Re: Anti-globalization

[Thomas Shaddack]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:

> Obvious solution.  Require all mandatory uglification of all
> foreign scenery -- for example video editing to insert some
> smokestacks.

Just pay them to decorate their unfairly lovely landscapes with
king-sized billboards.

*Poof!* Beauty gone, problem solved.

Re: Anti-globalization

[R. A. Hettinga]

At 5:59 PM -0800 12/12/03, James A. Donald wrote:
>Tim has been implying that I am a pinko, gold nut, and
>randroid, which sort of hints that Ayn Rand is too pink for
>him.

Apparently, he likes his meat burned -- and halfway up the flue...

;-)

Cheers,
RAH

-- 
-
R. A. Hettinga 
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation 
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

Re: Anti-globalization

[James A. Donald]

--
On 11 Dec 2003 at 21:00, Neil Johnson wrote:
> Even Ayn Rand weaves this into "Atlas Shrugged" where the 
> competitors of Reardon Steel get the government to try and 
> force him to give them his formula for his high-strength 
> steel because it's putting them out business and "unfair".

Ah yes, recall big steel corporations talking about 'fair
trade" in recent weeks.

Tim has been implying that I am a pinko, gold nut, and 
randroid, which sort of hints that Ayn Rand is too pink for 
him. 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 CjIBaSAKl0IJN9I3DeASo7aRlExuLcig+i8nQerX
 4lhf+RpXoGyN729O6EP9syh9Wm7PuVRCJQA/oCEnr

Re: Anti-globalization

[James A. Donald]

--
On 11 Dec 2003 at 23:39, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
> And now... tarrifs for filming movies in Canada.  Just heard
> that one on NPR today, and I nearly drove off the road.  The
> plan is to raise the cost of filming in Canada so that
> there's no longer an economic advantage. Made me want to
> puke.

You will notice that a lot of big hollywood movies have been
filmed in New Zealand, for example Lord of the Rings.   Reason
is, there is not lot of beautiful unspoilt scenery left near
Hollywood.

Obvious solution.  Require all mandatory uglification of all
foreign scenery -- for example video editing to insert some
smokestacks.

 

--digsig
 James A. Donald
 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
 oS6RUufi6iM2JkeHnX1nXK1wxsbAhlo4Md1bP7PR
 4uwZpe5XF48SCJyKwwT6Zbn14lRM00o01bbj5o2SI

Re: Anti-globalization

[Nostradumbass]

From: Neil Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> What I object to are corporations who utilize their power (money) to influence 
> governments to make laws that benefit them at the expense of others.
> 
> - The DMCA
> - Tariffs AND Free Trade Agreements
> - H1-B visas
> 
> Even Ayn Rand weaves this into "Atlas Shrugged" where the competitors of 
> Reardon Steel get the government to try and force him to give them his 
> formula for his high-strength steel because it's putting them out business 
> and "unfair".

"Corporations shall not be considered to be 'persons' protected by the Constitution of 
the United States or the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania within the 
Second Class Township of Porter, Clarion County, Pennsylvania."

Only a small handful of very large corporations abuse these rights to deceive people, 
hide crimes, or make politicians violate the will of their own voters. The millions of 
ethical corporations will thus be freed from the tyranny of the few while democratic 
government will be returned to its citizens.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1219-06.htm

Re: Anti-globalization

[Roy M. Silvernail]

On Thursday 11 December 2003 22:00, Neil Johnson wrote:
> What I object to are corporations who utilize their power (money) to
> influence governments to make laws that benefit them at the expense of
> others.
>
> - The DMCA
> - Tariffs AND Free Trade Agreements
> - H1-B visas

And now... tarrifs for filming movies in Canada.  Just heard that one on NPR 
today, and I nearly drove off the road.  The plan is to raise the cost of 
filming in Canada so that there's no longer an economic advantage. Made me 
want to puke.

> Even Ayn Rand weaves this into "Atlas Shrugged" where the competitors of
> Reardon Steel get the government to try and force him to give them his
> formula for his high-strength steel because it's putting them out business
> and "unfair".

I guess Canada is "Reardon Pictures".

Re: Anti-globalization

[Neil Johnson]

What I object to are corporations who utilize their power (money) to influence 
governments to make laws that benefit them at the expense of others.

- The DMCA
- Tariffs AND Free Trade Agreements
- H1-B visas

Even Ayn Rand weaves this into "Atlas Shrugged" where the competitors of 
Reardon Steel get the government to try and force him to give them his 
formula for his high-strength steel because it's putting them out business 
and "unfair".

Company's that do this are no better than Tim's "Welfare mutants" and probably 
worse because they have a much larger impact.

But I don't see him calling for their "vaporization". 

It would screw up his stock portfolio.

-- 
Neil Johnson
http://www.njohnsn.com
PGP key available on request.

Re: Anti-globalization

[Declan O'Reilly]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 02:18:37 +0200
Anatoly Vorobey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> That was a rhetorical question. In the "old Soviet oligarchy", you
> would get into real trouble for publicly speaking against it. In 
> "today's corporate oligarchy", this is obviously not true. Therefore
> the comparison is flawed, and it's not at all true that "just the names
> and titles are different".
> 
> --
> avva


Oops , my bad

Thanks Anatoly

Declan O'Reilly

Re: Anti-globalization

[Anatoly Vorobey]

On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 06:41:21PM -0500, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Tyler Durden wrote:
> 
> > However, I don't see the strong support for Soviet or Maoist-style state
> > control these days...these are vaguely romantic notions once in a while, but
> > they don't have any deep ideological support like they might have in the
> > 60s.
> 
> I don't know about that.  Today's corporate oligarchy behaves an awful lot
> like the old Soviet oligarchy.  Just the names and titles are different.

Do you expect to get in real trouble for publicly saying that?

--
avva

Re: Anti-globalization

[Miles Fidelman]

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Tyler Durden wrote:

> However, I don't see the strong support for Soviet or Maoist-style state
> control these days...these are vaguely romantic notions once in a while, but
> they don't have any deep ideological support like they might have in the
> 60s.

I don't know about that.  Today's corporate oligarchy behaves an awful lot
like the old Soviet oligarchy.  Just the names and titles are different.

Anti-globalization

[Tyler Durden]

The anti-globalization protests are a good example of something 
misunderstood by Libertarian old-farts. On some levels, these protests have 
a libertarian character...anti-globalization is not really about eliminating 
free trade per se, but eliminating "free trade", which is really just the 
selective and forceful application of free-trade ideas by the US and its 
cronies, in support of the "American Century" or, in other words, the "Iraq 
is better off now then under Saddam" approach to international relations.

The current political clime is slowly being pushed in the vague direction of 
lefitst statism-lite, but only because of a philosophical vaccum and because 
the US has successfully portrayed itself as the embodiment of free-market, 
Lassaiz Faire capitalism.

However, I don't see the strong support for Soviet or Maoist-style state 
control these days...these are vaguely romantic notions once in a while, but 
they don't have any deep ideological support like they might have in the 
60s.

-TD


From: Tim May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Decline of the Cypherpunks list...Part 19
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 11:07:06 -0800
On Dec 8, 2003, at 12:11 AM, Bill Stewart wrote:

At 07:55 PM 12/7/2003 -0800, Tim May wrote:
The Libertarian Party started at about this time, in 1972, and nearly all 
of the volunteers, spear carriers, etc. were in their 20s. This is very 
well known.

(And today most of the LP volunteers and spear carriers are in their 40s 
and 50s. A correlation here.)
Yes, and one of the LP's problems is that we've largely turned into old 
farts there also
Indeed.

I can imagine a bunch of possible reasons for this development. In no 
particular order:

* In the 1950s and 60s, the effects of Rand and Heinlein were pervasive. 
Many college kids in the 60s were reading "Atlas Shrugged." (I won't get 
into how badly it's written, except to say I devoured it in 2 days in 1968, 
when I was 16, and quoted from it to all who would listen in the next 
couple of years. But I haven't been able to read it _since_. I can't get 
past about page 10 before throwing it down. It's strong propaganda, but 
badly written.)

* The mood of the 50s and 60s was actually one of nearly boundless 
possibilities for the future, at least in America. Not because of 
socialists in Congress and JFK, but because of a booming economy, 
technology, and all the usual things of the time. The generation which 
entered the work economy in the 1960s through the early 1980s is the 
wealthiest generation in history...especially those who did so in Silicon 
Valley or similar areas.

(My implication being that things were different for the generation which 
came of age much later, with more of a sense of limited horizons, dead-end 
jobs at Starbucks making lattes for Yuppies, etc. Maybe if I were 25, 
working for $9 an hour at Starbucks, I'd shave my head and look like a 
refugee from the Apple "1984" commercial too.)

* A lot of these folks, the ones who came of age in the 60s and 70s, were 
enthusiastic libertarians. Some of them joined the Libertarian Party, most 
of them dislike government drug laws and redistribution of their income, 
and so on.

* A lot of the younger folks I see interviewed describe "income inequality" 
and "discrimination" and "globalization" as the serious problems the world 
and America face. They may favor drug legalization, as libertarians do, but 
they certainly aren't sympathetic to most laissez-faire, "survival of the 
fittest" libertarianism.

A couple of folks here have followed-up in this latest thread with claims 
that the old farts, especially me, quash discussion of new theories, new 
outlooks.

Hey, this is an anarchy. I have absolutely no power whatsoever to quash 
_anything_ related to this list!

When we were a young list, but when I was still an old fart by most 
standards (I was 40 in 1992), we didn't need any permission or approval to 
post what we wished. And some of the folks then were even older than me 
(Sandy Sandfort, Arthur Abraham, maybe Jude Milhon...).

And new subscribers and young people who join the list today are perfectly 
free to make good contributions. I recall few such newcomers, however. (One 
of them was Dave Molnar, now a grad student in CS/something at Berkeley, 
interested in many of the issues we are interested in. He was not 
"censored" by the old farts when he had something interesting to say.)

Bottom line is that this crap about how the old farts are suppressing the 
young guns is bullshit. If someone has something to say, they should say 
it. They may not get a positive response to calls for passing new laws to 
raise taxes "on the wealthy," or to break up Microsoft, or to tell people 
what kind of software they can write, but that's because the underlying