, wires, and other items for experiments. He built his first laboratory in the cellar of the family's Port Huron house. "Thus," Josephson noted, "his mother had accomplished that which all truly great teachers do for their pupils, she brought him to the stage of learning things for himself, learning that which most amused and interested him, and she encouraged him to go on in that path. It was the very best thing she could have done for this singular boy." As Edison himself put it: "My mother was the making of me. She understood me; she let me follow my bent." Sam Edison disapproved of all the time his son spent in the cellar. Sometimes he offered the boy a penny to resume reading literature. At 12, for example, Thomas read Thomas Paine's Age of Reason. "I can still remember the flash of enlightenment that shone from his pages," he recalled. Typically, though, he used his pennies to buy more chemicals for experiments in the cellar. But Thomas Edison had discovered intellectual play. He wanted to learn everything he could about steam engines, electricity, battery power, electromagnetism, and especially the telegraph. Samuel F. B. Morse had attracted tremendous crowds when he demonstrated th
Re: [CTRL] Income, taxes and demagoguery
-Caveat Lector- Income, taxes and demagoguery by Thomas Sowell William Hugh Tunstall Mr. Sowell is engaged in a rather clever campaign of disinformation. information about some book Sorry. The facts do not support Sowell's position. MJ: The 'facts' in the book you cited? Dr. Sowell's research certainly 'jives' with the Internal Revenue Service's numbers AND the House Ways and Means'. Perhaps it is you who are attempting to be 'clever'. Who Pays Federal Individual Income Taxes, 1994 Taxpayers # Returns (K) AGI (M) Tax Paid (M) %AGI %Tax Inc Split Top 01% 01,150 0,546,720 152,696 13.8 28.7 195,981 05% 05,749 1,102,836 252,385 27.8 47.4 090,913 10% 11,499 1,552,121 314,786 39.2 59.1 068,737 25% 28,747 2,481,040 423,328 62.6 79.5 042,734 50% 57,495 3,371,349 507,120 85.1 95.2 021,817 Less 57,495 0,589,571 025,523 14.9 4.8 in thousands in $ million in dollars Source: Preliminary IRS Data Tax Foundation 1250 H Street, N.W. Suite 750 Washington, D.C. 20005. Percent of Total% Income Earners% Income Level Tax Revenues *(next inclusive) Total of Income 28.7 1.0 13.8 >$185 000 59.0 10.0 39.0 >$ 67 000 79.2 25.0 46.0 >$ 42 000 95.2 50.0 85.0 Source: Overview of the Federal Tax System, House Ways & Means Committee. (1992) *next group includes the prior ie. 10% includes 1% group, 25% includes 10% and 1% groups, etc. Distribution of the federal income tax burden The top 1% of income earners pay 26% of the tax The top 10% pay 58% The top 20% pay 73% The bottom 40% pay less than 1% The bottom 60% pay 10% of the taxes collected. Source: Overview of the Federal Tax System, House Ways & Means Committee, 1992. Regard$, --MJ When more of the people's sustenance is exacted through the form of taxation than is necessary to meet the just obligations of government and expenses of its economical administration, such exaction becomes ruthless extortion and a violation of the fundamental principles of a free government. -- Grover Cleveland, Second Annual Message; December, 1886 DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Revising Capitalism/ rebuttal.
-Caveat Lector- SCIO-LTD wrote: The subsidies are often indirect through the granting of minor or major monopolies, (for a good example see the history of AT&T, and the monopoly they had for well over a half a century).The government often has a dual use/dual purpose agenda in these areas, with strong linkages between industry, academia, and government. This is NOT capitalism. You too ... why is it everyone desires to label things as such they are not? Regard$, --MJ One of the sublimest things in the world is plain truth. -- Edward Bulwer-Lytton DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] COST OF PROTECTIONISM
-Caveat Lector- William Hugh Tunstall wrote: The free trade vs. protectionism debate is something of a joke. MJ: Yes, especially when ONLY the latter exists in the reality of today. Regard$, --MJ Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -- Milton Friedman The primary reason for a tariff is that it enables the exploitation of the domestic consumer by a process indistinguishable from sheer robbery. -- Albert Jay Nock DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Income, taxes and demagoguery
-Caveat Lector- William Hugh Tunstall wrote: Nice try, Mr. Johnson, but you're in error. Bartlett and Steele use figures from the OMB, the IRS and the US Census Bureau... not the House Ways and Means Committee and NOT the Tax Foundation! MJ: So Bartlett & Steele (fallacy of appeal to authority) READ the IRS data BETTER than two independent sources that I cited (three including Dr. Sowell)? 3 to 1. William Hugh Tunstall wrote: But if you will read my response to Mr. Howard Davis III, I am on record for the abolition of the personal income tax. There are a number of ways of raising revenue that would not be so punitive on individuals. MJ: Actually ONLY individuals pay taxes. Corporations, businesses, landlords, etc. merely collect taxes ... passing them along to the individual. *I* favor a head tax coupled with user fees. Each person pays the SAME -- thus 'encouraging' low taxation/spending on the part of government AND equality. Regard$, --MJ About a century ago a group of brilliant Italian scholars set out to study the nature of the state and its monetary affairs. One of them, Amilcare Puviani, tried to answer this question: If a government were trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of its population, what would it do? He came up with eleven (11) strategies that such a government would employ. They are worth examining: 1. The use of indirect rather than direct taxes, so that the tax is hidden in the price of goods 2. Inflation, by which the state reduces the value of everyone else's currency 3. Borrowing, so as to postpone the necessary taxation 4. Gift and luxury taxes, where the tax accompanies the receipt or purchase of 'something special', lessening the annoyance of the tax 5. 'Temporary' taxes, which somehow never get repealed when the emergency passes 6. Taxes that exploit social conflict, by placing higher taxes on unpopular groups (such as the rich, cigarette smokers or windfall profit makers) 7. The threat of social collapse or withholding monopoly government services if taxes are reduced 8. Collection of the total tax burden in relatively small increments (a sales tax or income tax withholding) over time, rather than in a yearly lump sum 9. Taxes whose exact incidence cannot be predicted in advance, thus keeping the taxpayer unaware of just how much he is paying 10. Extraordinary budget complexity to hide the budget process from public understanding 11. The use of generalized expenditure categories, such as 'education' or 'defense' to make it difficult for outsiders to assess the individual components of the budget Notice anything about this list? The United States government uses every single one of those strategies -- and so do most foreign governments. That just might lead a cynical observer to conclude that the government was actually 'trying' to soak the taxpayers for as much money as it could get, rather than say, raising just enough for essential functions. In all these ways, government's constant instinct to grow, to take on more tasks, to arrogate more power to itself, to extract more money from the citizenry. Indeed as Jefferson observed, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Class -- whatever that may entail was ...
-Caveat Lector- William Hugh Tunstall wrote: ... have had articles featuring what I believe is a growing class division in America. MJ: Do NOT 99% of Americans consider themselves 'middle class'? Is it class division or culture? It it a PERCEPTION manipulation? Are you considering the total tax burden which averages close to 50% currently compared with 12-15% only about 40 years ago? What of the gradual but deliberate removal of personal responsibility? What of the immoral activities which Government participates, but refuses to allow the average citizen the same privilege? If one is concerned only with their own responsibilities rather than looking into their neighbor's back yard ... when do they have time to determine WHICH class they fit and what Mr. Jones has which need to be 'kept up with'? Regard$, --MJ The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. -- H. L. Mencken DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Revising Capitalism/ rebuttal.
-Caveat Lector- William Hugh Tunstall wrote: Much of the R and D in high tech industries is funded by the taxpayers... We have NASA, NSA, Livermore, MIT, the mammoth defense contractors.. Silicon Valley has had its share of government subsidies.. MJ: Then it is NOT capitalism. nurev wrote: Capitalism CAN NOT EXIST WITHOUT GOVERNMENT Reality starts on the ground man. Not as a definition. You have it all ass backwards Johnson. In the state in which man, individually and in totality, has the greatest amount of freedom, liberty and equality, the Government is merely the collective application of the individual's right to self-protection. This is the only place in which capitalism can exist. William Hugh Tunstall wrote: So the argument that market forces (capitalism) are responsible for high tech innovations is false. When "the invisible hand" stays invisible, government comes to the rescue. MJ: Non squitur nurev wrote: It is a clear statement, and I understood the meaning quite well. MJ: But that does not change its fallacy. Regard$, --MJ The people who bind themselves to systems are those who are unable to encompass the whole truth and try to catch it by the tail; a system is like the tail of truth, but truth is like a lizard; it leaves its tail in your fingers and runs away knowing full well that it will grow a new one in a twinkling. -- Ivan Turgenev DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Revising Capitalism/ rebuttal.
-Caveat Lector- SCIO-LTD wrote: The subsidies are often indirect through the granting of minor or major monopolies, (for a good example see the history of AT&T, and the monopoly they had for well over a half a century).The government often has a dual use/dual purpose agenda in these areas, with strong linkages between industry, academia, and government. MJ: This is NOT capitalism. You too ... why is it everyone desires to label things as such they are not? nurev wrote: This is not YOUR idea of capitalism. But capitalism it surely is. This system is what capitalism became. The origins, the myths, the outcomes are capitalist because the elites are capitalist and shape the society to suit them. Ask the elites what they are. Ask them their favorite economic system. MJ: capitalism (kàp´î-tl-îz´em) noun An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. If the 'means of production' are regulated, provided, taken, subsidized, licensed, etc. ... how are the privately owned? Regard$, --MJ In republican governments, men are all equal; equal they are also in despotic governments: in the former, because they are everything; in the latter, because they are nothing. -- Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws Bk. VI, Ch. 2 DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Socialists in Congress !
-Caveat Lector- Ric Carter wrote: Interesting... BTW the last time I looked, there was precisely 1 (one) socialist in Congress, Bernie Sanders of Vermont [that hotbed of Fabianism, Marxism and Castroism]. Actually by your definition there are zero. Mr. Sanders is an independent, but you are confusing words and concepts here as you have elsewhere prior. Regard$, --MJ The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism', they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. -- Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Presidential candidate DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Socialists in Congress !
-Caveat Lector- Ric Carter wrote: Interesting... BTW the last time I looked, there was precisely 1 (one) socialist in Congress, Bernie Sanders of Vermont [that hotbed of Fabianism, Marxism and Castroism]. MJ: Actually by your definition there are zero. Mr. Sanders is an independent, but you are confusing words and concepts here as you have elsewhere prior. Ric Carter wrote: Rep. Sanders has long been self-defined as a Socialist. Look it up. By simply perusing ... http://www.house.gov/bernie/ One notes the heading ' Welcome to INDEPENDENT Congressman Bernie Sanders' Web page. Now what? You still confuse words with concepts. Regard$, --MJ Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. -- Euripides DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] The Roots of War
-Caveat Lector- The Roots of War by Alyssa Rosenbaum It is said that nuclear weapons have made wars too horrible to contemplate. Yet every nation on earth feels, in helpless terror, that such a war might come. The overwhelming majority of mankind -- the people who die on the battlefields or starve and perish among the ruins -- do not want war. They never wanted it. Yet wars have kept erupting throughout the centuries, like a long trail of blood underscoring mankind's history. Men are afraid that war might come because they know, consciously or subconsciously, that they have never rejected the doctrine which causes wars, which has caused the wars of the past and can do it again -- the doctrine that it is right or practical or necessary for men to achieve their goals by means of physical force (by initiating the use of force against other men) and that some sort of "good" can justify it. It is the doctrine that force is a proper or unavoidable part of human existence and human societies. Observe one of the ugliest characteristics of today's world: the mixture of frantic war preparations with hysterical peace propaganda, and the fact that both come from the same source -- from the same political philosophy. The bankrupt, yet still dominant, political philosophy of our age is statism. Observe the nature of today's alleged peace movements. Professlng love and concern for the survival of mankind, they keep screaming that the nuclear-weapons race should be stopped, that armed force should be abolished as a means of settling disputes among nations, and that war should be outlawed in the name of humanity. Yet these same peace movements do not oppose dictatorships; the political views of their members range through all shades of the statist spectrum, from welfare statism to socialism to fascism to communism. This means that they are opposed to the use of coercion by one nation against another, but not by the government of a nation against its own citizens; it means that they are opposed to the use of force against armed adversaries, but not against the disarmed. Consider the plunder, the destruction, the starvation, the brutality, the slave-labor camps, the torture chambers, the wholesale slaughter perpetrated by dictatorships. Yet this is what today's alleged peacelovers are willing to advocate or tolerate -- in the name of love for humanity. It is obvious that the ideological root of statism (or collectivism) is the tribal premise of primordial savages who, unable to conceive of individual rights, believed that the tribe is a supreme, omnipotent ruler, that it owns the lives of its members and may sacrifice them whenever it pleases to whatever it deems to be its own "good." Unable to conceive of any social principle, save the rule of brute force, they believed that the tribe's wishes are limited only by its physical power and that other tribes are its natural prey, to be conquered, looted, enslaved or annihilated. The history of all primitive peoples is a succession of tribal wars and intertribal slaughter. That this savage ideology now rules nations armed with nuclear weapons, should give pause to anyone concerned with mankind's survival. Statism is a system of institutionalized violence and perpetual civil war. It leaves men no choice but to fight to seize political power -- to rob or be robbed, to kill or be killed. When brute force is the only criterion of social conduct, and unresisting surrender to destruction is the only alternative, even the lowest of men, even an animal even a cornered rat--will fight. There can be no peace within an enslaved nation. The bloodiest conflicts of history were not wars between nations, but civil wars between men of the same nation, who could find no peaceful recourse to law, principle or justice. Observe that the history of all absolute states is punctuated by bloody uprisings -- by violent eruptions of blind despair, without ideology, program or goals-which were usually put down by ruthless extermination. In a full dictatorship, statism's chronic "cold" civil war takes the form of bloody purges, when one gang deposes another -- as in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. In a mixed economy, it takes the form of pressure-group warfare, each group fighting for legislation to extort its own advantages by force from all other groups. The degree of statism in a country's political system, is the degree to which it breaks up the country into rival gangs and sets men against one another. When individual rights are abrogated, there is no way to determine who is entitled to what; there is no way to determine the justice of anyone's claims, desires or interests. The criterion, therefore, reverts to the tribal concept of: one's wishes are limited only by the power of one's gang. In order to survive under such a system, men have no choice but to fear, hate and destroy one another; it is a system of underground plotting, of secret conspiracies, of deals, favors, betrayals and sudde
Re: [CTRL] The Roots of War
-Caveat Lector- Alyssa Rosenbaum Germany and Russia needed war; the United States did not and gained nothing. (In fact, the United States lost, economically, even though it won the war: it was left with an enormous national debt, augmented by the grotesquely futile policy of supporting former allies and enemies to this day.) Yet it is capitalism that today's peace-lovers oppose and statism that they advocate -- in the name of peace. Laissez-faire capitalism is the only social system based on the recognition of individual rights and, therefore, the only system that bans force from social relationships. By the nature of its basic principles and interests, it is the only system fundamentally opposed to war. nurev wrote: This country's capitalist economy utterly failed in the thirties. Even the alphabet programs of the New Deal did not revive the economy. ONLY WAR REVIVES CAPITALISM WHEN IT BURNS ITSELF OUT. ONLY WAR! MJ: You obviously (though often demonstrated) lack a knowledge of what entails capitalism -- there are no and never have been any examples of Capitalist societies. The economy which failed (assuming you mean the Great Depression) was a result of Government tinkering as they desired to CONTROL the economy through such devices as the Federal Reserve. Do you require some reading beyond the nonsense put forth by Government apologists? Statists have always been fascinated by war and its possibilities, even if they sometimes shrink from the implications. The rulers and the court intellectuals understand that free people have their own concerns -- family and work and recreation -- and it's not easy to get them enrolled voluntarily in the rulers' crusades and schemes. Court intellectuals are constantly calling for a 'national effort' to undertake some task or other, and most people blithely ignore them and go on bout the business of providing for their families and trying to build a better mousetrap. But in time of war -- then you can organize society and get evervone dancing to the same tune. As early as 1910, William James came up with the idea of 'The Moral Equivalent of War', in an essay proposing that young Americans be conscripted into 'an army enlisted against Nature' that would cause them to 'get the childishness knocked out of them, and to come back into society with healthier sympathies and soberer ideas'. Collectivists don't like the killing involved in war, but they love its domestic effects: centralization, the growth of government power, and, not coincidentally, an enhanced role for court intellectuals and planners with Ph.D.'s. The dangers of war in the modern era have encouraged the state and its intellectual allies to look for more trumped-up emergencies and 'moral equivalents of war' to rally the citizenry and persuade them to give up more of their liberty and their property to the state's plans. Thus we've had the War on Poverty, and the War on Drugs, and more crises and national emergencies than a planner could count on a supercomputer. One advantage of these 'moral equivalents of war' is that real wars eventually end, while the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs can go on for generations. And thus does the alliance between the state and its compliant intellectuals reach its zenith in war or its moral equivalent. War, then, is Public Choice theory writ large: bad for the people but good for the governing class. No wonder everyone wishes it would stop but no one can stop It. Regard$, --MJ Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. -- Euripides DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Free Trade Is Not Free
-Caveat Lector- Carl Amedio wrote: Free Trade Is Not Free by Patrick J. Buchanan Two Sides to NAFTA on Display at ... MJ: NAFTA is NOT Free Trade, though is touted as such which is perhaps the problem, but typical in today's confusion. Regard$, --MJ A totalitarian state thrives on propaganda, and there is no more effective way to limit thought than to control the language itself. By changing definitions of words through continual association, any serious discussion involving the concepts that the words represents becomes hopelessly muddled. The words "democracy," "hate" and "racism" immediately comes to mind. -- Thomas Sowell DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Truth on Trade
-Caveat Lector- It seems everyone in D.C. claims to believe in "free trade," but the meaning of the phrase is being drained out through sheer political hypocrisy. A true free trader is not a supporter of export subsidies and bailouts, foreign aid and mercantilist trade treaties, centralized executive power or global environmental regulations. Simply put, a free trader is a person who wants tariffs, quotas, and other barriers to trade repealed, beginning with those erected by one's own government. But as the pseudonymously written article below explains, there are few if any free traders left in D.C., despite all the rhetoric. As this "senior diplomat" points out, the World Trade Organization has become, not a facilitator of true trade liberalization, but a setting for "a chain of legal wars." What a sad commentary on the political culture that the person who reveals such truths publicly must do so without signing his real name. The Journal of Commerce February 17, 1999 Negotiating trade in a world without free traders By Frank George Benoit So, we're in 1999 and a new round of multilateral trade negotiations is supposed to be in the making. But the more papers we read and the more private talks we have with key decision-makers around the world, the more doubtful that supposition seems. At this stage, there just does not seem to be a clear pattern of consistency between what trade diplomats are ready to say at World Trade Organization headquarters in Geneva and what is in the daily signals coming from most of their capitals. Nobody is fool enough to deny the existence of WTO commitments to deepen the package of disciplines and concessions related to agriculture, services and some areas of intellectual property rights. Almost everyone is ready to say that closing markets would further complicate the uphill battle against financial crisis, economic recession and social unrest. But the sense of global-phobia is there nonetheless. The most active incidence of global-phobia is found among most of the membership of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, but it also touches several key Asian, Latin America and African countries. The signs of it are not directly reflected in public statements. They are mainly present in forms of self-explanatory body language that appear in most of the informal talks taking place around the planet. The message is clear. Nobody will fail to participate in the WTO's mandatory rituals. But, at least for the time being, not many players can be counted among the real practitioners of the trade-liberalizing faith if that means signing on to additional or immediate trade surgery for sensitive sectors. Blunt diplomacy allows players to declare a loud and ambitious "yes" to the general script while giving a flat "no" to actual progress by coming up with unattainable or absurd proposals at the critical moment. These days Geneva is covered with ambitious informal proposals and ideas, most of them deal-breakers that are not worth the paper on which they are printed. The obvious example of the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do recipe for paralysis is the United States. From the beginning, President Clinton's administration has proved unable to define a clear trade policy. Meanwhile, it has passively watched the departure to the private sector of most of its experienced negotiators, thus paving the way for a possible skills shortage. You don't train a trustworthy, experienced trade negotiator in a few classes or in a partisan headquarters. Moreover, by now it is widely believed that the administration cannot realistically expect to win fast-track negotiating authority from Congress for the rest of its tenure in office. Its team remains convinced that an eternal bullying pace will continue to serve well the U.S. trade interests. The Clinton administration is proposing an "ambitious sectoral approach" for which it lacks a congressional mandate, and has no apparent goals other than putting on a public relations show. But it is uninterested in getting down to action. In practice, the administration has an open mind for some clearly identified interests -- electronic commerce and information technology being among the chosen few -- and a "let me think" attitude for everything else. It does not want an agenda in Geneva loaded with any issues that are sensitive at home. That means little room for the core traditional process, which relies on giving a piece of cake for every WTO appetite. Experience a
Re: [CTRL] Trenchcoat
-Caveat Lector- Kenn Thomas wrote: You can bet that the cause of this violence will be tracked to everywhere but the actual source. You certainly missed it ... individual responsibility coupled with piss-poor parenting. Regard$, --MJ Responsibility by definition means answerable or accountable for. And what is a person responsible for? Everything he thinks, says or does. Why? Because no matter what or whom one can blame for the circumstances of his life, he is still stuck with the consequences of everything he thinks, says or does. People can be terribly unreliable but never irresponsible. Thus there is no way a person can be irresponsible because everyone is answerable or accountable for everything he thinks, say or does, does not do or neglects to do. Until people fully realize that they are totally responsible for their lives, we as a society collectively will be operating under a false and distorted assumption of what responsibility means. -- Sidney Madwed DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Trenchcoat
-Caveat Lector- Responsibility by definition means answerable or accountable for. And what is a person responsible for? Everything he thinks, says or does. Why? Because no matter what or whom one can blame for the circumstances of his life, he is still stuck with the consequences of everything he thinks, says or does. People can be terribly unreliable but never irresponsible. Thus there is no way a person can be irresponsible because everyone is answerable or accountable for everything he thinks, say or does, does not do or neglects to do. Until people fully realize that they are totally responsible for their lives, we as a society collectively will be operating under a false and distorted assumption of what responsibility means. -- Sidney Madwed MJ: You certainly missed it ... individual responsibility coupled with piss-poor parenting. Thomas, Kenneth F. wrote: I know CTRL readers won't go for this simplistic ballyhoo. Here's a good place to start looking for real answers about the school shootings: MJ: Your emotive efforts aside ... Two gunmen shoot a group of 'innocents' ... First we blame the guns ... While 'guns' do not kill ... we find a gun is used for the purpose of self-defense nearly 7,000 times daily (Florida State Criminologist Gary Kleck) Theyre just not newsworthy because, in almost all of the self-defense incidents, the gun wasnt even fired. "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott contains a comprehensive and scientific study of the effects of gun control on crime rates. Lotts research found that violent crime rates are 81 percent higher in states without nondiscretionary laws. Nondiscretionary concealed carry laws require the issuance of a concealed weapons permit if the applicant meets the standards. Just looking at murder rates --- States that ban carrying concealed weapons have murder rates 127 percent higher than states with laws that allow law-abiding citizens to carry gun for protection. ... then we incorporate the Militia and other groups which are painted in a bad light -- whether or not there is truly a connection ... certainly THEY are to blame ... certainly emotive non sequitur with ad hominem overtones, but then our educated electorate is no longer and it makes great 'press' ... we can then determine this a hate crime if the victim is in a protected group. Then we we can blame bigotry, prejudice or the misunderstood term; racism ... That is all the 'rage' these days isn't it? Not only did Little Jimmy kill Bobby, but because of their group it is suddenly more egregious a crime. ... Of course the blame MUST then be in the television, the radio, the rock music, lyrics, the latest popular rock act ... and now we can even place blame with the internet ... What we never ask is WHY the authority figure responsible for the 'child' permitted access to these various (non-contributing) media OR why no core was instilled where this type of material is consumed for what it is -- entertainment. ... We need more laws, especially against guns ... their lack is to blame. Note the studies above ... these children broke numerous EXISTING laws which did NOTHING to deter them. ... the peers are to blame Parents have no say in how their children are raised or with whom they associate? ... oh well, it takes a village, the village failed ... SHIT happens No matter how you try project blame from reality, it is those two predators that made the CHOICES and bear the brunt of the responsibility. Their parents are secondarily to blame for their 'failures' in raising autonomous, responsible individuals. If you have interests other than fallacy and the desire to absolve responsibility with this feel-good nonsense ... Regard$, --MJ Few skills are so well rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. -- Thomas Sowell DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SI
[CTRL] The Lies Your Professor Told You
-Caveat Lector- Should 'education' in the formal sense be separated from Government control, 'public' funding and the like? ... perhaps for the same reasons that it has been suggested that Religion and Government should remain apart? ~~for educational purposes only~~ The Lies Your Professor Told You An Accuracy in Academia Address by Daniel J. Flynn Variations of this talk have been delivered more than a dozen times in 1998, including at the University of Massachusetts, Georgia Tech, Wabash College, George Washington University, St. Johns College, and the University of New Hampshire. My talk is about how little truth seems to matter in higher education today. At one time, as the mottoes of Harvard and Yale attest, truth was the ultimate goal of our colleges and universities. Today that ideal has been subverted by something that modern academics prize more highly -- Im referring to the concept known as "diversity." For the modern academic, "diversity" is something to be preserved at all costs, even when it comes at the expense of truth. When faculty and administrators talk about "diversity," the term is used as a euphemism for left-wing conformity -- an inversion of the words true meaning. As Thomas Sowell has observed, when folks on campus talk about creating a "diverse faculty," they mean they want to hire a faculty that includes black leftists, Asian leftists, Hispanic leftists, female leftists, gay leftists, and so on and so forth. The diversity envisioned by many of those who run Americas top colleges and universities is a diversity where everybody looks like the United Nations but thinks like a San Francisco coffeehouse. That is to say it is not diversity at all. Specifically, I want to focus my remarks on the conflict between truth and "diversity" in the once political, and now strangely academic, areas of environmentalism, feminism, gay rights, and multiculturalism. It is because professors overwhelmingly support these political ideologies that they have adopted the stance of accepting what Plato referred to as "needful falsehoods" over the not-so-convenient truth in these fields. More than 70 colleges and universities currently offer programs in lesbian and gay studies. The most popular textbook in the subject admits that the field was designed to "advance the interests of lesbians, bisexuals, and gay men" and that it "straddles scholarship and politics." You dont have to be Nostradamus to predict what would happen if it were not gay activists but say NRA members, pro-lifers, or some other group on the Right that was offering courses that straddle "scholarship and politics." Theyd by laughed out of their jobs. Courses in the discipline, as one might guess, reflect this political mindset: Yales "Sexual Diversity and Social Change," the University of Minnesotas "Gay Men and Homophobia in American Culture," and Oberlins "Queer Acts" in which the course description reads: "Drag will be encouraged, but not required." Those who champion such fields often throw around buzzwords like "tolerance" to justify the politicization of scholarship. So we should probably ask ourselves what it is that we are being asked to tolerate? The very first essay in The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader, the Bible of this emerging field, demonstrates just what it is that faculty activists want us to "tolerate." Anthropologist Gayle Rubin writes, "Like communists and homosexuals in the 1950s, boy lovers are so stigmatized that it is difficult to find defenders for their civil liberties, let alone erotic orientation." She complains of a "savage and undeserved witch-hunt" organized by the Post Office, the FBI, and local police departments "to wipe out the community of men who love underage youth." The feminist anthropologist goes on to state that opposition to "sadomasichism," "transsexuality," and "cross-generational encounters" have "more in common with ideologies of racism than with true ethics." Perhaps the most tireless champion of sex between children and adults is the New York University Press. In NYU Press Lavender Culture, Gerald Hannon blasts what he sees as two "archaic concepts": #1. "the innocence of children" and #2. "the potential harmfulness of sex." Hannon argues that gays must "proselytize" in order to "abolish repressive, ageist legislation." By this he means: "reaching young people with the message" that "they should get out of their families as soon as they can" and that "its all right to be having sex." And this is a reoccurring theme in many of the gay and lesbian studies books that NYU publishes. Because Gay and Lesbian Studies is admittedly political, it puts forward claims that have everything to do with an agenda and very little to do with true scholarship. I want to back this claim up, briefly, with a few examples from history, literature, and science. University of Massachusetts-Boston Professor Charley Shively claims that Abraham Lincoln had numerous gay affairs.
Re: [CTRL] Use of Word: Liberal
-Caveat Lector- William Shannon wrote: I am a self-confessed liberal, and more specifically a socialist. It's my experience however that most liberals are capitalists through and through. Capitalism requires the complete separation of the economy and the state -- as such NEITHER Rs or Ds are 'capitalist's through and through'. A very common (and simple-minded) misconception among the right in this country that liberal=socialist, wish twas true. Would it be fair to say that all conservatives are fascists? Most likely the case (or at least some other form of Statism). There are very few persons who oppose Statism in ALL of its forms. Regard$, --MJ We find two great gangs of political speculators, who alternately take possession of the state power and exploit it by the most corrupt ends -- the nation is powerless against these two great cartels of politicians who are ostensibly its servants, but in reality dominate and plunder it. -- Friedrich Engels DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] The Roots of American Government . . .
-Caveat Lector- http://www.npl.com/~tkrell/writings/bible/american-heritage.html The Roots of American Government A survey of the religious foundations of our democracy Tim A. Krell Krell Americans, as a whole, know embarrassingly little about their own heritage. MJ: Especially with the vast numbers of 'revisionists' within the field. :) Krell These fathers of democracy would probably be shocked to see the apathy of Americans toward their heritage and culture. And they would likely have much to say about the direction our country is proceeding. MJ: Especially since DEMOCRACY was never their intention. Elbridge Gerry, on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, referred to democracy as the 'worst of all political evils'. James Madison stated, "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths." And as is witnessed in the ways our current government has digressed, Alexander Fraser Tyler's obervation. "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. >From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship," was one of many studied by those Founders. Krell In God We Trust "The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion." --Abraham Lincoln MJ: Interesting that you would pick a quote from BOTH a non-founder AND a Deist with an affinity to Paine. money verbiage As somewhat alluded ... the currency motto first appeared during the Civil War, in 1864, when Secretary of the Treasury Salmon Chase put the words on some bronze two-cent pieces. In 1866 the words appeared on all American coins, but disappeared from some coins between 1883 and 1938. The choice for using the words was the responsibility of the Secretary of the Treasury. The so-called motto had no other official standing. In 1956 Congress passed legislation, signed without comment by President Eisenhower, which required the motto on all American currency, both metal and paper. It was not the Founding Fathers of 1787 who demanded the words 'In God We Trust' on American money; it was the politicians of 1956. I thought this was a discussion of the Founders. Krell One Nation Under God "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people, that these liberties are the gift of God?" -- Thomas Jefferson Our nation, from the beginning, was steeped in its belief in the God of the Bible. MJ: Whoa ... apparently you fail to recognize the difference between Nature's God, their (each person's own belief) Creator and the God of the Bible ... as you AGAIN quote a Deist. What do you imagine 'conviction in the minds of the people' relates? [BTW ... a mention of God does NOT necessarily equate to 'God of the Bible'.] Note De Toqueville, G.K. Chesterton are NOT Founders. General Washington, in a letter written to Brigadier General Nelson said, "He must be worse than an infidel who lacks faith to express his obligations, but time will suffice later for me to become preacher when my present appointment ceases, therefore I shall add no more on the doctrine of providence." MJ: Unlike Thomas Jefferson -- and Thomas Paine, for that matter -- Washington never even got around to recording his belief that Christ was a great ethical teacher. His reticence on the subject was truly remarkable. Washington frequently alluded to Providence in his private correspondence. But the name of Christ, in any correspondence whatsoever, does not appear anywhere in his many letters to friends and associates throughout his life. (pssst ... Washinton, too, was a Deist). Krell But there was indeed something special about America in the eyes of the founding fathers--this was one of the only countries that had been founded on the God of the Bible. This was a nation that was seeking to establish itself under the democratic principles of the Bible. Many of the time felt America to be a "divine experiment" in democracy. By following God's precepts for the democratic rule of a country, as explained in the Bible, they felt guaranteed of eventual success, regardless of what obstacles confronted them. MJ: Could *ANYONE* point to these principles and demonstrate HOW they relate to the Constitution? Can anyone further provide primary sourcing that bolsters th
[CTRL] Corruption of language
-Caveat Lector- ~~for educational purposes~~ Corruption of language by Walter E. Williams MANY OF MY YOUTHFUL Saturday afternoons were spent at the theater watching Tarzan or Jungle Jim fighting in the swamps and jungles against the forces of evil. There were swamps and jungles because we saw them. When have you last heard the words swamps and jungles? Have swamps and jungles disappeared from the face of the earth? No, for political purposes they've been renamed. They're now wetlands and rain forests. The public can't be whipped into a frenzy about saving swamps and jungles, but wetlands and rain forests are a different matter. Everybody's onboard with the new terminology except the military. They're still calling combat dress clothing jungle camouflage. They should rename their combat dress rain forest camouflage. Years ago, there were bums, vagabonds, tramps and hobos. They, too, have disappeared. Now we have homeless people. That causes temporary confusion. When a person asks me, "Will you help the homeless?" I don't know whether I'm being asked to assist someone whose home was lost in a tornado, flood or hurricane, or a shiftless bum. Use of homeless is the leftist agenda to establish moral equivalency between tragedy that's an act of God and self-inflicted tragedy. There's another term confusing to me -- care-giver. If someone said, "I saw the girl walking down the street with her care-giver," with whom would you think she was walking? It might be her mother, father, babysitter, seeing-eye dog, doctor, lawyer, policeman, hairdresser -- the possibilities are endless. So why cause confusion? Just say, "She was walking with her father." Just as confusing is the classification native American. Whenever I have to fill out a form that has a block where one can classify himself as a "Native American," I always check that block and urge you to do so too if you were born in the United States. The African-American classification poses problems, too. What if a person of Afrikaner or Egyptian ancestry were born in the United States. Would he be an African-American? On many of America's college campuses, there are courses such as "Violence and Gender" and "Gender Inequality." Sustained, intransigent, ignorance might be excusable elsewhere but not on a college campus. Gender is a grammatical term: "the classification by which nouns and pronouns (and often accompanying modifiers) are grouped or inflected." For example, in French, "le" is the article for the masculine gender and "la" the article for the feminine gender. Gender and sex are two different concepts. They are not interchangeable. Plus, it would sound funny to say, "He had gender with his wife." Aside from ignorance, college professors can be silly, too. What used to be the position of department chairman is now the sexually neutral department chair. I hold such a position at George Mason University and refuse to identify myself as Chair. On occasions, when referred to as a chair, I've offered to prove to the speaker that I am a chairman. Sticking with the college scene a little more, presidents pretend to assume the moral high ground by pointing to the importance they place on campus diversity. Whatever they mean by diversity, they darn sure don't mean political diversity. Most colleges are leftist bastions. Very often 90 percent or more of their faculty and administrators are Democrats. What presidents really mean by diversity is that they are for race and sex quotas, but not political quotas. John Milton predicted, "When language in common use in any country becomes irregular and depraved, it is followed by their ruin and degradation." Just in case you're puzzled by our national moral decline. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] [wethepeople] Was George Washington a Christian?
-Caveat Lector- Mike & Kathy Moxley wrote: Was George Washington a Christian? MJ: In a word, No. from Franklin Steiner's The Religious Beliefs of Our President's 19 Every public man, every office holder and politician realizes that organized religion, socially, politically and economically, is a factor to be recognized and dealt with. Washington, not only as Commander-in-Chief, but more so as President, was obliged to have the united support of all the people, regardless of his individual views. He was careful to warn all these Churches against the great vice of the world, religious bigotry, intolerance and persecution. Because a motive is inspired by religion, it may not always be right, but religion is a powerful motive, right or wrong. Washington, in all these addresses, had in mind that religious controversy and dissension breed discord. At the same time, he realized that to secure independence and erect the new government, the cooperation of the Churches and the ministers was essential. He wanted their support, and to have their enmity would have been unfortunate. There have been few Clemenceaus, Bradlaughs, Berts and Gambettas in public life who openly opposed the Church. These did so under extraordinary circumstances. Had Washington been as firm an Agnostic as Ingersoll, it would have been to his advantage to remain silent on the subject. He is careful to refer to religion in general, not to any particular belief or Church. He says nice things to them all, but commits himself to none. His use of the word "Christian" at times means nothing definite. Christianity might mean Roman Catholicism or Unitarianism, or "mere morality," just as its user prefers. Of course every man must give special homage to the religion of the country in which he lives. In the "Farewell Address," he often refers to "religion morality." This might mean any religion, and the, other excerpts confirm us in thinking that he meant all religions and none in particular. Thousands of men today hold that religious institutions should be upheld because of the prop they give to morality. They support Church for that reason, while they are indifferent to its theological teaching. They believe, as did Draper: "The tranquility of society depends so much on the stability of its religious convictions, that no one can be justified in wantonly disturbing them." They think religion is necessary for other people, while not needed by themselves. It will also be noticed that Washington, while he sometimes couples morality and religion, stresses the former, and ends by saying that "virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government." Among the addresses sent to Washington when he became President was one from the First Presbytery of the Eastward, which objected to the new Constitution because it did not recognize God and the Christian religion, in these words: "We should not have been alone in rejoicing to have seen some explicit acknowledgement of the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom he hath sent, inserted somewhere in the Magna Charta of our country." To this, Washington replied: "The path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. ... In the progress of morality and science, to which our government will give every furtherance, we may confidently expect the advancement of true religion and the completion of our happiness." Here, as on similar occasions he is too canny to say what "true piety" is. His statement that "true piety" will be advanced through the "progress of morality and science," would place him at the present day in the ranks of Rationalism. Washington knew, at the same time, as did Madison, that religion, legally united with the state, is no aid either to "virtue or morality." For that reason he said, in the treaty with Tripoli, made in 1796, and, ratified by the Senate in 1797: "The Government of the United states of America is not, in any sense, founded upon the Christian religion." He was too shrewd to oppose the orthodoxy of his time, and equally shrewd in not committing himself to its teachings. Socially, he conformed to the religious customs of his day, just enough to maintain the good will of religious people. What Was Washington's Belief? It is said that some one asked of Lord Beaconsfield his religion. He replied, "The religion of wise men." Thereupon, his interlocutor again ask, "What religion is that," and my Lord answered, Wise men never tell." Washington was a wise man and never told. In classifying these Presidents, placing them in one Church or another, whenever they actually were believers in the doctrines of that Church, I have had no difficulty in securing indubitable evidence, except in the case o
Re: [CTRL] [wethepeople] The Bible and our Constitution
-Caveat Lector- Mike & Kathy Moxley wrote: "Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." - United States Supreme Court, 1892. MJ: Unfortunately, the analysis of the case that accompanies it amounts to little more than a manipulation of the language of the opinion to distort the actual meaning of the case, its relevant facts and its stated rule of law. The facts of Holy Trinity concerned the application of an Act of Congress titled "An act to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the Unites States, its Territories and the District of Columbia." Holy Trinity Church, a church located in the city of New York, contracted with a minister in England to perform services as rector and pastor at its church. At issue in the case was whether or not the church's action violated the Act which prohibited "any person, company, partnership, or corporation ... to assist or encourage the importation or migration of any alien ... under contract or agreement ... to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States." The holding of Holy Trinity was based on an interpretation of the purpose of the Act. The Court concluded that the purpose of the Act was to prohibit the importation of foreign unskilled persons to perform manual labor and manual services. A christian minister, the Court reasoned, is a 'toiler of the brain', not a manual laborer; Holy Trinity Church, therefore, was found not to have violated the Act when it secured a contract for the holy man's employment. The Court says the title of the Act implies its meaning, that only the importation of 'laborers' will be restricted. The Court then turns to the legislative history, debates, and comments of the Congressmen involved in drafting the Act to conclude that the Act was designed to regulate the domestic unskilled, labor market. Whether or not America was a Christian Nation was not even at issue in Holy Trinity. The actual dispute or controversy the Court had to decide had nothing at all to do with religion. The parties in Holy Trinity did not question whether the Immigration Act's purpose was 'for or against religion' generally or specifically. Mike & Kathy Moxley wrote: While making certain not to endorse any denomination of religion over another, the founders of this nation made it emphatically clear that the principles upon which this Nation was built are based squarely upon the Bible. Virtually every one of the 55 writers and signers of the United States Constitution were members of various Christian denominations: 29 were Anglicans, 16 to 18 were Calvinists, 2 were Methodists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Roman Catholic, 1 lapsed Quaker and sometimes Anglican, and 1 open deist--Dr. Franklin who attended every kind of Christian worship, called for public prayer, and contributed to all denominations. Any authority to support this assertion? Indeed, the weight of scholarly opinion is to the contrary. For example, Professor Clinton Rossiter has written: Although is had its share of strenuous Christians... the gathering at Philadelphia was largely made up of men in whom the old fires were under control or had even flickered out. Most were nominally members of one of the traditional churches in their part of the country.. and most were men who could take their religion or leave it alone. Although no one in this sober gathering would have dreamed of invoking the Goddess of Reason, neither would anyone have dared to proclaim his opinions had the support of the God of Abraham and Paul. The Convention of 1787 was highly rationalist and even secular in spirit. (Clinton Rossiter, 1787; The Grand Convention, pp. 147-148.) Much has also been made of Benjamin Franklin's suggestion that the Convention open its morning sessions with prayer. His motion was turned down, however, and not again taken up. Franklin himself noted that "with the exception of 3 or 4, most thought prayers unnecessary." (Ferrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, rev. ed., Vol. 1, p.452.) Mike & Kathy Moxley wrote: George Mason is called the father of the Bill of Rights, for he insisted that the first ten amendments be added to the Constitution. The purpose for such an addition? "The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth," Mason said. MJ: You confuse God with Christianity. much Mike & Kathy Moxley wrote: We the members of the U.S. Taxpayers Party gratefully acknowledge the blessing of the Lord God as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of this Nation... Th
Re: [CTRL] How the pie is sliced. Concentration of wealth.
-Caveat Lector- MJ: Wealth is CREATED, not distributed. Das GOAT wrote: Even ENERGY can be neither created nor destroyed, just redistributed. 'Twould seem even God has less "power" than an ideological Capitalist. MJ: False analogy. Wealth is NOT energy. Regard$, --MJ Few skills are so well rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. -- Thomas Sowell DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] CLGA> Re: [patriots] Fw: [SonsofLiberty] A LaymansStudy and Interpretation of the CONSTITUTION
-Caveat Lector- Ric Carter wrote: If you believe that "state sovereignty" is a Constitutional issue, or that the Articles of Confederation deserve standing as "the supreme Law of the Land", please cite such sections of the Constitution that I may have missed. Thank you. If it 'aint't' there ... it does not exist (85% of our current burden) ... Article I, Section 1 All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress ... Article I, Section 8 The Congress shall have Power To ... [followed by explicit powers] Article II, Section 1 The executive Power shall be vested in a President ... Article II, Section 2 The President shall be ... He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate ... The President shall have Power to ... Article III, Section 1 The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish ... Article III, Section 2 The judicial Power shall extend to ... Alexander Hamilton "The Federalist" #84: Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations. 'We the People of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.' Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government. ... I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance or reason, the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Regard$, --MJ "This is not an indefinite government ... but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers which explain and define the general terms. [James Madison Remarks in the House of Representatives (6 Feb. 1792), The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787] "Congress [has] not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but [is] restrained to those specifically enumerate." [Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin (16 June 1817)] DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Dutch Gov't Faces "Threat of Democracy"
-Caveat Lector- Das GOAT wrote: "A senior member of the Liberal party objected strenuously that this measure, if passed, would give Dutch citizens too much power over their government." Entire Dutch Cabinet Resigns By ANTHONY DEUTSCH .c The Associated Press THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) -- The entire Dutch Cabinet resigned Wednesday after the ruling coalition split over whether to give citizens the right to vote in referendums. Except in the sacred texts of democracy and in the incantations of orators, we hardly take the trouble to pretend that the rule of the majority is not at bottom a rule of force. What other virtue can there be in fifty-one percent except the brute fact that fifty-one is more than forty-nine? The rule of fifty-one per cent is a convenience, it is for certain matters a satisfactory political device, it is for others the lesser of two evils, and for others it is acceptable because we do not know any less troublesome method of obtaining a political decision. But it may easily become an absurd tyranny if we regard it worshipfully, as though it were more than a political device. We have lost all sense of its true meaning wheen we imagine that the opinion of fifty-one per cent is in some high fashion the true opinion of the whole hundred per cent, or indulge in the sophistry that the rule of a majority is based upon the ultimate equality of man. -- Walter Lippmann DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Dutch Gov't Faces "Threat of Democracy"
-Caveat Lector- nurev wrote: That's not the point. These people don't like any kind of democracy because they are essentially elitist and resent being restricted by society. MJ: Straw man, non sequitur, ad hominem ... Some people favor freedom, liberty and equality over the whims of the majority. Regard$, --MJ A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. -- Alexander Fraser Tyler, "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic" DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Say "NO" To Socialized Health Care Today!
-Caveat Lector- [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you want long lines like what they experience in Canada, under a socialized health care system? Prudence L. Kuhn wrote: Yes, yes, yes. Canada's system sounds great to me. They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here? -- Paul Harvey 8/31/94 Regard$, --MJ Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others: The Constitution of this Republic should make a special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom. -- Dr. Benjamin Rush DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] "Why GUNS are here to stay.
-Caveat Lector- Eagle 1 wrote: What is it with guns? Guns don't kill anyone. nurev wrote: You are a liar! MJ: If you and I sat in a room (or you sat alone) with a gun on the table ... at what point does the gun shoot you or I? Regard$, --MJ I am convinced that we can do to guns what we've done to drugs: create a multi-billion dollar underground market over which we have absolutely no control. -- George L. Roman DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Dutch Gov't Faces "Threat of Democracy"
-Caveat Lector- A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship. -- Alexander Fraser Tyler, "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic" nurev wrote: Well, we finally agree on something. The above statement is true. The problem is that there has not been enough Democracy to achieve the above status. Were we at that point, I would agree that democracy is a problem. MJ: WHAT has Al Gore been campaigning about thus far? Taking some people's money and giving it to others for: o day care o increased education spending o after school programs Ever looked at the 'elderly welfare' program where money is taken from those currently working and provided to those who have reached an arbitrary age or meet other arbitrary requirements? What happens when this issued is either demagagued or suggestions are made that such 'money from the public treasury' cease/decrease? Need other examples? Regard$, --MJ The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods. -- H. L. Mencken DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Dutch Gov't Faces "Threat of Democracy"
-Caveat Lector- nurev wrote: That's not the point. These people don't like any kind of democracy because they are essentially elitist and resent being restricted by society. MJ: Straw man, non sequitur, ad hominem ... Some people favor freedom, liberty and equality over the whims of the majority. nurev wrote: Favor what you like, but you can't have that in a complex society. That's life. If you don't like it, go live in a cave. The more complex the society, the more government control we need. by Leonard Reed Argued a college president at a seminar: "Your free market, private property, limited government theories were all right under the simple conditions of a century or more ago, but surely they are unworkable in today's complex economy. The more complex the society, the greater is the need for governmental control; that seems axiomatic." It is important to expose this oft-heard, plausible, and influential fallacy because it leads directly and logically to socialistic planning. This is how a member of the seminar team answered the college president: "Let us take the simplest possible situation -- just you and I. Next, let us assume that I am as wise as any president of the United States who has held office during your lifetime. With these qualifications in mind, do you honestly think I would be competent to coercively control what you shall invent, discover, or create, what the hours of your labor shall be, what wage you shall receive, what and with whom you shall associate and exchange? Is not my incompetence demonstrably apparent in this simplest of all societies? "Now, let us shift from the simple situation to a more complex society -- to all the people in this room. What would you think of my competence to coercively control their creative actions? Or, let us contemplate a really complex situation -- the 255 million people of this nation. If I were to suggest that I should take over the management of their lives and their billions of exchanges, you would think me the victim of hallucinations. Is it not obvious that the more complex an economy, the more certainly will governmental control of productive effort exert a retarding influence? Obviously, the more complex our economy, the more we should rely on the miraculous, self-adapting processes of men acting freely. No mind of man nor any combination of minds can even envision, let alone intelligently control, the countless human energy exchanges in a simple society, to say nothing of a complex one." It is unlikely that the college president will raise that question again. While exposing fallacies can be likened to beating out brush fires endlessly, the exercise is nonetheless self-improving as well as useful -- in the sense that rear guard actions are useful. Further, one's ability to expose fallacies -- a negative tactic -- appears to be a necessary preface to accenting the positive influentially. Unless a person can demonstrate competence at exploding socialistic error, he is not likely to gain wide audiences for his views about the wonders wrought by men who are free. Of all the errors heard about the "bargaining tables" or in classrooms, there is not one that cannot be simply explained away. We only need to put our minds to it. Regard$, --MJ It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings. Where there is service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be master. -- Alyssa Rosenbaum DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Say "NO" To Socialized Health Care Today!
-Caveat Lector- Bejamin Rush (at the time of ourFounding): the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship to restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others: Prudence L. Kuhn wrote: I think this time has already gotten here, hasn't it? Prudy MJ: Yes, recent medicare laws have prohibited any doctor who supplies medical services to *any* medicare recipient from providing services to *other* paying customers. A pity that freedom and liberty have departed this nation. Regard$, --MJ Equal laws protecting equal rights ... the best guarantee of loyalty & love of country. -- James Madison, letter to Jacob De La Motta, August 1820. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Say "NO" To Socialized Health Care Today!
-Caveat Lector- MJ: For this to be true ... others MUST be slaves, victims of theft and out and out raped so that 'everyone' has healthcare -- whatever that may entail. nessie wrote: How so? MJ: How will doctors, nurses, et al AND supplies be 'paid for'? Will these people be FORCED to 'donate' their services? Will those persons who manufacture the supplies be FORCED to provide them at no charge? Will you forcibly TAKE money from OTHER working people to pay for this 'right'? Again, I ask ... especially if you respond in the affirmative for the above ... do the people who will be FORCED to pay for this 'right to healthcare' be permitted to make CHOICES for the recipients so as to 'ensure' minimal expenses? How is *ANY* of this compatible with liberty andfreedom? Regard$, --MJ There are two methods, or means, and only two, whereby man's needs and desires can be satisfied. One is the production and exchange of wealth; this is the economic means. The other is the uncompensated appropriation of wealth produced by others; this is the political means ... the State invariably had its origin in conquest and confiscation. -- Albert Jay Nock DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Say "NO" To Socialized Health Care Today!
-Caveat Lector- nessie wrote: Affluent people of all nations get better health care than the rest of us. This is an atrocity. Health care is a human right. MJ: How so? For this to be true ... others MUST be slaves, victims of theft and out and out raped so that 'everyone' has health care -- whatever that may entail. Do these other people that MUST provide these services get a say in lifestyle choices of their 'charities'? Regard$, --MJ A man receiving charity always hates his benefactor -- it is a fixed characteristic of human nature. -- George Orwell DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] THE HISTORY OF THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY
-Caveat Lector- Well my computer has been 'ill' ... This is total and absolute nonsense: Das GOAT wrote: 1901 "The Spindletop [oil] gusher in Beaumont, Texas, gives John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Trust its first major competition. The Beaumont Field contains more oil than the rest of the United States combined ... The Gulf Oil Co. has its beginnings as [the investors] get backing from [Anglophile] banker Andrew W. Mellon ... "More than half the world's oil output is from Russia's Baku fields developed by Ludwig Nobel, brother of dynamite inventor Alfred Nobel, and by 1902: "'History of the Standard Oil Company' by Ida Minerva Tarbell appears in McClure's magazine installments, revealing that John D. Rockefeller controls 90 percent of US oil-refining capacity ... US Steel Co. has two-thirds of US MJ: Anti-Trust serves business interests who cannot compete in the marketplace . This propaganda nonsense about monopolies and 'Robber Barons' is bunk. Read and research rather than regurgitate the indoctrinated myths. The Ghost of John D. Rockefeller by Thomas J. DiLorenzo At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on competitiveness in the computer industry last March, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates was compared to the infamous 'robber baron' John D. Rockefeller and his company likened to the Standard Oil Company of the late nineteenth century. Federal Trade Commission chairman Robert Pitofsky made a similar analogy in a Washington Post op-ed, where he self-servingly argued for more money for antitrust investigations. Gates's competitors, too, are working diligently to implant the Rockefeller analogy in the public consciousness. Even the Wall Street Journal has joined in this attack; reporter Alan Murray claimed in a page-one article that Gates supposedly enjoys 'monopoly power' that 'even John D. Rockefeller could envy'. Microsoft's critics are right. There are many similarities between Bill Gates's company and the old Standard Oil organization. Like Gates, Rockefeller was the victim of a political assault for the 'sin' of rapid innovation, a vast expansion of output, and rapidly declining prices -- just the opposite of what the antitrust laws ostensibly police. As with Microsoft, the political attack on Standard Oil was launched by less-efficient rivals who wanted to achieve through the political process what they failed to achieve in the marketplace. There is indeed a lesson to be learned from Rockefeller's antitrust ordeal, but it is not the one Microsoft's critics have in mind. Rockefeller's Economic Legacy The firm of Rockefeller, Andrews, and Flagler was formed in 1865 and was a marvel of efficiency because of Rockefeller's penny-pinching ways and the managerial genius of his brother William. (1) Even Rockefeller's harshest critic, the muckraking journalist Ida Tarbell (whose brother's firm -- the Pure Oil Company -- was driven from the market by the more efficient Standard Oil), described the company as 'a marvelous example of economy'. (2) The efficiencies of economies of scale and vertical integration caused the prices of refined petroleum to fall from over 30 cents a gallon in 1869 to 10 cents by 1874 and to 5.9 cents by 1897. During the same period, Rockefeller reduced his average costs from 3 cents to 0.29 cents per gallon. The production of refined petroleum increased rapidly throughout this period of increasing dominance by Standard Oil as well, as increased competition was provided by Associated Oil and Gas, Texaco, the Gulf Company, and 147 independent refineries that had sprung into existence by 1911 -- the year in which the government forced the breakup of Standard Oil. Contrary to popular mythology, Standard Oil's market share DECLINED from 88 percent in 1890 to 64 percent by 1911. Because of intense competition the company's oil production as a percentage of total market supply had declined to a mere 11 percent in 1911, down from 34 percent in 1898. Moreover, Standard Oil's decades-long price-cutting was not 'predatory pricing' -- the theoretical practice of pricing below average cost to drive competitors from the market and establish a monopoly. Any business person would be a fool to intentionally lose money by pricing below average cost for decades. As economist John McGee concluded in his classic analysis of the Standard Oil case, "whatever else has been said about [it], the old Standard organization was seldom criticized for making less money when it could readily have made more" through other means. (3) Indeed, Standard Oil never came close to cornering the market; by the time the antitrust case against it was filed in 1906, it had hundreds of competitors. Nevertheless, Standard Oil was convicted of violating the antitrust laws in 1911 and partially dissolved, despite the fact that the courts conducted no economic analysis of its conduct and performance. That is, they completely
Re: [CTRL] THE HISTORY OF THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY
-Caveat Lector- Kris Millegan wrote: Read what was written and what you posted. 90% control does not mean output. Dogmatic blindness? MJ: Standard Oil's market percentage PEAKED at 88%. Reaching such a level is NOT a monopoly NOR does it imply/infer/mean such a level was sustained for any length of time. MJ: This propaganda nonsense about monopolies and 'Robber Barons' is bunk. Kris Millegan wrote: Whether they be 'staged' or productive monopolies, the activities of corporate interests has been detrimental towards the common good. MJ: There are two (2) types of monopoly; coercive and natural. Coercive REQUIRES Government to ensure its existence, the other has NEVER existed. Kris Millegan wrote: One's Robber Baron is anothers boss, another's father. Yes, there are many sides and ways to perceive, but by their fruits ye shall know. The basic thrust of Goats post was right on and shows how political, economic and social forces are used by "interests" to advance their self-interests. MJ: EVERY decision by EVERY individual is made in their self-interest. Regard$, --MJ If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They'll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1949 DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Trashing the Founders' Dream
-Caveat Lector- Kris Millegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Our once great nation was founded on a single, overriding principle: freedom. Not the freedom of a dog to roam however far its leash extends, but the freedom of an eagle -- to fly as high and far as its wings will take it. Ric Carter wrote: 'Freedom' for property-owning English-speaking white males, that is. additional emotive nonsense Can you cite the Constitutional evidence which supports your assertion? Regard$, --MJ As property, honestly obtained, is best secured by an equality of rights, so ill-gotten property depends for protection on a monopoly of rights. He who has robbed another of his property, will next endeavor to disarm him of his rights, to secure that property; for when the robber becomes the legislator he believes himself secure. - -Thomas Paine, Dissertations on First Principles of Government DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] [Fwd: [wethepeople] Perhaps of Interest]
-Caveat Lector- > Some d > e >e > p > reading for troubled times. > > I give you Michael Nostradamus > > PART III: > > X.72 July 1999, the World War III shall begin. > > L'an mil neuf cent nonante neuf sept mois > Du ciel viendra un grand Roy d'effrayeur > Ressusciter le grand Roy d'Angoulmois > Avant apres Mars regner par bonheur > > NOTE: > An: year; mil: thousand; neuf: nine; cent: hundred; nonante: ninety; > sept: seven; mois: month; ciel: sky; viendra (venir): to come; roy: > king; effrayeur: to terrify; ressusciter: to resurrect; Angoulmois: > the anagram of Mongoulois which means Mongolian; avant apres: before > and after; bonheur: luck, good fortune; Mars: war. > > The year 1999 and seven months > From the sky shall come the great king of terror > The great Mongolian King of old shall resurrect > Before and after wars shall reign at will > > COMMENT: In July 1999, the World War III or to be precisely, the > European war shall begin as the Chastisement from God. Like Mongolians > of old, the invaders shall come from the East (Russians and > Muslims) to Europe and they shall be merciless and brutal. > > VI.80 Europe shall become the battle field between the East and the > West. > > De Fez le Regne parviendra a ceux d'Europe > Feu leur cite et lame tranchera > Le grand d'Asie terre et mer a grand troupe > Que bleux, pars, croix a mort dechassera > > NOTE: > Fez (fer): iron, arms, war; parviendra (parvenir): to reach; leur: > their; lame: sword; tranchera (trancher): to cut off, sever; troupe: > troop; bleux: blue (sick); pars (pers): blueish green; croix: > cross; mort: dead; dechausser: to take shoe off, to lay down bare > roots. > > Arms and wars shall reach those of Europe > Fire shall burn city, sword pierce men > A powerful Asian force shall invade through land and sea > Blue bruises and pale hunger , the cross of death shall > lay them to rest > > COMMENT: Asian or Eastern countries such as Russia, Muslim, and China > shall destroy Europe with many wars. The wrathful armies eventually > shall be destroyed themselves. > > I.58 Siamese twin separated and survived, on the July Fourth >Italians attacked. > > Tranche le ventre naitra avec deux tetes > Et quatre bras: quelques ans entiers vivra > Jour qui Aquilare celebrera ses fetes > Fossen, Turin, chef Ferrare suivra > > NOTE: > Trancher: to cut off, to slice; ventre: abdomen, belly; naitre: to be > born; avec: with, deux: two; tetes: heads; quatre: four; bras: arm; > quelques: a few; entier: entirely; vivra (vivre): to live; jour: > day, feast day; Aquilare: (latin) eagle or USA; celebrera: to > celebrate; fete: feast day; Fossen: Florence, northern Italy; > Ferrare: Ferrara, northern Italy; suivra: anagram of survira > or survivre meaning to survive. > > Sliced at their belly, born with two heads > And four arms: a few years shall totally live > The day the Eagle celebrates her feast > Fossen, Turin, chief of Ferrara shall survive > > COMMENT: When the world enjoys the modern medical wonders by which a > Siamese twin shall be separated and survive. The recently separated > Siamese twin survived only for one year in California. > The latest separated Siamese twin shall survive a little longer (1995 - > 1999). The Italian soil shall be invaded by Muslims and Russians on > USA's holiday, the Fourth of July. > > VI.21 USA and Russia shall become friends. French leader shall support > Rome. > > Quand ceux de Pole Artique unis ensemble > En Orient grand effrayeur et crainte > Esleu nouveau soustenu le grand temple > Rodes, Bizane de sang Barbare taints > > NOTE: > Ceux: those; ensemble: together; effrayer: to terrify; crainte: fear; > esleu: elected; nouveau: new; soustenu: sustained. unfailing; Rodes: > Rhodes, the island by the coast of Turkey; Bizane: Turkey; Barbare: > barbarian, here, Muslims; taint: stained. > > When those of Artic become friends > A powerful one from Orient shall terrorize with fear > A new leader shall be elected who shall support the Church > Rhodes and Turkey shall be stained with Muslim blood > > COMMENT: After USA and USSR become friends, the world peace shall be > threatened by the Eastern countries such as Russia, China, and Muslims. > A newly elected leader of France shall support > Rome. The Mediterranean region shall turn bloody due to the invasion of > the Eastern block on European soil. > > V.27 The Eastern kings shall cross the River Euphrates to invade the > Western kings. > > Par feu et armes non loing de la Mer Negro > Viendra de Perse occuper Trebisonde > Trembler Pharos Methelin, Sol alegro > De sang Arabe d'Adrie couvert l'onde > > NOTE: > Feu: fire; non loing de: not far from; Mer Negro: Black Sea; Perse: > Persia, ancient Iran; Trebisonde: ancient Turkish town by Black
Re: [CTRL] Take the "World's Smallest Political Quiz"
-Caveat Lector- S. Lucas wrote: The questions are phrased in absolutes. There are no absolutes. MJ: Are you 'absolutely' a female? The quiz asked yes, no or maybe ... WHERE is the 'absolute' in such responses? Regard$, --MJ The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see ... -- Dominique Francon DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] the meaning of the word socialist
-Caveat Lector- Andrew Kieran wrote: how the hell do you define a socialist??!! socialist (so´she-lîst) noun Abbr. soc. 1. An advocate of socialism. 2. Often Socialist . A member of a political party or group that advocates socialism. socialism (so´she-lîz´em) noun 1. a. A social system in which the means of producing and distributing goods are owned collectively and political power is exercised by the whole community. b. The theory or practice of those who support such a social system. 2. The building of the material base for communism under the dictatorship of the proletariat in Marxist-Leninist theory. capitalism (kàp´î-tl-îz´em) noun An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. The KEY is how one defines 'ownership' ... does one truly 'own' something in which he must receive permission to 'create' or 'distribute' -- I say emphatically, No. As such Capitalism requires a separation of the State and business in much the SAME capacity as Church-State separation. *My* definition of Statist (socialist, nazi-ist, fascist, communist) would be anything other than providing ALL individuals with a RIGHT to their own life. Regard$, --MJ The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism', they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. -- Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Presidential candidate DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Some assistance please
-Caveat Lector- Anyone have any information or personal knowledge/experience with Tres Dias? Private reply is requested if this is too far from a relevant topic. Regard$, --MJ It is an affront to truth to treat falsehood with complaisance. -- Thomas Paine DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Dismal economic system. Dismal science.
-Caveat Lector- Joshua forwarded: The Growth Consensus Unravels Jonathan Rowe, Dollars and Sense It was John Maynard Keynes, after all, who devised the growth-boosting mechanisms of macroeconomic policy to combat the Depression of the 1930s; it was Keynesians who embraced these strategies after the War and turned the GDP into a totem. And herein lies the central PROBLEM with the author's premise. It was Keynes, after all, who claimed that credit expansion "performed the miracle...of turning a stone into bread." Keynes's Economic Consequences of the Peace, a book forecasting the economic consequences of the Versailles Treaty. French Economist Etienne Mantoux demonstrated in 1944 that Keynes was wrong in his details as well as his central thesis. Keynes predicted that, as a result of the Treaty, iron and steel production in Europe would decline; it rose. He predicted that German pre-war coal output could not be sustained; it was. He predicted that Germany could not export coal; it did. He predicted that the German merchant marine would be insufficient for Germany's trade; by 1924 it was the envy of the world. He predicted that Germany's amount of savings could not recover to its pre-war level; it did. In other words, Keynes was wholly wrong about the strictly economic consequences of the Versailles Treaty. It turns out Keynes was not much better in forecasting the political consequences of the Treaty either. Keynes predicted that the Treaty would lead to "anarchy and famine." Krugman's hindsight is such that, since Hitler rose to power, Keynes was a prophet. In fact, Europe, and Germany in particular, saw neither anarchy nor famine. Mantoux reveals that Hitler's popularity in Germany rose as the treaty reparations demanded of Germany were repeatedly reduced. Regarding Keynes's theorizing about German economic conditions ... Keynes himself recognized that his own policies were more National Socialist than free market. In the Preface to the 1936 German language edition of his General Theory Keynes told his German readers that his theories were much more suited to a totalitarian state, like the one the Nazis had in place, than to a free market. The stability of the world economy after World War II, to the extent that it was stable, was maintained despite the Bretton Woods agreement, not because of it. Such stability proved to be superficial as the inflation of the late sixties and early seventies demonstrated. Richard Nixon's closing the gold window in 1971 was a direct consequence of the inflationary incentives put in place under the Bretton Woods agreement. In 1912, Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises's The Theory of Money and Credit, was published. Among other things, Mises did explain, more coherently and correctly than Keynes did, why depressions occur and what should be done about about them. Keynes cited "insufficient aggregate demand" stemming from unstable business investment as the cause of depression. He offered no explanation for why an economy should suddenly experience insufficient aggregate demand. Mises, on the other hand, explained that the business cycle is due to credit expansion stimulated by the central banking authority. Such expansion lowers the interest rate below the market rate, encouraging investment that will not be met by future demand. Such investments are bound to fail. The only way back to economic prosperity is to allow market forces to liquidate unwise investments. Further credit injections will only start the process over again. Keynes wrote a generally favorable review of Mises's book but criticized it for being unoriginal. He later admitted that he could not understand German well enough to understand original ideas. Such was the integrity of Mr. Keynes. Mises followed his first great work with two monographs and an article in 1923, 1928, and 1931, respectively, that more fully described the cause and nature of, and the remedy for, economic crises. In 1931 his student F.A. Hayek published his Prices and Production outlining and developing Mises's theory. Hayek then followed in 1941 with The Pure Theory of Capital. Hayek's contributions were rewarded with a Nobel Prize in economics in 1974. Mises's The Theory of Money and Credit had already provided a general explanation for the stages of hyper-inflation experienced by Germany in the 1920s. In 1923, Mises applied his general theory to the case of Germany in a book on monetary stability submitted to the printer more than eight months before the final breakdown of the German Mark. And Mises was able to explain Germany's monetary breakdown without referring to anything like the chimera "too much aggregate demand." The reason that Keynes is not and should not become a cultural icon is that Keynes was wrong. The problems that Japan is facing now are not due to consumers and investors suddenly "spending too little." They are the necessary outcome of massive, state-sponsored credi
Re: [CTRL] Congress' voting record
-Caveat Lector- Bill Richer wrote: The New American magazine just came out with the voting records of U.S. Congressmen for the first half of 1999. They looked at 20 of the most important bills in each house, then found out how often the person voted constitutionally. Here are some results: MJ: Of these 20 carefully selected bills, did they REFERENCE any of the numbers and/or what they entailed? If so, could you post THIS information. Regard$, --MJ The Federal Government and its leadership over the last 60 years has been ignoring the Constitution in almost every respect. -- Orin Hatch, U.S. Senator from Utah DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] The 10th Amendment (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- The authority for Executive Order BEYOND the Executive Department aside ... The tenth amendment was 'de-toothed' by Chief USURPING Justice Marshall with McCulloch versus Maryland -- this complements his declaration that the Court says what the Law is in Marbury v. Madison, 1803. I wonder if Mr. Bill could use SIMILAR 'reasoning' to declare Amendment 22 not applicable since it does not mention HIM by name. Consider: Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. Alexander Hamilton The Federalist #84 Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations. 'We the People of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.' Here is a better recognition of popular rights than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our state bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government. ... I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance or reason, the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given. Chief Justice Marshall McCulloch versus Maryland Among the enumerated powers, we do not find that of establishing a bank or creating a corporation. But there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the Articles of Confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word "expressly," and declares only that the powers "not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people," thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments. A Constitution, to contain an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. It would probably never be understood by the public. Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves. That this idea was entertained by the framers of the American Constitution is not only to be inferred from the nature of the instrument, but from the language. Why else were some of the limitations found in the 9th section of the 1st article introduced? It is also in some degree warranted by their having omitted to use any restrictive term which might prevent its receiving a fair and just interpretation. In considering this question, then, we must never forget that it is a Constitution we are expounding. Regard$, --MJ Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. -- James Madison DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! Th
Re: [CTRL] textbook propaganda (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- >From Sean: Well. My senior honors government/economics class is well into the first chapter now, and something's disturbed me about our textbook. Section 3 of the book gives a basic run down of different economic systems and how they work. There is a section for Democratic Socialism, it states how it works, gives some of the pros, then a few cons. There is a section on Communism, it states how it works, gives a couple pros, and a buttload of cons. Then there is a section on capitalism. Capitalism is described at length as far as it's basic functions and how it relates to the state, then it lists a whole shitload of pros...but zero cons. With bias and propaganda even in simple school textbooks, it's no wonder that we have such a hard time getting people to listen to us. This is part of the root of out problem, and it needs to be fought. MJ: Would be interested in WHAT iis described as Capitalism, especially with the 'relates to the state' ideal. William Hugh Tunstall: Ah yes the ol' textbook = capitalist propaganda thing. Yep that is what they are for unfortunately. It is difficult to find a textbook at for high school that doesn't laud the "great" achievements of capitalism. And usually with the textbook you get teachers that just repeat what the holy book has given them. MJ: With all due respect, you have it backwards. It is socialism and the maligning of the Free Market which is prevalent and preached. from The Freeman -- www.fee.org Samuelson's Last Hurrah "Ours is the 'ruthless economy.'" --PAUL A. SAMUELSON, "Valediction," Economics (1998) Paul A. Samuelson, the MIT professor and Nobel laureate who introduced Keynesian economics to millions, has just published the 50th anniversary edition of Economics (Irwin/McGraw-Hill, 1998, 16th edition). It is the most popular textbook of any kind ever written: it has sold over 4 million copies and has been translated into 46 languages. The new edition may be his last. Back to the Future: From Keynes to Adam Smith As readers of The Freeman know, this column has documented the dramatic changes in Samuelson's thinking over the past few years. Along with the rest of the economics mainstream, he has shifted gradually from standard Keynesian analysis to the Classical model of Adam Smith. In the new edition, Samuelson replaces the old anti-saving doctrine known as the "paradox of thrift" with a major section bemoaning the low saving rate in the United States. Deficit spending, a perennial policy recommendation in earlier editions, is now anathema. Today monetary policy dominates fiscal policy. "The growing orientation toward the market," writes Samuelson, "has accompanied widespread desire for smaller government, less regulation, and lower taxes" (p. 735). The 16th edition is remarkable in many ways. Samuelson and his coauthor, Yale professor William D. Nordhaus, cite free-market economists Gary Becker and Julian Simon. They include a major biographical sketch of Joseph A. Schumpeter, an Austrian-born economist who later became one of Samuelson's valued professors at Harvard. (Schumpeter is best known for his emphasis of the role of the entrepreneur, criticism of the welfare state, and defense of big business.) And Samuelson finally admits that lighthouses were originally privately owned in Great Britain, after long maintaining that they were public goods that the free market could not provide. Not Enough Friedman However, his conversion to Classical freemarket economics has often been grudging and incomplete. Take his treatment of Milton Friedman, the most influential free-market economist of the twentieth century. While Samuelson's new edition contains biographies of Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, Karl Marx, and even his colleague Robert Solow, there's none on Milton Friedman. Friedman cannot be ignored, of course, and he is cited briefly for his contributions to monetarism, the Phillips Curve debate, the natural rate of unemployment hypothesis, and the negative income tax. But nowhere does Samuelson credit him for his most important contribution, for which he won the Nobel Prize: his monumental work (coauthored with Anna J. Schwartz), A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960 (Princeton University Press, 1963). In particular, Friedman demonstrated that government (the Federal Reserve), not free enterprise, caused the Great Depression by permitting the money supply to decline by one-third from 1929 to 1933. Why did Samuelson deliberately omit Friedman's vital contribution? Because the old Keynesian cannot break with his mentor, Keynes, whom he proclaims as "this century's greatest economist" (p. 734). Samuelson still clings to the old-fashioned Keynesian view that blames the Great Depression on unbridled laissez-faire capitalism. His newest edition gives only the Keynesian interpretation of the 1930s. In his introductory rem
