[CTRL] Michael: Criminalizing Homelessness
-Caveat Lector- Michael: MJ: So protection of property should NOT be the function of government? What should? That's easy. According to Social Darwinists, it should be the crushing protective arm of the parasitic elite. You know, the ones who gripe about having to pay their share of living in a free society, and can't understand why people who "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps" keep falling over? If you want my opinion of what government should be, you already have those answers. Edward "From the rage of today's downtrodden comes the revenge of tomorrow's revolutionary force." Edward Britton http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5285/connector1.html Talk to the planet: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/Reality_Pump2 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] Michael: Criminalizing Homelessness
-Caveat Lector- Michael: 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. 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. 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? 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. Throwing around emotives like 'Social Darwinists' ... if one has the RIGHT to survival ... he has the RIGHT to enslave another for such a purpose. "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. Yes, this is typical ... blame *ANYONE* but one's self. Who -- exactly --made those choices which placed you in the predicament? 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. Who failed to plan for this predicament? Who failed to 'diversify' your abilities/qualifications? Forgive me, Michael (actually this serves as partial re-inforcement of my point about the compassionlessness and naivete'of the right), but, again, at nineteen, I was oblivious of the need to prepare for the malevolent economics of an equally malevolent president. Who chose to frivolous actions rather than saving for the 'rainy day'? See above. When one is free to make his own decisions, how is it another's fault when the results prove deficient? 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. Are you fearful of freedom? I am fearful of being run over by a system in which I have no representation. I guess it's a matter of choosing who and by what means should I be run over. Why must you carelessly toss around emotive language in an attempt to obscure the issue? Clearly a matter of interpretation :-) Edward 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: Criminalizing Homelessness
-Caveat Lector- 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. You actually believe this stuff you say? I don't have a "political voice," but the cops seem to respond when I've called them. Therefore this governmental attribute you hold so dear becomes a defense mechanism for the elite. Let me ask... Are you a student or graduate of Patrice LaMumba University in Moscow? Hence the present chasm, in this nation, between the have's and the have-not's. And in other nations, there is no such chasm, right? Am I catching on? 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"? Maybe they fall under the "rubric" of "chance." We all have risks in our lives, and sometimes things happen to us that we didn't choose... The application is the same, however... Your bad luck is not my responsibility. B) It is fair by nature of the fact that the aforementioned gripers reap a disproportionately large benefit from life in this society. Oh? And I suppose wise men (and women, just to be politically correct) will have meetings and decide what a "proportional benefit" would be? As a matter of fact, I think they already do... something called a graduated income tax. "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. How about freedom? Has that ceased to be a choice? 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. Probl'y the smartest business decision he ever made... Forgive me, Michael (actually this serves as partial re-inforcement of my point about the compassionlessness and naivete'of the right), but, again, at nineteen, I was oblivious of the need to prepare for the malevolent economics of an equally malevolent president. and don't forget your malevolent boss... and his malevolent board of directors.. and perhaps the malevolent bankers who advised him to keep his expenses less than his income... Don't leave anyone out of your "victim" diatribe. 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. What if we don't "blame anybody," and just let the chips fall where they may? My bad luck doesn't constitute a claim on your bank account. I am fearful of being run over by a system in which I have no representation. I guess it's a matter of choosing who and by what means should I be run over. That's the only smart thing you've said Good Boy! Hawk 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: Criminalizing Homelessness
-Caveat Lector- 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. You actually believe this stuff you say? I don't have a "political voice," but the cops seem to respond when I've called them. -- Translated: the cops in my area come running for SOME reason, therefore everyone has some political voice. How far from reason can you get? -- Therefore this governmental attribute you hold so dear becomes a defense mechanism for the elite. Let me ask... Are you a student or graduate of Patrice LaMumba University in Moscow? - An avoidance of the issue in favor of McCarthyism - an attempt at character assassination, the default of a faulty metaprogram. - Hence the present chasm, in this nation, between the have's and the have- not's. And in other nations, there is no such chasm, right? Am I catching on? -- No one said that, did they? Shall we ignore our own problems in favor of addressing the problems of others? -- 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"? Maybe they fall under the "rubric" of "chance." We all have risks in our lives, and sometimes things happen to us that we didn't choose... The application is the same, however... Your bad luck is not my responsibility. --- There seems to be very little for which you ARE responsible. -- B) It is fair by nature of the fact that the aforementioned gripers reap a disproportionately large benefit from life in this society. Oh? And I suppose wise men (and women, just to be politically correct) will have meetings and decide what a "proportional benefit" would be? As a matter of fact, I think they already do... something called a graduated income tax. "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. How about freedom? Has that ceased to be a choice? -- If you value your freedom at any happenstance expense of others, don't be surprised when they come a knockin'. -- 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. Probl'y the smartest business decision he ever made... Like many right-wingers, you love a fight more than is good for you, or us. --- Forgive me, Michael (actually this serves as partial re-inforcement of my point about the compassionlessness and naivete'of the right), but, again, at nineteen, I was oblivious of the need to prepare for the malevolent economics of an equally malevolent president. and don't forget your malevolent boss... and his malevolent board of directors.. and perhaps the malevolent bankers who advised him to keep his expenses less than his income... Don't leave anyone out of your "victim" diatribe. --- If there are no victims, then there are no perpetrators, right? So why be concerned with conspiracies at all? -- 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. What if we don't "blame anybody," and just let the chips fall where they may? My bad luck doesn't constitute a claim on your bank account. I am fearful of being run over by a system in which I have no representation. I guess it's a matter of choosing who and by what means should I be run over. --- The chips WILL fall where they will and your lack of caring will work its way into the equation when
