Re: For John Clark
On 03 Nov 2013, at 19:46, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: So you sees both Moscow AND Washington. No, anyone of the two see only one city. So what is the one and only one city that the 2 you see. W for tham in W. And M for the guy in M. The point is that both of them refute the W and M prediction, and confirms the P = 1/2 prediction. you are both of them, Yes, but both see only one city. Yes, and if both are you and both see a different city the obviously you see both cities. In the third person view of what you see. But after the duplication, you have only access to one view, and so W and M is refuted. But w or M is not refute, and is confirmed. Just look at all diaries. You persist in forgetting the distinction between the 3-1 view, And you persist if forgetting that unless Solipsism turns out to be true EVERYBODY has the 1 view so just mindlessly chanting the 1 view means nothing unless specified who's the 1 view Of the guy in Helsinki. A different diary?? Both the Washington Man and the Helsinki Man remember writing the exact same identical diary and the last line says I Quentin Anciaux in Helsinki am now walking into the duplication chamber, and now I see the operator starting to push the on butto. So it's true that you wrote the diary, but which one is you? Both. Yes. Bruno, you're a expert on logic so given the above tell me, how many cities did you see? And please don't start blabing about the 1-view unless it's clear who's 1-view. It is clear for the resulting person. The one in W knows that he is the one in W. Same for the guy in W. And the confirmation or refutation of the prediction is asked to all of them. We have agreed on this, We agreed on this when Bruno Marchal said you concerns the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki; but that didn't last long then you sees both cities and you insist you doesn't. Because, 1-you never see two cities. So now I don't know what in hell you means when Bruno Marchal uses that weasel pronoun. You always means all the examplars appearing in the experience. But to grasp the indeterminacy, you need to understand that the question is concerned with the future 1p experience, which the computationalist know will be unique. John, do you agree that if we promise you to give a cup of coffee in both W and M, you can predict in Helsinki that P(I ill drink coffee) = 1. ? Yes. But if we promise you to give a cup of coffee to W and a cup of tea to M, and it's predicted in Helsinki that the probability I will drink coffee is 1 then after it was all over there would be no way to determine if the prediction was correct or not with Bruno Marchal's inconsistent meanings of pronouns like I and you. If we keep the old very good and clear definition, you concerns the guy(s) who will remember having been in Helsinki then it would be easy to tell if the prediction was correct or not, but Bruno Marchal must backpedal away from that or all the other ideas will fall apart. What you call backpedaling is only that we take the first person into account, of all copies, because you are all of them in the 3p sense, but only one of them (each of them) after, in the first person pov. You seem to ignore that the first person events Who's first person events? And please, no pronouns. The one unique, first person view of all copies. seeing W and seeing M are incompatible. Explain why that is incompatible. because all the 1-you, after the duplication cannot see both city at once. They all see one city, and they could not have any certainty of which one. The guy in W can be very well perturbed, asking himself why am I the guy in W?. he will not find any reason, as any reason would be infirmed for the M guy, and we have admitted the two copies are the helsinki person, in the 3p description. Although I can't prove solipsism is wrong I believe lots of people see W and lots of people see M. And they see it from their first person view. You make my point. At no moment will one person ever say I see both city Yes. Explain why that is incompatible with you will see both cities. you will see both cities is correct in the 3p description of yourself, and incorrect for the 1p experience of each of them. unless they talk about the first person view in a third person description, I have no idea what that even means. It means looking at the experience from outside, where you see your body and behavior, and 1p views, reinstanciated in both city. That is different from what is written in all diaries, which contains the statement I see only one city, and I could not have predicted which one. You continue to avoid the fact that the question concerns your future and unique 1-view. You have
Re: For John Clark
On 03 Nov 2013, at 18:51, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 Nov 2013, at 09:17, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Nov 2013, at 20:11, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Oct 2013, at 19:30, Jason Resch wrote: Normally this is explained in Albert's book, which I think you have. Are you referring to Quantum Mechanics and Experience (1992)? I do not have this book but will add it to my list (if it is the same). It is that book indeed. very good, imo, even if quite unconvincing in his defense of Böhm, and his critics of Everett. Bruno, I have just finished reading this book. I thank you for recommending it as it helped me get some familiarity with the math and the notation. I found the first 120 or so pages quite infuriating, for he would seeming get so close to the idea of observers being in superpositions, (teasing and dangling the idea), while all the time dismissing it as nonsensical. Without any argument, I agree. It was not until page 123 he finally admits that it can indeed make sense, but almost immediately after page 123, and following a handwavy dismissal of Everett returns to irrationality, until page 130 when he introduces the many-minds theory. Strangely, he claims that he (Albert) and Barry Loewer introduced the theory, with no mention of Heinz-Dieter Zeh. While he defends many-minds well, and says how it recovers locality, he never explains how many-minds is any better (or different than) many-worlds. Also, I found it strange that he considered many-minds and Bohm on equal footing, where Bohm requires additional assumptions beyond the four quantum postulates, and also Bohm (lacing locality) is incompatible with special relativity. It introduces very well QM and the measurement problem, but he is still, like everybody, believing implicitly in some strong mind- body thesis, and get irrational, somehow, I agree, in his defense of Bohm. I would have also attributed the many-minds to Loewer. I know Zeh mainly for his indexical analysis of time, which I think is correct, and certainly close to both Many World and Many Mind. If you have some references on Zeh and Many Mind ... I found this paper by Zeh from 1970: On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory, 1970, Foundations of Physics, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp. 69–76 In particular, he describes the essential idea of many minds and macroscopic superposition on page 74: http://link.springer.com/static-content/lookinside/406/art%253A10.1007%252FBF00708656/005.png but he also references Everett, so it isn't entirely clear to me if he is introducing anything new. From what I remember, Zeh is, in that paper, much closer to Everett than to the Albert-Loewer many mind theory. Note that the many-mind theory is very specific, and assumes a unique universe. But didn't they assume reality of the superposition? If the superposition is real how can their only be one unique universe? They assume the reality of the superposition, but consider that it applies only to the subjectivity of the person, not to anything physical. Yes, it is a dualism, and a very bizarre one. t does not make much sense to me. Observers' mind get mutiplied with probabilities which have to be postulated again, so it lost completely the appeal we can have for Everett. It transform other people into zombies, also. Is this a necessary consequence of many-minds or only inAlbert and Loewer's formulation of it? may-mind always refers to Albert Loewer's theory. I don't know any other many-mind QM theory. It has nothing to do with the arithmetical many-dreams, where the computations are relatively entirely duplicated in extenso. Bruno Jason Albert-Loewer many-minds theory seems to me less sensical than Bohm or even Copenhagen. It unites all the defects of all QM- interpretations in one theory, imo, and this without mentioning that it needs non-comp. Bruno Jason They all miss, of course, the many dreams internal interpretation of ... elementary arithmetic. It will take time before people awaken from the Aristotelian naturalism. Most scientists are not even aware of its conjectural status. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you
Re: For John Clark
On 03 Nov 2013, at 22:43, meekerdb wrote: On 11/3/2013 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 02 Nov 2013, at 21:47, meekerdb wrote: On 11/2/2013 10:53 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: You have been duplicated so there are TWO FIRST PERSON POV and they both remember writing the diary, so which one is Bruno Marchal talking about? Anyone of the two So you sees both Moscow AND Washington. each will have a different diary A different diary?? Both the Washington Man and the Helsinki Man remember writing the exact same identical diary and the last line says I Quentin Anciaux in Helsinki am now walking into the duplication chamber, and now I see the operator starting to push the on butto. So it's true that you wrote the diary, but which one is you? As I see it, the question is whether the duplication experiment provides a good model of randomness. If we imagine doing the experiment four times, sending the subject(s) through repeatedly at the end there will be 16 diaries and they will contain the entries: , WMMM, MWMM, WWMM, MMWM, WMWM, MWWM, WWWM, MMMW, WMMW, MWMW, WWMW, MMWW, WMWW, MWWW, and so the participants might compare diaries and conclude that going to Moscow or Washington is a random event with probability 1/2 - or at least in limit of large numbers of repetitions. Actually, if they count themselves, one duplication is enough. Karl Popper already suggested this model of randomness in The Logic of Scientific Discovery and he probably wasn't the first. That would be astonishing for someone suggesting interactionist dualism (with Eccles), and missing Everett QM (cf his propensity theory). Can you give a quote or elaborate? It is the first time I hear this. It wasn't in the context quantum mechanics. Popper was proposing a theory of probability and he defined n-free to be a sequence in which the next value was independent of the previous n values (chapter 8, section 56). OK. That has nothing to do with the objective indeterminacy due to mechanist self-multiplication. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:36 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/3/2013 3:17 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 11:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/3/2013 10:49 AM, John Clark wrote: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is considered by many to be a intellectual, in fact the leading intellectual on the Supreme Court, Of course that many consists of bible thumping Tea Baggers, worshipers of Ayn Rand, and snake handlers who have general contempt for intellectuals. I don't understand how Ayn Rand find herself in such dubious company. She was a harsh critic of religion and she essentially praised science, philosophy and other intellectual pursuits as the source of all that is good in the world. Because she preached greed is good I think it was Gordon Gekko who preached that greed is good :) In fact, Gordon Gekko's speculative activities would be much harder to pull off without the leverage made possible by fiat money, which Rand opposed. and implied that if you were richer and more powerful than other people it was no reason to do anything to help them, you earned it (even if you inherited it). In Atlas Shrugged, an important story arc is the contrast between two inheritors: Dagny and James Taggart. Dagny is a hero and Taggart is a villan in the story. She never opposes helping anyone, she just opposes being forced to do so. Furthermore, her point is that competition in a free market actually helps everybody -- by providing better goods and services at lower prices -- while redistribution of money based on violence does not, and is in fact generally a con used by politicians to extract even more money from the population. The ineffectiveness of wealth redistribution through taxation is not such a crazy idea. Compare this graph: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7373 with this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite... And it would be immoral for the government to take any of your money to help those proles. Because this is ultimately enforced by violent means. If you oppose violence, again, not such a crazy idea that you would consider this immoral. This of course appeals to people with money and power who fund political astroturf movements that oppose anything that might upset their favored position in society. Ok, but it's not her fault if her ideas are distorted. She abhorred religion, as I said. She glorified the ultra-individualist. Did you read about her thoughts on William Hickman? ...the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. … Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should. She called him a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy, shimmering with immense, explicit egotism. Rand had only one regret: A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough. No, I don't even know who Hickman was. Wikipedia mentions a frontiersman, a stunt driver and a criminal. Who is she referring to an in what contest? She was so taken with idea of the Ubermensch and hatred of communism that she did not appreciate that man is a social being and progress depends on empathy and cooperation as much as genius. Again, I find this to be a distortion. She highly praises free cooperation and natural empathy. She opposes that these things should be enforced by violent means. Brent If I have seen farther than other men it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants. Yes, Rand thought the same. On a side note, Newton tried to make a fortune by speculating in stocks (and failed miserably). Ayn Rand never speculated in stocks, as far as I know. Telmo. --- Isaac Newton -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
Well reasoned opportunism taken literally still remains what it is. I don't reason against it and nature has good reason for these tendencies locally. My main problem is that I just can't picture myself around a bunch of Rand fans licking their fingers greed is good, keep deregulating all things financial, if my greed implies profit through poisoning the earth, good because stellar Profitsmuahahaha!!! Where's the fun in that, except maybe for Halloween or something? So this is mere aesthetic Muahahaha refutation, where I understand and am convinced the reasoning is sound on many levels, but I am disgusted by being pushed into situations in which I have to think and operate in that kind of way, reducing people to vectors greed related, thus determining my circles. So I do my best to avoid being Gollum ;-) PGC On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:36 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/3/2013 3:17 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 11:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/3/2013 10:49 AM, John Clark wrote: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is considered by many to be a intellectual, in fact the leading intellectual on the Supreme Court, Of course that many consists of bible thumping Tea Baggers, worshipers of Ayn Rand, and snake handlers who have general contempt for intellectuals. I don't understand how Ayn Rand find herself in such dubious company. She was a harsh critic of religion and she essentially praised science, philosophy and other intellectual pursuits as the source of all that is good in the world. Because she preached greed is good I think it was Gordon Gekko who preached that greed is good :) In fact, Gordon Gekko's speculative activities would be much harder to pull off without the leverage made possible by fiat money, which Rand opposed. and implied that if you were richer and more powerful than other people it was no reason to do anything to help them, you earned it (even if you inherited it). In Atlas Shrugged, an important story arc is the contrast between two inheritors: Dagny and James Taggart. Dagny is a hero and Taggart is a villan in the story. She never opposes helping anyone, she just opposes being forced to do so. Furthermore, her point is that competition in a free market actually helps everybody -- by providing better goods and services at lower prices -- while redistribution of money based on violence does not, and is in fact generally a con used by politicians to extract even more money from the population. The ineffectiveness of wealth redistribution through taxation is not such a crazy idea. Compare this graph: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7373 with this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite... And it would be immoral for the government to take any of your money to help those proles. Because this is ultimately enforced by violent means. If you oppose violence, again, not such a crazy idea that you would consider this immoral. This of course appeals to people with money and power who fund political astroturf movements that oppose anything that might upset their favored position in society. Ok, but it's not her fault if her ideas are distorted. She abhorred religion, as I said. She glorified the ultra-individualist. Did you read about her thoughts on William Hickman? ...the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. … Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should. She called him a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy, shimmering with immense, explicit egotism. Rand had only one regret: A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough. No, I don't even know who Hickman was. Wikipedia mentions a frontiersman, a stunt driver and a criminal. Who is she referring to an in what contest? She was so taken with idea of the Ubermensch and hatred of communism that she did not appreciate that man is a social being and progress depends on empathy and cooperation as much as genius. Again, I find this to be a distortion. She highly praises free cooperation and natural empathy. She opposes that these things should be enforced by violent means. Brent If I have seen farther than other men it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants. Yes, Rand thought the same. On a side note, Newton tried to make a fortune by speculating in stocks (and failed miserably). Ayn Rand never speculated in stocks, as far as I know. Telmo. --- Isaac Newton -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
Here is a discussion of how greed is in the process of destroying our fiat currency banking system: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-entire-fiat-money-system-is-bankrupt-demise-of-the-global-us-fiat-dollar-reserve-currency/5356491 On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Well reasoned opportunism taken literally still remains what it is. I don't reason against it and nature has good reason for these tendencies locally. My main problem is that I just can't picture myself around a bunch of Rand fans licking their fingers greed is good, keep deregulating all things financial, if my greed implies profit through poisoning the earth, good because stellar Profitsmuahahaha!!! Where's the fun in that, except maybe for Halloween or something? So this is mere aesthetic Muahahaha refutation, where I understand and am convinced the reasoning is sound on many levels, but I am disgusted by being pushed into situations in which I have to think and operate in that kind of way, reducing people to vectors greed related, thus determining my circles. So I do my best to avoid being Gollum ;-) PGC On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:36 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/3/2013 3:17 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 11:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/3/2013 10:49 AM, John Clark wrote: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is considered by many to be a intellectual, in fact the leading intellectual on the Supreme Court, Of course that many consists of bible thumping Tea Baggers, worshipers of Ayn Rand, and snake handlers who have general contempt for intellectuals. I don't understand how Ayn Rand find herself in such dubious company. She was a harsh critic of religion and she essentially praised science, philosophy and other intellectual pursuits as the source of all that is good in the world. Because she preached greed is good I think it was Gordon Gekko who preached that greed is good :) In fact, Gordon Gekko's speculative activities would be much harder to pull off without the leverage made possible by fiat money, which Rand opposed. and implied that if you were richer and more powerful than other people it was no reason to do anything to help them, you earned it (even if you inherited it). In Atlas Shrugged, an important story arc is the contrast between two inheritors: Dagny and James Taggart. Dagny is a hero and Taggart is a villan in the story. She never opposes helping anyone, she just opposes being forced to do so. Furthermore, her point is that competition in a free market actually helps everybody -- by providing better goods and services at lower prices -- while redistribution of money based on violence does not, and is in fact generally a con used by politicians to extract even more money from the population. The ineffectiveness of wealth redistribution through taxation is not such a crazy idea. Compare this graph: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7373 with this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite... And it would be immoral for the government to take any of your money to help those proles. Because this is ultimately enforced by violent means. If you oppose violence, again, not such a crazy idea that you would consider this immoral. This of course appeals to people with money and power who fund political astroturf movements that oppose anything that might upset their favored position in society. Ok, but it's not her fault if her ideas are distorted. She abhorred religion, as I said. She glorified the ultra-individualist. Did you read about her thoughts on William Hickman? ...the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. … Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should. She called him a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy, shimmering with immense, explicit egotism. Rand had only one regret: A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough. No, I don't even know who Hickman was. Wikipedia mentions a frontiersman, a stunt driver and a criminal. Who is she referring to an in what contest? She was so taken with idea of the Ubermensch and hatred of communism that she did not appreciate that man is a social being and progress depends on empathy and cooperation as much as genius. Again, I find this to be a distortion. She highly praises free cooperation and natural empathy. She opposes that these things should be enforced by violent means. Brent If I have seen farther than other men it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants. Yes, Rand thought
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Well reasoned opportunism taken literally still remains what it is. I don't reason against it and nature has good reason for these tendencies locally. Yes, but one has to be careful about global narratives. Our culture is filled with them the american dream, globalisation, left vs. right, patriotism, the spread of democracy, the west vs. the east, first world and third world, etc. These narratives were not necessarily created with out best interest in mind. My main problem is that I just can't picture myself around a bunch of Rand fans licking their fingers greed is good, keep deregulating all things financial, if my greed implies profit through poisoning the earth, good because stellar Profitsmuahahaha!!! Where's the fun in that, except maybe for Halloween or something? Ok, but these people are just plain criminals. Deregulation in Rand's speculations happens in a world where nobody controls the supply of money and nobody has the power to create new money out of thin air. Pushing for deregulation in a world were central banks still exist is just another attempt to steel money from everyone. Someone who is honest and believes in Rand's ideas would push to end the central banks and fiat money before demanding any other types of deregulation. In fact, some believe that this might be enough. What the Wall Street criminals want is the freedom to risk _our_ resources for _their_ profit. They pretty closely match the villains in Rand's world, with their preferential ties to the government and all. So this is mere aesthetic Muahahaha refutation, where I understand and am convinced the reasoning is sound on many levels, but I am disgusted by being pushed into situations in which I have to think and operate in that kind of way, reducing people to vectors greed related, thus determining my circles. So I do my best to avoid being Gollum ;-) PGC I understand this, but there's another way to look at it. If I am against violent cohertion by the state, this means that I want freedom for you. I want you to be able to practice your music and art as you see fit, charge and make a living from it and be free from fear that some storm troopers will show at you doorstep because you are smoking something to attain a state of consciousness that the state does not approve of, or refusing to give part of your money to the state. And let's be honest here, this money is going to be used to fund more violence, not help the poor. Violence in the form of real wars, total surveillance, drug wars and so on. This is the reality of the world we live in now, not some speculation. Rand's work is speculation, and it remains to be seen if a radically free society could work. Telmo. On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:36 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/3/2013 3:17 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 11:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/3/2013 10:49 AM, John Clark wrote: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is considered by many to be a intellectual, in fact the leading intellectual on the Supreme Court, Of course that many consists of bible thumping Tea Baggers, worshipers of Ayn Rand, and snake handlers who have general contempt for intellectuals. I don't understand how Ayn Rand find herself in such dubious company. She was a harsh critic of religion and she essentially praised science, philosophy and other intellectual pursuits as the source of all that is good in the world. Because she preached greed is good I think it was Gordon Gekko who preached that greed is good :) In fact, Gordon Gekko's speculative activities would be much harder to pull off without the leverage made possible by fiat money, which Rand opposed. and implied that if you were richer and more powerful than other people it was no reason to do anything to help them, you earned it (even if you inherited it). In Atlas Shrugged, an important story arc is the contrast between two inheritors: Dagny and James Taggart. Dagny is a hero and Taggart is a villan in the story. She never opposes helping anyone, she just opposes being forced to do so. Furthermore, her point is that competition in a free market actually helps everybody -- by providing better goods and services at lower prices -- while redistribution of money based on violence does not, and is in fact generally a con used by politicians to extract even more money from the population. The ineffectiveness of wealth redistribution through taxation is not such a crazy idea. Compare this graph: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7373 with this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite... And it would be immoral for the government to take any of your money to help those proles. Because this is
Ryle's category mistake and why spacetime, to a platonist, is contained in Mind
Ryle's category mistake and why spacetime, to a platonist, is contained in Mind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake This is a very subtle issue. The term category-mistake was introduced by Gilbert Ryle in his book The Concept of Mind (1949) to remove what he argued to be a confusion over the nature of mind born from Cartesian metaphysics. Ryle alleged that it was a mistake to treat the mind as an object made of an immaterial substance because predications of [actual] substance are not meaningful for a collection [or fiction] of dispositions and capacities. The first example is of a visitor to Oxford. The visitor, upon viewing the colleges and library, reportedly inquired 'but where is the University?' [4] The visitor's mistake is presuming that a University is part of the category units of physical infrastructure or some such thing, rather than the category institutions, say, which are far more abstract and complex conglomerations of buildings, people, procedures, and so on. Ryle, like the eliminative materialists, used this logical error to eliminate mind-- simply as being a fiction. But to a platonist, his argument can produce a completely different conclusion. To a platonist or a solipsist, Mind itself, in which objects exist, is not simply a fiction, it is all that there is (the One). To put it another way, Mind is a necessarily higher order of being in which the physical world exists. Then Mind is not a property of brain, it is a higher order (mental) category in which the physical brain exists. Brain is in spacetime, which itself is contained in Mind. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 3:18 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: Furthermore, her point is that competition in a free market actually helps everybody -- by providing better goods and services at lower prices -- while redistribution of money based on violence does not, and is in fact generally a con used by politicians to extract even more money from the population. The ineffectiveness of wealth redistribution through taxation is not such a crazy idea. Compare this graph: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=7373 with this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite... This graph isn't all that informative because it doesn't break down what the per capita government spending was actually on--if you look at the graph at the per capita federal spending at http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/yet-more-government-spending-levelsyou can see that it rose more consistently under George W. Bush than under Clinton or Obama, given Bush's policies it seems unlikely that most of that rise was primarily due to redistribution to help the poorer segment of the population. I wonder if military spending is included in this per capita graph. It also seems likely that increases in health care spending play a big part, you can see from the chart at http://www.usfederalbudget.us/federal_budget_detail_fy13bs12012n that it's a very large slice of the budget pie (note that this graph is for 2012, so obviously pre-Obamacare). And this has a lot to do with the fact that U.S. health care costs have been rising much faster than other Western democracies, whose more socialized programs are a lot more efficient at keeping costs down--just look at the graphs http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/26/21-graphs-that-show-americas-health-care-prices-are-ludicrous/, it's rather incredible how much more we pay for the same procedures in the U.S.! A major reason for this difference, as explained starting at 4:53 in the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M , is that with single-payer systems the government can offer huge contracts for medical devices (he uses the example of artificial hips), drugs, etc., and different companies try to aggressively underbid one another to get these giant contracts, whereas in the U.S. this doesn't happen and the prices the same companies charge for exactly the same devices/drugs tend to be much higher (except with medicare, which as he points out always gets the lowest prices). Anyway, the basic point here is that it would be much more informative to look not at the effects of overall per capita spending, but more specifically at the effects of more per capita spending on social programs like welfare, education, job training, etc. If we compare across countries, we do see that the more social-democratic countries of Western Europe, where social spending per capita is much higher, do in fact have lower levels of inequality, higher economic mobility, and better health and even life expectancy than in the US (and within Europe, countries that spend more like the Scandinavian countries do better than the UK, which since Thatcher has been somewhat closer to the US model). Look at the graphs towards the bottom of this article by historian Tony Judt: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/apr/29/ill-fares-the-land/ And you can also see in the graphs in this article that income inequality was dropping fairly consistently the U.S. during the postwar years of higher taxes, more economic regulation, and increasing social spending...then inequality began rising again around 1980 when Reagan took office and the idea of tax-cuts, deregulation, and cutting social programs became more popular: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/09/04/opinion/04reich-graphic.html?ref=sunday http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/sunday/jobs-will-follow-a-strengthening-of-the-middle-class.html?pagewanted=all Jesse -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
What do you do if your Obamacare is too expensive ?
What do you do if your Obamacare is too expensive ? No matter what your age, most people will find Obamacare way too expensive. But there's no penalty for a pre-existing illness. So most people are going to dodge the bullet, take the penalty, and just wait until they get sick. That changes the statistics a great deal, as most people, not just young healthy people as hoped, will similarly dodge the bullet. But presumably all of those penalties will not support Obamacare by a long shot. So I don't see how Obamacare can possibly work. This is not rocket science. What kind of morons designed it ? Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: For John Clark
On Nov 4, 2013, at 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 Nov 2013, at 18:51, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 Nov 2013, at 09:17, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Nov 2013, at 20:11, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Oct 2013, at 19:30, Jason Resch wrote: Normally this is explained in Albert's book, which I think you have. Are you referring to Quantum Mechanics and Experience (1992)? I do not have this book but will add it to my list (if it is the same). It is that book indeed. very good, imo, even if quite unconvincing in his defense of Böhm, and his critics of Everett. Bruno, I have just finished reading this book. I thank you for recommending it as it helped me get some familiarity with the math and the notation. I found the first 120 or so pages quite infuriating, for he would seeming get so close to the idea of observers being in superpositions, (teasing and dangling the idea), while all the time dismissing it as nonsensical. Without any argument, I agree. It was not until page 123 he finally admits that it can indeed make sense, but almost immediately after page 123, and following a handwavy dismissal of Everett returns to irrationality, until page 130 when he introduces the many-minds theory. Strangely, he claims that he (Albert) and Barry Loewer introduced the theory, with no mention of Heinz-Dieter Zeh. While he defends many-minds well, and says how it recovers locality, he never explains how many-minds is any better (or different than) many-worlds. Also, I found it strange that he considered many-minds and Bohm on equal footing, where Bohm requires additional assumptions beyond the four quantum postulates, and also Bohm (lacing locality) is incompatible with special relativity. It introduces very well QM and the measurement problem, but he is still, like everybody, believing implicitly in some strong mind- body thesis, and get irrational, somehow, I agree, in his defense of Bohm. I would have also attributed the many-minds to Loewer. I know Zeh mainly for his indexical analysis of time, which I think is correct, and certainly close to both Many World and Many Mind. If you have some references on Zeh and Many Mind ... I found this paper by Zeh from 1970: On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory, 1970, Foundations of Physics, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp. 69–76 In particular, he describes the essential idea of many minds and macroscopic superposition on page 74: http://link.springer.com/static-content/lookinside/406/art%253A10.1007%252FBF00708656/005.png but he also references Everett, so it isn't entirely clear to me if he is introducing anything new. From what I remember, Zeh is, in that paper, much closer to Everett than to the Albert-Loewer many mind theory. Note that the many-mind theory is very specific, and assumes a unique universe. But didn't they assume reality of the superposition? If the superposition is real how can their only be one unique universe? They assume the reality of the superposition, but consider that it applies only to the subjectivity of the person, not to anything physical. Yes, it is a dualism, and a very bizarre one. t does not make much sense to me. I see. That makes very little sense. What do they suppose happens when an observer acts on their measurement in one of two ways? Observers' mind get mutiplied with probabilities which have to be postulated again, so it lost completely the appeal we can have for Everett. It transform other people into zombies, also. Is this a necessary consequence of many-minds or only inAlbert and Loewer's formulation of it? may-mind always refers to Albert Loewer's theory. I don't know any other many-mind QM theory. It has nothing to do with the arithmetical many-dreams, where the computations are relatively entirely duplicated in extenso. Oh. I had always thought of many minds as like a many worlds where instead of splits there are supposed to be infinite minds which differentiate upon measurement; this is how other sites seen to describe it. I see from your description it is quite unlike the many dreams imof arithmetic. Jason Bruno Jason Albert-Loewer many-minds theory seems to me less sensical than Bohm or even Copenhagen. It unites all the defects of all QM- interpretations in one theory, imo, and this without mentioning that it needs non-comp. Bruno Jason They all miss, of course, the many dreams internal interpretation of ... elementary arithmetic. It will take time before people awaken from the Aristotelian naturalism. Most scientists are not even aware of its conjectural status. Bruno
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Well reasoned opportunism taken literally still remains what it is. I don't reason against it and nature has good reason for these tendencies locally. Yes, but one has to be careful about global narratives. Our culture is filled with them the american dream, globalisation, left vs. right, patriotism, the spread of democracy, the west vs. the east, first world and third world, etc. These narratives were not necessarily created with out best interest in mind. My main problem is that I just can't picture myself around a bunch of Rand fans licking their fingers greed is good, keep deregulating all things financial, if my greed implies profit through poisoning the earth, good because stellar Profitsmuahahaha!!! Where's the fun in that, except maybe for Halloween or something? Ok, but these people are just plain criminals. Deregulation in Rand's speculations happens in a world where nobody controls the supply of money and nobody has the power to create new money out of thin air. Pushing for deregulation in a world were central banks still exist is just another attempt to steel money from everyone. Someone who is honest and believes in Rand's ideas would push to end the central banks and fiat money before demanding any other types of deregulation. In fact, some believe that this might be enough. What the Wall Street criminals want is the freedom to risk _our_ resources for _their_ profit. They pretty closely match the villains in Rand's world, with their preferential ties to the government and all. So this is mere aesthetic Muahahaha refutation, where I understand and am convinced the reasoning is sound on many levels, but I am disgusted by being pushed into situations in which I have to think and operate in that kind of way, reducing people to vectors greed related, thus determining my circles. So I do my best to avoid being Gollum ;-) PGC I understand this, but there's another way to look at it. If I am against violent cohertion by the state, this means that I want freedom for you. I want you to be able to practice your music and art as you see fit, charge and make a living from it and be free from fear that some storm troopers will show at you doorstep because you are smoking something to attain a state of consciousness that the state does not approve of, or refusing to give part of your money to the state. And let's be honest here, this money is going to be used to fund more violence, not help the poor. Violence in the form of real wars, total surveillance, drug wars and so on. This is the reality of the world we live in now, not some speculation. Rand's work is speculation, and it remains to be seen if a radically free society could work. Telmo. I haven't read enough because it always tasted like Muahahaha. But I am curious: what is higher up the list in this thinking: honesty or greed? Why not: Honestly, I am greedy. So my ends justify my means and so I can lie, harm others etc.? PGC On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:36 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/3/2013 3:17 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 11:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/3/2013 10:49 AM, John Clark wrote: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is considered by many to be a intellectual, in fact the leading intellectual on the Supreme Court, Of course that many consists of bible thumping Tea Baggers, worshipers of Ayn Rand, and snake handlers who have general contempt for intellectuals. I don't understand how Ayn Rand find herself in such dubious company. She was a harsh critic of religion and she essentially praised science, philosophy and other intellectual pursuits as the source of all that is good in the world. Because she preached greed is good I think it was Gordon Gekko who preached that greed is good :) In fact, Gordon Gekko's speculative activities would be much harder to pull off without the leverage made possible by fiat money, which Rand opposed. and implied that if you were richer and more powerful than other people it was no reason to do anything to help them, you earned it (even if you inherited it). In Atlas Shrugged, an important story arc is the contrast between two inheritors: Dagny and James Taggart. Dagny is a hero and Taggart is a villan in the story. She never opposes helping anyone, she just opposes being forced to do so. Furthermore, her point is that competition in a free market actually helps everybody -- by providing better goods and services at lower prices -- while redistribution of money based on violence does not, and is in fact generally a
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 Chris de Morsella cdemorse...@yahoo.com wrote: LOL -- totally -- who exactly is this undefined many that considers Scalia to be an intellectual? According to Wikipedia Scalia has been described as the intellectual anchor of the Court's conservative wing, and it makes sense in a way, conservatives don't want change and Scalia (the man who put George Bush in the white House) and his views would be at home in the 12'th century. He seems genuinely puzzled as to why the devil doesn't make his existence obvious as he did in Biblical times! He also says that people smarter than you or me have believed in this drivel, and that's true, but Scalia doesn't believe it because of his towering intellect, he believes it because when he was still pooping in his pants his mommy and daddy told him that a invisible man in the sky who loves him very much will torture him for a infinite number of years if he places one toe out of line. And being a conservative who doesn't like change his view hasn't changed from that day to this. I like Bill Maher's comment on the Scalia interview: They usually see Michele Bachmann as a total loon, but Scalia as a serious intellectual. When actually, they're the exact same idiot. It would be one thing if Mr. Scalia sold pizza for a living, but this is a man we go to to interpret our laws. It's like smelling a gas leak and calling an exorcist. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What do you do if your Obamacare is too expensive ?
What will happen is that the focus of the right wing extremists in the US on sabotaging the health care law, will lead to a Hillary being elected in 2016, a Democratic controlled House of Representatives and a fillibuster proof Democratic majority in the Senate. And that with a strong left wing liberal faction in the Democratic party. Then if Obamacare does not work well by that time, it will be replaced by a truly socialst Hillarycare. The options for the former Tea Party extremists will be limited. They could perhaps emigrate to Somalia to enjoy the freedom of not having to be insured for health care costs. Saibal Citeren Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net: What do you do if your Obamacare is too expensive ? No matter what your age, most people will find Obamacare way too expensive. But there's no penalty for a pre-existing illness. So most people are going to dodge the bullet, take the penalty, and just wait until they get sick. That changes the statistics a great deal, as most people, not just young healthy people as hoped, will similarly dodge the bullet. But presumably all of those penalties will not support Obamacare by a long shot. So I don't see how Obamacare can possibly work. This is not rocket science. What kind of morons designed it ? Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: For John Clark
On 04 Nov 2013, at 15:57, Jason Resch wrote: On Nov 4, 2013, at 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 Nov 2013, at 18:51, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 Nov 2013, at 09:17, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Nov 2013, at 20:11, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Oct 2013, at 19:30, Jason Resch wrote: Normally this is explained in Albert's book, which I think you have. Are you referring to Quantum Mechanics and Experience (1992)? I do not have this book but will add it to my list (if it is the same). It is that book indeed. very good, imo, even if quite unconvincing in his defense of Böhm, and his critics of Everett. Bruno, I have just finished reading this book. I thank you for recommending it as it helped me get some familiarity with the math and the notation. I found the first 120 or so pages quite infuriating, for he would seeming get so close to the idea of observers being in superpositions, (teasing and dangling the idea), while all the time dismissing it as nonsensical. Without any argument, I agree. It was not until page 123 he finally admits that it can indeed make sense, but almost immediately after page 123, and following a handwavy dismissal of Everett returns to irrationality, until page 130 when he introduces the many-minds theory. Strangely, he claims that he (Albert) and Barry Loewer introduced the theory, with no mention of Heinz-Dieter Zeh. While he defends many-minds well, and says how it recovers locality, he never explains how many-minds is any better (or different than) many-worlds. Also, I found it strange that he considered many-minds and Bohm on equal footing, where Bohm requires additional assumptions beyond the four quantum postulates, and also Bohm (lacing locality) is incompatible with special relativity. It introduces very well QM and the measurement problem, but he is still, like everybody, believing implicitly in some strong mind- body thesis, and get irrational, somehow, I agree, in his defense of Bohm. I would have also attributed the many-minds to Loewer. I know Zeh mainly for his indexical analysis of time, which I think is correct, and certainly close to both Many World and Many Mind. If you have some references on Zeh and Many Mind ... I found this paper by Zeh from 1970: On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory, 1970, Foundations of Physics, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp. 69–76 In particular, he describes the essential idea of many minds and macroscopic superposition on page 74: http://link.springer.com/static-content/lookinside/406/art%253A10.1007%252FBF00708656/005.png but he also references Everett, so it isn't entirely clear to me if he is introducing anything new. From what I remember, Zeh is, in that paper, much closer to Everett than to the Albert-Loewer many mind theory. Note that the many-mind theory is very specific, and assumes a unique universe. But didn't they assume reality of the superposition? If the superposition is real how can their only be one unique universe? They assume the reality of the superposition, but consider that it applies only to the subjectivity of the person, not to anything physical. Yes, it is a dualism, and a very bizarre one. t does not make much sense to me. I see. That makes very little sense. What do they suppose happens when an observer acts on their measurement in one of two ways? The observer will live an experience among many, with a probability given by QM. The other minds still exist, and with comp, should be conscious, but seem to lost any body to act on. Also, if you and someone else measure independent spin repetitively, your fellow becomes a zombie, his bodies still give a part of the universal wave needed for the interference terms, but the probability rule, as used here, guaranties that minds of the others are no more correlated with your mind. So, with comp, the QM Many Minds of Albert and Loewer entails both the seemingly existence of souls lacking bodies and of bodies lacking soul (zombie). I remember vaguely that they are more or less aware of the difficulties. Observers' mind get mutiplied with probabilities which have to be postulated again, so it lost completely the appeal we can have for Everett. It transform other people into zombies, also. Is this a necessary consequence of many-minds or only inAlbert and Loewer's formulation of it? may-mind always refers to Albert Loewer's theory. I don't know any other many-mind QM theory. It has nothing to do with the arithmetical many-dreams, where the computations are relatively entirely duplicated in extenso. Oh. I had always thought of many minds
Re: What do you do if your Obamacare is too expensive ?
The Heritage Foundation On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: *What do you do if your Obamacare is too expensive ? * No matter what your age, most people will find Obamacare way too expensive. But there's no penalty for a pre-existing illness. So most people are going to dodge the bullet, take the penalty, and just wait until they get sick. That changes the statistics a great deal, as most people, not just young healthy people as hoped, will similarly dodge the bullet. But presumably all of those penalties will not support Obamacare by a long shot. So I don't see how Obamacare can possibly work. This is not rocket science. What kind of morons designed it ? Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
On 04 Nov 2013, at 16:20, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Well reasoned opportunism taken literally still remains what it is. I don't reason against it and nature has good reason for these tendencies locally. Yes, but one has to be careful about global narratives. Our culture is filled with them the american dream, globalisation, left vs. right, patriotism, the spread of democracy, the west vs. the east, first world and third world, etc. These narratives were not necessarily created with out best interest in mind. My main problem is that I just can't picture myself around a bunch of Rand fans licking their fingers greed is good, keep deregulating all things financial, if my greed implies profit through poisoning the earth, good because stellar Profitsmuahahaha!!! Where's the fun in that, except maybe for Halloween or something? Ok, but these people are just plain criminals. Deregulation in Rand's speculations happens in a world where nobody controls the supply of money and nobody has the power to create new money out of thin air. Pushing for deregulation in a world were central banks still exist is just another attempt to steel money from everyone. Someone who is honest and believes in Rand's ideas would push to end the central banks and fiat money before demanding any other types of deregulation. In fact, some believe that this might be enough. What the Wall Street criminals want is the freedom to risk _our_ resources for _their_ profit. They pretty closely match the villains in Rand's world, with their preferential ties to the government and all. So this is mere aesthetic Muahahaha refutation, where I understand and am convinced the reasoning is sound on many levels, but I am disgusted by being pushed into situations in which I have to think and operate in that kind of way, reducing people to vectors greed related, thus determining my circles. So I do my best to avoid being Gollum ;-) PGC I understand this, but there's another way to look at it. If I am against violent cohertion by the state, this means that I want freedom for you. I want you to be able to practice your music and art as you see fit, charge and make a living from it and be free from fear that some storm troopers will show at you doorstep because you are smoking something to attain a state of consciousness that the state does not approve of, or refusing to give part of your money to the state. And let's be honest here, this money is going to be used to fund more violence, not help the poor. Violence in the form of real wars, total surveillance, drug wars and so on. This is the reality of the world we live in now, not some speculation. Rand's work is speculation, and it remains to be seen if a radically free society could work. Telmo. I haven't read enough because it always tasted like Muahahaha. But I am curious: what is higher up the list in this thinking: honesty or greed? Why not: Honestly, I am greedy. So my ends justify my means and so I can lie, harm others etc.? PGC Hmm... This is more I am greedy and stupid, so my little local private ends justify my lie, harming others, etc. But if I am greedy and a bit less stupid, my ends can include my children's ends and other long term prospects, and, still because I am greedy, I might play the win-win game by not lying, not harming others, etc. Greed, nor money is a problem. Dishonesty is a problem. And dishonest government lying on something is a big problem. From the little egocentric ego to the unnameable transcendental self, selfishness can go from a social plea to a free collective divine harmony. Bruno On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:36 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/3/2013 3:17 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 11:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/3/2013 10:49 AM, John Clark wrote: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is considered by many to be a intellectual, in fact the leading intellectual on the Supreme Court, Of course that many consists of bible thumping Tea Baggers, worshipers of Ayn Rand, and snake handlers who have general contempt for intellectuals. I don't understand how Ayn Rand find herself in such dubious company. She was a harsh critic of religion and she essentially praised science, philosophy and other intellectual pursuits as the source of all that is good in the world. Because she preached greed is good I think it was Gordon Gekko who preached that greed is good :) In fact, Gordon Gekko's speculative activities would be much harder to pull off without the leverage made possible by fiat money, which Rand
Re: For John Clark
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Nov 2013, at 15:57, Jason Resch wrote: On Nov 4, 2013, at 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 Nov 2013, at 18:51, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 2:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 03 Nov 2013, at 09:17, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 1:27 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 02 Nov 2013, at 20:11, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 19 Oct 2013, at 19:30, Jason Resch wrote: Normally this is explained in Albert's book, which I think you have. Are you referring to Quantum Mechanics and Experience (1992)? I do not have this book but will add it to my list (if it is the same). It is that book indeed. very good, imo, even if quite unconvincing in his defense of Böhm, and his critics of Everett. Bruno, I have just finished reading this book. I thank you for recommending it as it helped me get some familiarity with the math and the notation. I found the first 120 or so pages quite infuriating, for he would seeming get so close to the idea of observers being in superpositions, (teasing and dangling the idea), while all the time dismissing it as nonsensical. Without any argument, I agree. It was not until page 123 he finally admits that it can indeed make sense, but almost immediately after page 123, and following a handwavy dismissal of Everett returns to irrationality, until page 130 when he introduces the many-minds theory. Strangely, he claims that he (Albert) and Barry Loewer introduced the theory, with no mention of Heinz-Dieter Zeh. While he defends many-minds well, and says how it recovers locality, he never explains how many-minds is any better (or different than) many-worlds. Also, I found it strange that he considered many-minds and Bohm on equal footing, where Bohm requires additional assumptions beyond the four quantum postulates, and also Bohm (lacing locality) is incompatible with special relativity. It introduces very well QM and the measurement problem, but he is still, like everybody, believing implicitly in some strong mind-body thesis, and get irrational, somehow, I agree, in his defense of Bohm. I would have also attributed the many-minds to Loewer. I know Zeh mainly for his indexical analysis of time, which I think is correct, and certainly close to both Many World and Many Mind. If you have some references on Zeh and Many Mind ... I found this paper by Zeh from 1970: On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory, 1970, Foundations of Physics, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp. 69–76 In particular, he describes the essential idea of many minds and macroscopic superposition on page 74: http://link.springer.com/static-content/lookinside/406/art%253A10.1007%252FBF00708656/005.png http://link.springer.com/static-content/lookinside/406/art%253A10.1007%252FBF00708656/005.pngbut he also references Everett, so it isn't entirely clear to me if he is introducing anything new. From what I remember, Zeh is, in that paper, much closer to Everett than to the Albert-Loewer many mind theory. Note that the many-mind theory is very specific, and assumes a unique universe. But didn't they assume reality of the superposition? If the superposition is real how can their only be one unique universe? They assume the reality of the superposition, but consider that it applies only to the subjectivity of the person, not to anything physical. Yes, it is a dualism, and a very bizarre one. t does not make much sense to me. I see. That makes very little sense. What do they suppose happens when an observer acts on their measurement in one of two ways? The observer will live an experience among many, with a probability given by QM. The other minds still exist, and with comp, should be conscious, but seem to lost any body to act on. Also, if you and someone else measure independent spin repetitively, your fellow becomes a zombie, his bodies still give a part of the universal wave needed for the interference terms, but the probability rule, as used here, guaranties that minds of the others are no more correlated with your mind. So, with comp, the QM Many Minds of Albert and Loewer entails both the seemingly existence of souls lacking bodies and of bodies lacking soul (zombie). I remember vaguely that they are more or less aware of the difficulties. Observers' mind get mutiplied with probabilities which have to be postulated again, so it lost completely the appeal we can have for Everett. It transform other people into zombies, also. Is this a necessary consequence of many-minds or only inAlbert and Loewer's formulation of it? may-mind always refers to Albert Loewer's theory. I don't know any other many-mind QM
Re: For John Clark
On 04 Nov 2013, at 18:53, Jason Resch wrote: It looks like Zeh had more to say in 1999, this theory seems much closer to many dreams: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-minds_interpretation #Continuous_infinity_of_minds and http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9908084 Continuous infinity of minds [edit] In Everett's conception the mind of an observer is split by the measuring process as a consequence of the decoherence induced by measurement. In many-minds each physical observer has a postulated associated continuous infinity of minds. The decoherence of the measuring event (observation) causes the infinity of minds associated with each observer to become categorized into distinct yet infinite subsets, each subset associated with each distinct outcome of the observation. No minds are split, in the many-minds view, because it is assumed that they are all already always distinct. The choice between multiplication and differentiation remains free in the many-worlds too. The idea of many-minds was suggested early on by Zeh in 1995. He argues that in a decohering no-collapse universe one can avoid the necessity of distinct macrorealms (parallel worlds in MWIterminology) by introducing a new psycho-physical parallelism, in which individual minds supervene on each non-interfering component in the physical state. Zeh indeed suggests that, given decoherence, this is the most natural interpretation of quantum mechanics. I agree with Zeh. I have interpreted the Everett relative states in that way. The problem is that the notion of world is very fuzzy in the physical literature (and *very large* in the analytical philosophy). The main difference between the many-minds and many-worlds interpretations then lies in the definition of the preferred quantity. The many-minds interpretation suggests that to solve the measurement problem, there is no need to secure a definite macrorealm: the only thing that's required is appearance of such. OK. With comp, we don't have much choice in that matter. A bit more precisely: the idea is that the preferred quantity is whatever physical quantity, defined on brains (or brains and parts of their environments), has definite-valued states (eigenstates) that underpin such appearances, i.e. underpin the states of belief in, or sensory experience of, the familiar macroscopic realm. It sounds like under Zeh's many-minds, the difference between it and Everett is a world would be any/all the systems that are psychologically indistinguishable from each other, from the view of some mind. For some first person plural, which is assured in Everett+Gleason (but ad hoc in Albert-Loewer), and I can't say for Zeh, except that it looks like Everett, but without taking he idea of definite physical world too much seriously. Zeh has an interesting indexical view of time, and his many-minds seems close to the indexical view of physicalness we have with computationalism. So Zeh many minds, like Everett many-worlds, and unlike Bohm or Albert-Loewer, might be the measure one part of the arithmetical many dream matrix or UD*. That makes sense. OK. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 04 Nov 2013, at 16:20, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Well reasoned opportunism taken literally still remains what it is. I don't reason against it and nature has good reason for these tendencies locally. Yes, but one has to be careful about global narratives. Our culture is filled with them the american dream, globalisation, left vs. right, patriotism, the spread of democracy, the west vs. the east, first world and third world, etc. These narratives were not necessarily created with out best interest in mind. My main problem is that I just can't picture myself around a bunch of Rand fans licking their fingers greed is good, keep deregulating all things financial, if my greed implies profit through poisoning the earth, good because stellar Profitsmuahahaha!!! Where's the fun in that, except maybe for Halloween or something? Ok, but these people are just plain criminals. Deregulation in Rand's speculations happens in a world where nobody controls the supply of money and nobody has the power to create new money out of thin air. Pushing for deregulation in a world were central banks still exist is just another attempt to steel money from everyone. Someone who is honest and believes in Rand's ideas would push to end the central banks and fiat money before demanding any other types of deregulation. In fact, some believe that this might be enough. What the Wall Street criminals want is the freedom to risk _our_ resources for _their_ profit. They pretty closely match the villains in Rand's world, with their preferential ties to the government and all. So this is mere aesthetic Muahahaha refutation, where I understand and am convinced the reasoning is sound on many levels, but I am disgusted by being pushed into situations in which I have to think and operate in that kind of way, reducing people to vectors greed related, thus determining my circles. So I do my best to avoid being Gollum ;-) PGC I understand this, but there's another way to look at it. If I am against violent cohertion by the state, this means that I want freedom for you. I want you to be able to practice your music and art as you see fit, charge and make a living from it and be free from fear that some storm troopers will show at you doorstep because you are smoking something to attain a state of consciousness that the state does not approve of, or refusing to give part of your money to the state. And let's be honest here, this money is going to be used to fund more violence, not help the poor. Violence in the form of real wars, total surveillance, drug wars and so on. This is the reality of the world we live in now, not some speculation. Rand's work is speculation, and it remains to be seen if a radically free society could work. Telmo. I haven't read enough because it always tasted like Muahahaha. But I am curious: what is higher up the list in this thinking: honesty or greed? Why not: Honestly, I am greedy. So my ends justify my means and so I can lie, harm others etc.? PGC Hmm... This is more I am greedy and stupid, so my little local private ends justify my lie, harming others, etc. Yes, sure. I was just wondering how this problem is treated from Rand's perspective without doing the homework of actually having to read it... I was hoping Telmo could save me the read... or admonish me to read it ;-) m But if I am greedy and a bit less stupid, my ends can include my children's ends and other long term prospects, and, still because I am greedy, I might play the win-win game by not lying, not harming others, etc. Greed, nor money is a problem. Dishonesty is a problem. And dishonest government lying on something is a big problem. From the little egocentric ego to the unnameable transcendental self, selfishness can go from a social plea to a free collective divine harmony. Bruno On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:36 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/3/2013 3:17 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 11:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/3/2013 10:49 AM, John Clark wrote: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is considered by many to be a intellectual, in fact the leading intellectual on the Supreme Court, Of course that many consists of bible thumping Tea Baggers, worshipers of Ayn Rand, and snake handlers who have general contempt for intellectuals. I don't understand how Ayn Rand find herself in such dubious company. She was a harsh critic of religion and she essentially praised science, philosophy and other
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
On 11/4/2013 4:10 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Well reasoned opportunism taken literally still remains what it is. I don't reason against it and nature has good reason for these tendencies locally. Yes, but one has to be careful about global narratives. Our culture is filled with them the american dream, globalisation, left vs. right, patriotism, the spread of democracy, the west vs. the east, first world and third world, etc. These narratives were not necessarily created with out best interest in mind. My main problem is that I just can't picture myself around a bunch of Rand fans licking their fingers greed is good, keep deregulating all things financial, if my greed implies profit through poisoning the earth, good because stellar Profitsmuahahaha!!! Where's the fun in that, except maybe for Halloween or something? Ok, but these people are just plain criminals. Deregulation in Rand's speculations happens in a world where nobody controls the supply of money and nobody has the power to create new money out of thin air. Pushing for deregulation in a world were central banks still exist is just another attempt to steel money from everyone. Before central banks there were independent banks that issued script and stole money from their depositors. Someone who is honest and believes in Rand's ideas would push to end the central banks and fiat money before demanding any other types of deregulation. In fact, some believe that this might be enough. What the Wall Street criminals want is the freedom to risk _our_ resources for _their_ profit. They pretty closely match the villains in Rand's world, with their preferential ties to the government and all. So this is mere aesthetic Muahahaha refutation, where I understand and am convinced the reasoning is sound on many levels, but I am disgusted by being pushed into situations in which I have to think and operate in that kind of way, reducing people to vectors greed related, thus determining my circles. So I do my best to avoid being Gollum ;-) PGC I understand this, but there's another way to look at it. If I am against violent cohertion by the state, this means that I want freedom for you. I want you to be able to practice your music and art as you see fit, charge and make a living from it and be free from fear that some storm troopers will show at you doorstep because you are smoking something to attain a state of consciousness that the state does not approve of, or refusing to give part of your money to the state. And let's be honest here, this money is going to be used to fund more violence, not help the poor. Violence in the form of real wars, total surveillance, drug wars and so on. This is the reality of the world we live in now, not some speculation. Rand's work is speculation, and it remains to be seen if a radically free society could work. Is Rand fine with the rich buying up land and water rights and intellectual property and then getting richer by renting and selling them, while everyone is taxed to arm police who will protect those property rights? Is it not violence if it's mere intimidation? I know she thinks she is because of her personal experience under communism - but she never seems to think beyond asserting her opinion. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What do you do if your Obamacare is too expensive ?
Surely someone has to drag the US (no doubt whingeing about how awful it is that the rich should provide the poor with even a rudimentary level of health care) into 1948 eventually? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What do you do if your Obamacare is too expensive ?
On 11/4/2013 1:06 PM, LizR wrote: Surely someone has to drag the US (no doubt whingeing about how awful it is that the rich should provide the poor with even a rudimentary level of health care) into 1948 eventually? 1948? Hell, Bismarck brought universal healthcare to Germany in 1890. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What do you do if your Obamacare is too expensive ?
Fair enough! I only knew about the UK for sure. It's ridiculous to consider a country that doesn't provide some basic level of healthcare and other safety nets to every citizen as part of the First World. On 5 November 2013 10:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/4/2013 1:06 PM, LizR wrote: Surely someone has to drag the US (no doubt whingeing about how awful it is that the rich should provide the poor with even a rudimentary level of health care) into 1948 eventually? 1948? Hell, Bismarck brought universal healthcare to Germany in 1890. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Well reasoned opportunism taken literally still remains what it is. I don't reason against it and nature has good reason for these tendencies locally. Yes, but one has to be careful about global narratives. Our culture is filled with them the american dream, globalisation, left vs. right, patriotism, the spread of democracy, the west vs. the east, first world and third world, etc. These narratives were not necessarily created with out best interest in mind. My main problem is that I just can't picture myself around a bunch of Rand fans licking their fingers greed is good, keep deregulating all things financial, if my greed implies profit through poisoning the earth, good because stellar Profitsmuahahaha!!! Where's the fun in that, except maybe for Halloween or something? Ok, but these people are just plain criminals. Deregulation in Rand's speculations happens in a world where nobody controls the supply of money and nobody has the power to create new money out of thin air. Pushing for deregulation in a world were central banks still exist is just another attempt to steel money from everyone. Someone who is honest and believes in Rand's ideas would push to end the central banks and fiat money before demanding any other types of deregulation. In fact, some believe that this might be enough. What the Wall Street criminals want is the freedom to risk _our_ resources for _their_ profit. They pretty closely match the villains in Rand's world, with their preferential ties to the government and all. So this is mere aesthetic Muahahaha refutation, where I understand and am convinced the reasoning is sound on many levels, but I am disgusted by being pushed into situations in which I have to think and operate in that kind of way, reducing people to vectors greed related, thus determining my circles. So I do my best to avoid being Gollum ;-) PGC I understand this, but there's another way to look at it. If I am against violent cohertion by the state, this means that I want freedom for you. I want you to be able to practice your music and art as you see fit, charge and make a living from it and be free from fear that some storm troopers will show at you doorstep because you are smoking something to attain a state of consciousness that the state does not approve of, or refusing to give part of your money to the state. And let's be honest here, this money is going to be used to fund more violence, not help the poor. Violence in the form of real wars, total surveillance, drug wars and so on. This is the reality of the world we live in now, not some speculation. Rand's work is speculation, and it remains to be seen if a radically free society could work. Telmo. Hey man, I'm replying in private as I did with Brent to avoid continuing the off-topic discussion on the mailing list. I haven't read enough because it always tasted like Muahahaha. But I am curious: what is higher up the list in this thinking: honesty or greed? The typical story arc of Randian hero is that of sacrifice, avoiding the path of easy profit as to not compromise one's values. Several main characters in Atlas Shrugged destroy their personal fortunes to preserve their integrities and to chase an ideal. Gordon Gekko looks like a Randian villain, for example one of the many greedy fellows who Francisco D'Anconia convinces to speculate in stocks in an effort to sabotage the political elite. The bad guys are the ones who hang around in parties living off speculation and providing no value in return to society. The heroes are all trying to advance humanity in some way, and they will not compromise this for easy profit. This is also the case of the main character of Fountainhead, who ends up working as a miner instead of compromising his visions of modern architecture that can provide high-quality cheap housing for the masses (clearly inspired by the Bauhaus movement). Why not: Honestly, I am greedy. So my ends justify my means and so I can lie, harm others etc.? PGC I agree with what Bruno said. Also, because she was highly idealistic: if you lie and harm others you are creating a shitty life for yourself, when instead you could be pursuing some inspiring vision and trying to realise your human potential. Ayn Rand is childish and simplistic, I'm not going to argue that. I do feel that most of the people who talk about her (both in favour and against) never actually read what she wrote. I think that the progressive-inclined currently have a knee-jerk reaction against her based on a wrong perception of what she stood for. They might still find a lot to disagree, but they might be surprised that they share the same end
Re: What do you do if your Obamacare is too expensive ?
In the US they waited too long and they now have a very inefficient system, they pay twice as much per capita compared to most other Western countries for healthcare. But then that also means that you now have this huge health care industry in the US comprising of insurance companies, private hospitals etc. They are not going to cooporate with reforming the system, so you have very powerful commercial interests against reforming the system. Saibal Citeren LizR lizj...@gmail.com: Fair enough! I only knew about the UK for sure. It's ridiculous to consider a country that doesn't provide some basic level of healthcare and other safety nets to every citizen as part of the First World. On 5 November 2013 10:17, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/4/2013 1:06 PM, LizR wrote: Surely someone has to drag the US (no doubt whingeing about how awful it is that the rich should provide the poor with even a rudimentary level of health care) into 1948 eventually? 1948? Hell, Bismarck brought universal healthcare to Germany in 1890. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What do you do if your Obamacare is too expensive ?
Yes. This is also true of various other problems with US society (some of them not just in the US). On 5 November 2013 11:22, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote: In the US they waited too long and they now have a very inefficient system, they pay twice as much per capita compared to most other Western countries for healthcare. But then that also means that you now have this huge health care industry in the US comprising of insurance companies, private hospitals etc. They are not going to cooporate with reforming the system, so you have very powerful commercial interests against reforming the system. Saibal -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
As Telmo indicated , Rand, railed against unlimited state power, which is what Marxism and Fascism are all about. Her individualism, stuff is central to her philosophy, but breaks down to the argument that being forced to donate is no donation at all, but extortion from unlimited state power. Mieses and Hayek observed this in action, and it was the conclusion that one reason the German public kept silent during the Holocaust, was they were bought off by social services access. This was the conclusion of a German citizen of Turkish origin, an academic. I might be able to look up this academic, if needed? Secondly, has anyone here when referring to US healthcare (Yeah I know that is a separate thread) knows what Medicaid and Medicare are? Thirdly, does anyone know that Scalia took, fellow, justice, Elena Kagan, deer hunting a few months ago? Scalia may believe in a devil, but he does make nice nice with his political opposite, and gay cohort on the US Supreme Court. Sounds like a regular storm trooper to me! Strumabteilung, as the Germans called it. Lastly, has anyone ever met a real, live, Tea Partier, or Tea Bagger, how ever you wish to term it? One of the demons that haunt this planet is the wrong belief, that Marxism, and Statism get a lot of people killed, often on purpose. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Nov 4, 2013 3:03 pm Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World On 11/4/2013 4:10 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Well reasoned opportunism taken literally still remains what it is. I don't reason against it and nature has good reason for these tendencies locally. Yes, but one has to be careful about global narratives. Our culture is filled with them the american dream, globalisation, left vs. right, patriotism, the spread of democracy, the west vs. the east, first world and third world, etc. These narratives were not necessarily created with out best interest in mind. My main problem is that I just can't picture myself around a bunch of Rand fans licking their fingers greed is good, keep deregulating all things financial, if my greed implies profit through poisoning the earth, good because stellar Profitsmuahahaha!!! Where's the fun in that, except maybe for Halloween or something? Ok, but these people are just plain criminals. Deregulation in Rand's speculations happens in a world where nobody controls the supply of money and nobody has the power to create new money out of thin air. Pushing for deregulation in a world were central banks still exist is just another attempt to steel money from everyone. Before central banks there were independent banks that issued script and stole money from their depositors. Someone who is honest and believes in Rand's ideas would push to end the central banks and fiat money before demanding any other types of deregulation. In fact, some believe that this might be enough. What the Wall Street criminals want is the freedom to risk _our_ resources for _their_ profit. They pretty closely match the villains in Rand's world, with their preferential ties to the government and all. So this is mere aesthetic Muahahaha refutation, where I understand and am convinced the reasoning is sound on many levels, but I am disgusted by being pushed into situations in which I have to think and operate in that kind of way, reducing people to vectors greed related, thus determining my circles. So I do my best to avoid being Gollum ;-) PGC I understand this, but there's another way to look at it. If I am against violent cohertion by the state, this means that I want freedom for you. I want you to be able to practice your music and art as you see fit, charge and make a living from it and be free from fear that some storm troopers will show at you doorstep because you are smoking something to attain a state of consciousness that the state does not approve of, or refusing to give part of your money to the state. And let's be honest here, this money is going to be used to fund more violence, not help the poor. Violence in the form of real wars, total surveillance, drug wars and so on. This is the reality of the world we live in now, not some speculation. Rand's work is speculation, and it remains to be seen if a radically free society could work. Is Rand fine with the rich buying up land and water rights and intellectual property and then getting richer by renting and selling them, while everyone is taxed to arm police who will protect those property rights? Is it not violence if it's mere intimidation? I know she thinks she is because of her personal experience under communism - but she never seems to think beyond asserting her opinion. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
I'm not sure I can parse your last sentence. To start with you seem to indicate that Marxism (the economic theory / desire for rule by the proletariat) - interestingly in lumped with Fascism (rule by a powerful state) - might get people killed. But in the last sentence you say this is a wrong belief. Could you explain please? I also don't understand... Is this Scalia person supposed to be good because he takes someone deer hunting? What's that all about? The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible? By the way where would you put a country being run by powerful corporations on the Marxist / Fascist axis? On 5 November 2013 13:31, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: As Telmo indicated , Rand, railed against unlimited state power, which is what Marxism and Fascism are all about. Her individualism, stuff is central to her philosophy, but breaks down to the argument that being forced to donate is no donation at all, but extortion from unlimited state power. Mieses and Hayek observed this in action, and it was the conclusion that one reason the German public kept silent during the Holocaust, was they were bought off by social services access. This was the conclusion of a German citizen of Turkish origin, an academic. I might be able to look up this academic, if needed? Secondly, has anyone here when referring to US healthcare (Yeah I know that is a separate thread) knows what Medicaid and Medicare are? Thirdly, does anyone know that Scalia took, fellow, justice, Elena Kagan, deer hunting a few months ago? Scalia may believe in a devil, but he does make nice nice with his political opposite, and gay cohort on the US Supreme Court. Sounds like a regular storm trooper to me! Strumabteilung, as the Germans called it. Lastly, has anyone ever met a real, live, Tea Partier, or Tea Bagger, how ever you wish to term it? One of the demons that haunt this planet is the wrong belief, that Marxism, and Statism get a lot of people killed, often on purpose. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
On 11/4/2013 4:31 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: As Telmo indicated , Rand, railed against unlimited state power, which is what Marxism and Fascism are all about. Her individualism, stuff is central to her philosophy, but breaks down to the argument that being forced to donate is no donation at all, but extortion from unlimited state power. Mieses and Hayek observed this in action, and it was the conclusion that one reason the German public kept silent during the Holocaust, was they were bought off by social services access. This was the conclusion of a German citizen of Turkish origin, an academic. I might be able to look up this academic, if needed? Hayek would be reviled by the Tea Baggers and libertarians as a socialist: But there are two kinds of security: the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all and the security of a given standard of life, of the relative position which one person or group enjoys compared with others. There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision. --- Frederick Hayek, The Road to Serfdom Secondly, has anyone here when referring to US healthcare (Yeah I know that is a separate thread) knows what Medicaid and Medicare are? Thirdly, does anyone know that Scalia took, fellow, justice, Elena Kagan, deer hunting a few months ago? Scalia may believe in a devil, but he does make nice nice with his political opposite, and gay cohort on the US Supreme Court. Sounds like a regular storm trooper to me! Strumabteilung, as the Germans called it. Lastly, has anyone ever met a real, live, Tea Partier, or Tea Bagger, how ever you wish to term it? No, but I know several libertarians, with one of whom I've publicly debated global warming. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
On 11/4/2013 4:44 PM, LizR wrote: I'm not sure I can parse your last sentence. To start with you seem to indicate that Marxism (the economic theory / desire for rule by the proletariat) - interestingly in lumped with Fascism (rule by a powerful state) - might get people killed. But in the last sentence you say this is a wrong belief. Could you explain please? I also don't understand... Is this Scalia person supposed to be good because he takes someone deer hunting? What's that all about? The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible? By the way where would you put a country being run by powerful corporations on the Marxist / Fascist axis? Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power. --- Benito Mussolini. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
Ah, good point. I have even seen The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui. I should have remembered. So basically America (and various other Western democracies) currently have fascist governments - the twist being that this time around, hardly anyone realises the fact! On 5 November 2013 14:10, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/4/2013 4:44 PM, LizR wrote: I'm not sure I can parse your last sentence. To start with you seem to indicate that Marxism (the economic theory / desire for rule by the proletariat) - interestingly in lumped with Fascism (rule by a powerful state) - might get people killed. But in the last sentence you say this is a wrong belief. Could you explain please? I also don't understand... Is this Scalia person supposed to be good because he takes someone deer hunting? What's that all about? The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible? By the way where would you put a country being run by powerful corporations on the Marxist / Fascist axis? Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power. --- Benito Mussolini. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
On 11/4/2013 5:22 PM, LizR wrote: Ah, good point. I have even seen The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui. I should have remembered. So basically America (and various other Western democracies) currently have fascist governments - the twist being that this time around, hardly anyone realises the fact! Not really. Basic to fascism was the idea that a nation was a super-organism and corporations, individuals, leaders, and the military were a bound together (fasci), each filling their function in the super-organism, to achieve national glory (mostly by conquering inferior and backward nations and bringing them fascism). The U.S. pays lip service to individualism and turned corporations into indivduals. Brent Fascism is capitalism plus murder. --- Upton Sinclair, Presidential Agent II (1944), -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
So just corporatism, then? Although there is a lot of superorganism worship and desire for national glory in the US, and a strong desire to conquer inferior and backward nations - often by commercial rather than military means. Plus paying lip service to individualism doesn't seem to contradict your description of fascism. I guess this is just a matter of degree, perhaps. After all, one wouldn't wish to appear too outwardly fascist after the bad rap fascism has had in the 20th century. On 5 November 2013 14:46, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/4/2013 5:22 PM, LizR wrote: Ah, good point. I have even seen The Resistible Rise of Arturo Ui. I should have remembered. So basically America (and various other Western democracies) currently have fascist governments - the twist being that this time around, hardly anyone realises the fact! Not really. Basic to fascism was the idea that a nation was a super-organism and corporations, individuals, leaders, and the military were a bound together (fasci), each filling their function in the super-organism, to achieve national glory (mostly by conquering inferior and backward nations and bringing them fascism). The U.S. pays lip service to individualism and turned corporations into indivduals. Brent Fascism is capitalism plus murder. --- Upton Sinclair, Presidential Agent II (1944), -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: What do you do if your Obamacare is too expensive ?
As far as I - as a newspaper-reading stiff - know - it was Mitt Romney, not exactly as it was implemented - asked for by the dying late Sen. Ed. Kennedy at his last visit to Congress. Obama only kept the basic (capitalist?) format to let insurers and other investors (and lawyers) reap profit on this (allegedly?) ONE PAYER system riding on tax money. On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: *What do you do if your Obamacare is too expensive ? * No matter what your age, most people will find Obamacare way too expensive. But there's no penalty for a pre-existing illness. So most people are going to dodge the bullet, take the penalty, and just wait until they get sick. That changes the statistics a great deal, as most people, not just young healthy people as hoped, will similarly dodge the bullet. But presumably all of those penalties will not support Obamacare by a long shot. So I don't see how Obamacare can possibly work. This is not rocket science. What kind of morons designed it ? Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
I would put marxism and fascism close together and not polar opposites. Because Marxists claim that they are for the proles does not really mean that they are. It just means that they try to BS people with this claim. In fact, there are no, non mixed economies anymore, in the us, china, and russia. Its all a two classsystem of rule by party leaders, and their pet billionaires. Cronyism. Marxism killed 40 million people in China, during the great leap forwards. It was never deliberate, but doing practices that ruined crop growth, by following party eddicts. -Original Message- From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Nov 4, 2013 7:44 pm Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World I'm not sure I can parse your last sentence. To start with you seem to indicate that Marxism (the economic theory / desire for rule by the proletariat) - interestingly in lumped with Fascism (rule by a powerful state) - might get people killed. But in the last sentence you say this is a wrong belief. Could you explain please? I also don't understand... Is this Scalia person supposed to be good because he takes someone deer hunting? What's that all about? The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible? By the way where would you put a country being run by powerful corporations on the Marxist / Fascist axis? On 5 November 2013 13:31, lt;spudboy...@aol.comgt; wrote: As Telmo indicated , Rand, railed against unlimited state power, which is what Marxism and Fascism are all about. Her individualism, stuff is central to her philosophy, but breaks down to the argument that being forced to donate is no donation at all, but extortion from unlimited state power. Mieses and Hayek observed this in action, and it was the conclusion that one reason the German public kept silent during the Holocaust, was they were bought off by social services access. This was the conclusion of a German citizen of Turkish origin, an academic. I might be able to look up this academic, if needed? Secondly, has anyone here when referring to US healthcare (Yeah I know that is a separate thread) knows what Medicaid and Medicare are? Thirdly, does anyone know that Scalia took, fellow, justice, Elena Kagan, deer hunting a few months ago? Scalia may believe in a devil, but he does make nice nice with his political opposite, and gay cohort on the US Supreme Court. Sounds like a regular storm trooper to me! Strumabteilung, as the Germans called it. Lastly, has anyone ever met a real, live, Tea Partier, or Tea Bagger, how ever you wish to term it? One of the demons that haunt this planet is the wrong belief, that Marxism, and Statism get a lot of people killed, often on purpose. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
Briefly, tea baggers want a more limited govt cost wise. Roll things back to the 2005,2007 annual budget. We also want the Constition upheld. Hayek is well liked by the Tea baggers, road to sefdom was passed around. -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Nov 4, 2013 8:07 pm Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World On 11/4/2013 4:31 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: As Telmo indicated , Rand, railed against unlimited state power, which is what Marxism and Fascism are all about. Her individualism, stuff is central to her philosophy, but breaks down to the argument that being forced to donate is no donation at all, but extortion from unlimited state power. Mieses and Hayek observed this in action, and it was the conclusion that one reason the German public kept silent during the Holocaust, was they were bought off by social services access. This was the conclusion of a German citizen of Turkish origin, an academic. I might be able to look up this academic, if needed? Hayek would be reviled by the Tea Baggers and libertarians as a socialist: But there are two kinds of security: the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all and the security of a given standard of life, of the relative position which one person or group enjoys compared with others. There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision. --- Frederick Hayek, The Road to Serfdom Secondly, has anyone here when referring to US healthcare (Yeah I know that is a separate thread) knows what Medicaid and Medicare are? Thirdly, does anyone know that Scalia took, fellow, justice, Elena Kagan, deer hunting a few months ago? Scalia may believe in a devil, but he does make nice nice with his political opposite, and gay cohort on the US Supreme Court. Sounds like a regular storm trooper to me! Strumabteilung, as the Germans called it. Lastly, has anyone ever met a real, live, Tea Partier, or Tea Bagger, how ever you wish to term it? No, but I know several libertarians, with one of whom I've publicly debated global warming. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
On 11/4/2013 8:15 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: Briefly, tea baggers want a more limited govt cost wise. Why? What do you want to cut? the military? (not according the signs I see at rallies) Welfare to the unfortunate? Support for education? Social security? Medicare? In other words you want to limit govt cost to the rich that would redistribute some of that wealth to others. Of course all TPers will be for Obamacare since OMB has predicted it will reduce healthcare costs. Roll things back to the 2005,2007 annual budget. Is that including the 400B$ a year off-budget supplementary appropriations for war in Iraq? We also want the Constition upheld. Like what? Abortion rights? Privacy? Gay marriage? All the TP leaders on TV want to let states take away individual rights - if they can't pass a law to take them away at the federal level. Hayek is well liked by the Tea baggers, road to sefdom was passed around. Not to the head of Republican Libertarian Caucus in CA, who told me Hayek's not a real libertarian when I quoted the below to him. Brent -Original Message- From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Mon, Nov 4, 2013 8:07 pm Subject: Re: Our Demon-Haunted World On 11/4/2013 4:31 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: As Telmo indicated , Rand, railed against unlimited state power, which is what Marxism and Fascism are all about. Her individualism, stuff is central to her philosophy, but breaks down to the argument that being forced to donate is no donation at all, but extortion from unlimited state power. Mieses and Hayek observed this in action, and it was the conclusion that one reason the German public kept silent during the Holocaust, was they were bought off by social services access. This was the conclusion of a German citizen of Turkish origin, an academic. I might be able to look up this academic, if needed? Hayek would be reviled by the Tea Baggers and libertarians as a socialist: But there are two kinds of security: the certainty of a givenminimum of sustenance for all and the security of a given standardof life, of the relative position which one person or group enjoyscompared with others. There is no reason why, in a society which hasreached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind ofsecurity should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing,sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the stateshould not help to organize a comprehensive system of socialinsurance in providing for those common hazards of life againstwhich few can make adequate provision. --- Frederick Hayek, The Road to Serfdom Secondly, has anyone here when referring to US healthcare (Yeah I know that is a separate thread) knows what Medicaid and Medicare are? Thirdly, does anyone know that Scalia took, fellow, justice, Elena Kagan, deer hunting a few months ago? Scalia may believe in a devil, but he does make nice nice with his political opposite, and gay cohort on the US Supreme Court. Sounds like a regular storm trooper to me! Strumabteilung, as the Germans called it. Lastly, has anyone ever met a real, live, Tea Partier, or Tea Bagger, how ever you wish to term it? No, but I know several libertarians, with one of whom I've publicly debated global warming. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Our Demon-Haunted World
On 5 November 2013 17:11, spudboy...@aol.com wrote: I would put marxism and fascism close together and not polar opposites. Because Marxists claim that they are for the proles does not really mean that they are. It just means that they try to BS people with this claim. In fact, there are no, non mixed economies anymore, in the us, china, and russia. Its all a two classsystem of rule by party leaders, and their pet billionaires. Cronyism. Marxism killed 40 million people in China, during the great leap forwards. It was never deliberate, but doing practices that ruined crop growth, by following party eddicts. You're conflating the works of Karl Marx with people who paid lip service to them. Do you uncritically believe that (say) America has a free market economy because they say so? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
