Re: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: whyworry?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know of no way to lend support to the idea that government in general needs good leadership -- history shows that particular governments (namely, those that mankind has managed erect) suffer from bad leadership. OTOH, I will admit that humanity is fairly new to the game.. widespread experiments in government outside of monarchy are a fairly new development (and still not COMPLETELY widespread, of course). Maybe some smart guy will manage to come up with an idea that could survive a bunch of crooks here and there. I think the romans did. they finally lost the fight and state, but it lasted for quite a long time, didn't it? and survived a whole bunch of crooks.
RE: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: whyworry?)
Title: RE: CDR: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: whyworry?) I think the romans did. they finally lost the fight and state, but it lasted for quite a long time, didn't it? and survived a whole bunch of crooks. The Romans had more than one phase of government. Firstly, the Roman Republic, secondly the Roman Empire, then the split Roman Empire, and eventually just Byzantium. These forms of government were quite different, as were the extant cultures. In each case, though, quality of life was purchased for the Romans by ruthless subjugation and enslavement of the majority of the known world's population. Probably not a good system to try and emulate, what with all these damned liberals around whining about human rights and such ;-) -- Adam
Re: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: whyworry?)
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Sunder wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most Americans are so dependent, so hopelessly inurred with the current
lifestyle that they wouldn't recognize communism if it bit them in the ass.
Agreed. That is precisely my point -- and yet they condemn it with all
of the passion that the state says a good citizen should.
10 minute hate sound familiar?
It was the two minutes of hate, and it was from 1984 by George Orwell.
You're right. Been awhile since I read 1984. Two, ten .. man, I'm starting
to feel old my memory is getting worse everyday.
But that's the reality of life. Sometimes you make a bad decision and it costs
you your job, or your money, or even your life. It's reality. It may suck,
but it can't be denied.
Gravity is a fact of reality too .. but once we understand it, we can
get side-step it.
I'm not saying that life isn't hard. I'm not saying that life is ever
going to be easy -- but I'd like to make a society that cushions it as
much as we can. Thats why we get together and make societies in the first
place .. to make life easier for individuals; a burden shared together
is less of a burden.
No. Let the companies pay for them. If I am going to give them my sweat,
time away from my loved ones and the fruit of my talents and labor the
least they can do is make my life a little more cushy .. or give me
more green up front.. either is acceptable. But if you are going to
scale down the wage, then be prepared to compensate the worker in other
ways.
So if you have no job, how would you pay for health benefits for your loved
ones?
If I had no job, and no real decent job prospects; I'd probably be a
small time drug dealer. A little risky ('cause of the cops) but it turns
a good profit -- and then I could pay the bills.
Personally, I'd rather get the money back from the bunch spent on
health care so that I can pick and choose my own provider.
Like I said, give me the benefits or the money .. either is acceptable.
My point is merely that I would rather have people who oppose communism
because they understand it, and do not agree, rather than a populace that
hates communism because the State tells them too.
I would agree with this, but again, don't defend communism just because the
sheeple think it's bad and don't understand it.
I don't defend communism per se, I just condemn the brainwashed 'opinions'
(if we decide to call them such) of the sheeple.
First, I'd like to see you argue from the foundations of communism that
socialism/communism REQUIRES such a tyrannical rule. Don't argue history.
Anyone who knows anything about Marx knows he would have hated the USSR
and China.
Then I'd like you to argue from the foundation of capitalism that capitalism
requires a government such as ours. Don't argue hostory. Anyone who knows
anything about Ayn Rand, knows she would have hated our government...
I don't argue such a thing at all. But I also don't equate America to
capitalism. It seems to me (perhaps I'm wrong) that the major
assumption in many messages on this list so far equate communism
to Stalinism.
Thats the difference, as I see it.
Oh, and I asked you first :)
Michael J. Graffam ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
"Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine."
Henry David Thoreau "Civil Disobedience"
Re: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: whyworry?)
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Tom Vogt wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any government needs appropriate leadership, that is an assumption, as yet unproven. I agree that it DOES sound good, but it is still an assumption. since the rest of your argument rests on it, you should give it a little more support. I would love to, however .. I know of no way to lend support to the idea that government in general needs good leadership -- history shows that particular governments (namely, those that mankind has managed erect) suffer from bad leadership. OTOH, I will admit that humanity is fairly new to the game.. widespread experiments in government outside of monarchy are a fairly new development (and still not COMPLETELY widespread, of course). Maybe some smart guy will manage to come up with an idea that could survive a bunch of crooks here and there. Truthfully.. I thought States used to have it: Give the citizens guns and a love of liberty. But, somehow along the way we got tricked out of both. :( Michael J. Graffam ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine." Henry David Thoreau "Civil Disobedience"
Re: Re: damn commie hypocrite leech! (was Re: Re: Re: whyworry?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not saying that life isn't hard. I'm not saying that life is ever
going to be easy -- but I'd like to make a society that cushions it as
much as we can. Thats why we get together and make societies in the first
place .. to make life easier for individuals; a burden shared together
is less of a burden.
Is it really though? A burden shared is now a burden on everyone at a much
lower intensity. If everyone at some point has a burdern, that intensity
heightens, and heightens, etc.
If I had no job, and no real decent job prospects; I'd probably be a
small time drug dealer. A little risky ('cause of the cops) but it turns
a good profit -- and then I could pay the bills.
Whatever. But you'd find something to do.
Like I said, give me the benefits or the money .. either is acceptable.
Agreed. But better yet, don't take my money and let me buy my own benefits.
--
Kaos Keraunos Kybernetos
+ ^ + Sunder "Only someone completely distrustful of /|\
\|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]all government would be opposed to what /\|/\
--*-- we are doing with surveillance cameras" \/|\/
/|\ You're on the air. -- NYC Police Commish H. Safir. \|/
+ v + Say 'Hi' to Echelon "Privacy is an 'antisocial act'" - The FedZ.
http://www.sunder.net ---
I love the smell of Malathion in the morning, it smells like brain cancer.
