Re: Re: Re: Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg  

I would trust what 1,000,000  people in a free market pick
over what one socialist political chosen bureaucrat would pick.

That's not just finding honesty in numbers, it's local vs
remote desires and knowledge. Local wins every time.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/17/2012  
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him  
so that everything could function." 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Craig Weinberg  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-16, 09:58:45 
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain. 




On Sunday, September 16, 2012 7:48:16 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 
Hi Craig Weinberg

Yes, such chicanery goes on, because men are no angels.  
But it has to be even worse is a socialist economy,  
where market forces (which tend to keep men more honest)  


Market forces do whatever the owners of the markets want them to do. Honesty 
has nothing to do with it.  Socialism (as we have seen to the extent that it 
exists in Scandinavia) can be quite nice, and as we see from many places all 
over the world, there doesn't seem to be any particular correlation with the 
type of economy that a country has with how much of a hellhole it is. 

To me, capitalism is the essence of dishonesty. It is about selling something 
to others for more than you paid for it, which tends to involve keeping what 
you paid a secret from your customers. That doesn't mean it's not the best 
system, but I don't see why we should pretend that there is something good 
about it. Being a living thing depends on being able to exploit, kill and eat 
other living things. Capitalism is an extension of that. So is socialism. 

Craig 

  

are replaced by the biased wills of bureaucrats and politicians.  

I'd choose the market economy myself.  
 


Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net  
9/16/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."  
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-15, 20:32:34  
Subject: Re: Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain.  


It's doubtful that there has ever been such a pristine market. The basic 
exchange between free agents is in all real cases weighted by those interests 
which control and manipulate the market. Look at how Microsoft created their 
monopoly. It made crappy imitations of all of their potential competitors 
software and gave it away for free to drive them out of business - which they 
did. They knew that as long as their deal with IBM to distribute Windows with 
PCs, all they had to do was starve everyone else out.  

Look at how CEOs sit on the each others board of directors and vote each other 
gigantic salary increases despite poor performance and blatant conflicts of 
interest.  

At best, price always equals cost plus rent plus tax plus interest, so even if 
there were free agents who somehow had fair access to the market, their profit 
is still influenced by banks, government, and property owners. As soon as a new 
market is born however, all real opportunity to compete shakes out rapidly as 
business relations are consolidated and become entrenched. Innovators tend to 
be ripped off, bought, or shut out of the market.  

The assumption of a free market is no less of a fantasy than the assumption of 
a communist utopia. They are two sides of the same coin.  

Craig  


On Saturday, September 15, 2012 9:37:04 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:  
Hi Alberto G. Corona

At the heart of a market economy (which has existed since the cave man),  
there is a fundamental freedom, you can buy or sell if the price is right,  
where price = value = what you are willing to pay or sell for. So the market  
is basically psychological and free and  is as old as man.  


Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net  
9/15/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."  
- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-15, 07:37:44  
Subject: Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain.  


Hi Roger,  
But neither Darwin nor Spencer discovered darwinism. a selection  
between alternatives is at the heart of every creative process (that  
creates order). It is a form of creative destruction. The market and  
the war are examples of such process. But it is also running now in  
this discussion. It is in our mind, that select and discard ideas  
depending on their consequences. It is in the political organization  
of the society etc.  

One of the first things that a darwinian process develops is a way to  
protect the created order from its own destructive nature. Capitalism  
in a democracy with the rule of law is a very sophisticated  
organization that run abo

Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain.

[Bruno Marchal]

On 16 Sep 2012, at 13:47, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Craig Weinberg

Yes, such chicanery goes on, because men are no angels.
But it has to be even worse is a socialist economy,
where market forces (which tend to keep men more honest)
are replaced by the biased wills of bureaucrats and politicians.

I'd choose the market economy myself.


Marked economy + democracy is the best, as long as money is not based  
on lies.


Politicians should perhaps never been funded by money from lobbies and  
corporatism, but only from controlled public fund, based on taxes on  
everybody.


Power separations should be refined, there are quite porous those  
days. It is more dangerous than a leaking nuclear building.


Bruno

PS Just heard that Israel legalizes medical marijuana. That is a good  
news. I hope the South American countries will quickly follow that step.







Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/16/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-15, 20:32:34
Subject: Re: Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain.


It's doubtful that there has ever been such a pristine market. The  
basic exchange between free agents is in all real cases weighted by  
those interests which control and manipulate the market. Look at how  
Microsoft created their monopoly. It made crappy imitations of all  
of their potential competitors software and gave it away for free to  
drive them out of business - which they did. They knew that as long  
as their deal with IBM to distribute Windows with PCs, all they had  
to do was starve everyone else out.


Look at how CEOs sit on the each others board of directors and vote  
each other gigantic salary increases despite poor performance and  
blatant conflicts of interest.


At best, price always equals cost plus rent plus tax plus interest,  
so even if there were free agents who somehow had fair access to the  
market, their profit is still influenced by banks, government, and  
property owners. As soon as a new market is born however, all real  
opportunity to compete shakes out rapidly as business relations are  
consolidated and become entrenched. Innovators tend to be ripped  
off, bought, or shut out of the market.


The assumption of a free market is no less of a fantasy than the  
assumption of a communist utopia. They are two sides of the same coin.


Craig


On Saturday, September 15, 2012 9:37:04 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Alberto G. Corona

At the heart of a market economy (which has existed since the cave  
man),
there is a fundamental freedom, you can buy or sell if the price is  
right,
where price = value = what you are willing to pay or sell for. So  
the market

is basically psychological and free and  is as old as man.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/15/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-15, 07:37:44
Subject: Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain.


Hi Roger,
But neither Darwin nor Spencer discovered darwinism. a selection
between alternatives is at the heart of every creative process (that
creates order). It is a form of creative destruction. The market and
the war are examples of such process. But it is also running now in
this discussion. It is in our mind, that select and discard ideas
depending on their consequences. It is in the political organization
of the society etc.

One of the first things that a darwinian process develops is a way to
protect the created order from its own destructive nature. Capitalism
in a democracy with the rule of law is a very sophisticated
organization that run above a human nature that is deeply social. And
this human nature is naturally selected. Probably the highest
satisfaction that a man may have, abobe money, is to be helpful to
others.

Probably the natural human instincts of compassion would be enough
without the inefficient artificial state-run welfare systems. A simple
traditional religious commandments would suffice to remember our
personal responsibilities with the others and would make these corrupt
structures innecessary. This has been that way until few centuries
ago. It would be more that enough in a society with so much resources
like this. The problem in the actual situation is that the narrow
selfishness that is being promoted in the "modern society" is not only
dysfunctional at the social level, because it also makes necessary
the externalization of the compassion away from the individual,
because it is incompatible with the narrow selfish concept of freedom
as absence of obligations. Not only that, because it is also
dysfunctional at the individual level, because we as humans need to
help others . We

Re: Re: Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Sunday, September 16, 2012 7:48:16 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>
> Hi Craig Weinberg   
>
> Yes, such chicanery goes on, because men are no angels. 
> But it has to be even worse is a socialist economy, 
> where market forces (which tend to keep men more honest) 
>

Market forces do whatever the owners of the markets want them to do. 
Honesty has nothing to do with it.  Socialism (as we have seen to the 
extent that it exists in Scandinavia) can be quite nice, and as we see from 
many places all over the world, there doesn't seem to be any particular 
correlation with the type of economy that a country has with how much of a 
hellhole it is.

To me, capitalism is the essence of dishonesty. It is about selling 
something to others for more than you paid for it, which tends to involve 
keeping what you paid a secret from your customers. That doesn't mean it's 
not the best system, but I don't see why we should pretend that there is 
something good about it. Being a living thing depends on being able to 
exploit, kill and eat other living things. Capitalism is an extension of 
that. So is socialism.

Craig

 

> are replaced by the biased wills of bureaucrats and politicians. 
>
> I'd choose the market economy myself. 
> 
>
>
> Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net  
> 9/16/2012   
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him   
> so that everything could function." 
> - Receiving the following content -   
> From: Craig Weinberg   
> Receiver: everything-list   
> Time: 2012-09-15, 20:32:34 
> Subject: Re: Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain. 
>
>
> It's doubtful that there has ever been such a pristine market. The basic 
> exchange between free agents is in all real cases weighted by those 
> interests which control and manipulate the market. Look at how Microsoft 
> created their monopoly. It made crappy imitations of all of their potential 
> competitors software and gave it away for free to drive them out of 
> business - which they did. They knew that as long as their deal with IBM to 
> distribute Windows with PCs, all they had to do was starve everyone else 
> out. 
>
> Look at how CEOs sit on the each others board of directors and vote each 
> other gigantic salary increases despite poor performance and blatant 
> conflicts of interest. 
>
> At best, price always equals cost plus rent plus tax plus interest, so 
> even if there were free agents who somehow had fair access to the market, 
> their profit is still influenced by banks, government, and property owners. 
> As soon as a new market is born however, all real opportunity to compete 
> shakes out rapidly as business relations are consolidated and become 
> entrenched. Innovators tend to be ripped off, bought, or shut out of the 
> market. 
>
> The assumption of a free market is no less of a fantasy than the 
> assumption of a communist utopia. They are two sides of the same coin. 
>
> Craig 
>
>
> On Saturday, September 15, 2012 9:37:04 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 
> Hi Alberto G. Corona   
>
> At the heart of a market economy (which has existed since the cave man), 
> there is a fundamental freedom, you can buy or sell if the price is right, 
> where price = value = what you are willing to pay or sell for. So the 
> market 
> is basically psychological and free and  is as old as man. 
>
>
> Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net  
> 9/15/2012   
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him   
> so that everything could function." 
> - Receiving the following content -   
> From: Alberto G. Corona   
> Receiver: everything-list   
> Time: 2012-09-15, 07:37:44 
> Subject: Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain. 
>
>
> Hi Roger, 
> But neither Darwin nor Spencer discovered darwinism. a selection 
> between alternatives is at the heart of every creative process (that 
> creates order). It is a form of creative destruction. The market and 
> the war are examples of such process. But it is also running now in 
> this discussion. It is in our mind, that select and discard ideas 
> depending on their consequences. It is in the political organization 
> of the society etc. 
>
> One of the first things that a darwinian process develops is a way to 
> protect the created order from its own destructive nature. Capitalism 
> in a democracy with the rule of law is a very sophisticated 
> organization that run above a human nature that is deeply social. And 
> this human nature is naturally selected. Probably the highest 
> satisfaction that a man may have, abobe money, is to be helpful to 
> others. 
>
> Probably the natural human instincts of compassion wou

Re: Re: Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg  

Yes, such chicanery goes on, because men are no angels.
But it has to be even worse is a socialist economy, 
where market forces (which tend to keep men more honest)
are replaced by the biased wills of bureaucrats and politicians.

I'd choose the market economy myself.
   


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/16/2012  
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him  
so that everything could function." 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Craig Weinberg  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-15, 20:32:34 
Subject: Re: Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain. 


It's doubtful that there has ever been such a pristine market. The basic 
exchange between free agents is in all real cases weighted by those interests 
which control and manipulate the market. Look at how Microsoft created their 
monopoly. It made crappy imitations of all of their potential competitors 
software and gave it away for free to drive them out of business - which they 
did. They knew that as long as their deal with IBM to distribute Windows with 
PCs, all they had to do was starve everyone else out. 

Look at how CEOs sit on the each others board of directors and vote each other 
gigantic salary increases despite poor performance and blatant conflicts of 
interest. 

At best, price always equals cost plus rent plus tax plus interest, so even if 
there were free agents who somehow had fair access to the market, their profit 
is still influenced by banks, government, and property owners. As soon as a new 
market is born however, all real opportunity to compete shakes out rapidly as 
business relations are consolidated and become entrenched. Innovators tend to 
be ripped off, bought, or shut out of the market. 

The assumption of a free market is no less of a fantasy than the assumption of 
a communist utopia. They are two sides of the same coin. 

Craig 


On Saturday, September 15, 2012 9:37:04 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 
Hi Alberto G. Corona  

At the heart of a market economy (which has existed since the cave man), 
there is a fundamental freedom, you can buy or sell if the price is right, 
where price = value = what you are willing to pay or sell for. So the market 
is basically psychological and free and  is as old as man. 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/15/2012  
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him  
so that everything could function." 
- Receiving the following content -  
From: Alberto G. Corona  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-15, 07:37:44 
Subject: Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain. 


Hi Roger, 
But neither Darwin nor Spencer discovered darwinism. a selection 
between alternatives is at the heart of every creative process (that 
creates order). It is a form of creative destruction. The market and 
the war are examples of such process. But it is also running now in 
this discussion. It is in our mind, that select and discard ideas 
depending on their consequences. It is in the political organization 
of the society etc. 

One of the first things that a darwinian process develops is a way to 
protect the created order from its own destructive nature. Capitalism 
in a democracy with the rule of law is a very sophisticated 
organization that run above a human nature that is deeply social. And 
this human nature is naturally selected. Probably the highest 
satisfaction that a man may have, abobe money, is to be helpful to 
others. 

Probably the natural human instincts of compassion would be enough 
without the inefficient artificial state-run welfare systems. A simple 
traditional religious commandments would suffice to remember our 
personal responsibilities with the others and would make these corrupt 
structures innecessary. This has been that way until few centuries 
ago. It would be more that enough in a society with so much resources 
like this. The problem in the actual situation is that the narrow 
selfishness that is being promoted in the "modern society" is not only 
dysfunctional at the social level, because it also makes necessary 
the externalization of the compassion away from the individual, 
because it is incompatible with the narrow selfish concept of freedom 
as absence of obligations. Not only that, because it is also 
dysfunctional at the individual level, because we as humans need to 
help others . We need to feel useful to others to be happy. 

2012/9/14 Roger Clough : 
> Hi Craig Weinberg 
> 
> Fortunately or unfortunately, capitalism is Darwinism, pure and simple. 
> So it can prepare for a better future, although it can be painful 
> at present. My own take on this is that there needs to be 
> a calculus of pleasure and pain. Jeremy Bentham suggested 
> perhaps an impfect one. 
> 
> In lieu of that, I am all for food stamps and safety 
> nets. 
> 
> 
> Roger Clough, rcl...@ve

Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain.

[Stephen P. King]

On 9/15/2012 8:32 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It's doubtful that there has ever been such a pristine market. The 
basic exchange between free agents is in all real cases weighted by 
those interests which control and manipulate the market. Look at how 
Microsoft created their monopoly. It made crappy imitations of all of 
their potential competitors software and gave it away for free to 
drive them out of business - which they did. They knew that as long as 
their deal with IBM to distribute Windows with PCs, all they had to do 
was starve everyone else out.


Look at how CEOs sit on the each others board of directors and vote 
each other gigantic salary increases despite poor performance and 
blatant conflicts of interest.


At best, price always equals cost plus rent plus tax plus interest, so 
even if there were free agents who somehow had fair access to the 
market, their profit is still influenced by banks, government, and 
property owners. As soon as a new market is born however, all real 
opportunity to compete shakes out rapidly as business relations are 
consolidated and become entrenched. Innovators tend to be ripped off, 
bought, or shut out of the market.


The assumption of a free market is no less of a fantasy than the 
assumption of a communist utopia. They are two sides of the same coin.


Craig


I completely agree, but never assume that the perfect is the 
adversary of the possible. The "real world" involves only that which is 
consistent with all that are involved, that includes the good the bad 
and the ugly. Any market will have cheaters and knaves. That is factored 
into the prices. It is the "discount" factor.


--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain.

[Craig Weinberg]

It's doubtful that there has ever been such a pristine market. The basic 
exchange between free agents is in all real cases weighted by those 
interests which control and manipulate the market. Look at how Microsoft 
created their monopoly. It made crappy imitations of all of their potential 
competitors software and gave it away for free to drive them out of 
business - which they did. They knew that as long as their deal with IBM to 
distribute Windows with PCs, all they had to do was starve everyone else 
out.

Look at how CEOs sit on the each others board of directors and vote each 
other gigantic salary increases despite poor performance and blatant 
conflicts of interest.

At best, price always equals cost plus rent plus tax plus interest, so even 
if there were free agents who somehow had fair access to the market, their 
profit is still influenced by banks, government, and property owners. As 
soon as a new market is born however, all real opportunity to compete 
shakes out rapidly as business relations are consolidated and become 
entrenched. Innovators tend to be ripped off, bought, or shut out of the 
market.

The assumption of a free market is no less of a fantasy than the assumption 
of a communist utopia. They are two sides of the same coin.

Craig


On Saturday, September 15, 2012 9:37:04 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>
>  Hi Alberto G. Corona 
>  
> At the heart of a market economy (which has existed since the cave man),
> there is a fundamental freedom, you can buy or sell if the price is right,
> where price = value = what you are willing to pay or sell for. So the 
> market
> is basically psychological and free and  is as old as man.
>  
>  
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
> 9/15/2012 
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
> so that everything could function."
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Alberto G. Corona  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2012-09-15, 07:37:44
> *Subject:* Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain.
>
>   Hi Roger,
> But neither Darwin nor Spencer discovered darwinism. a selection
> between alternatives is at the heart of every creative process (that
> creates order). It is a form of creative destruction. The market and
> the war are examples of such process. But it is also running now in
> this discussion. It is in our mind, that select and discard ideas
> depending on their consequences. It is in the political organization
> of the society etc.
>
> One of the first things that a darwinian process develops is a way to
> protect the created order from its own destructive nature. Capitalism
> in a democracy with the rule of law is a very sophisticated
> organization that run above a human nature that is deeply social. And
> this human nature is naturally selected. Probably the highest
> satisfaction that a man may have, abobe money, is to be helpful to
> others.
>
> Probably the natural human instincts of compassion would be enough
> without the inefficient artificial state-run welfare systems. A simple
> traditional religious commandments would suffice to remember our
> personal responsibilities with the others and would make these corrupt
> structures innecessary. This has been that way until few centuries
> ago. It would be more that enough in a society with so much resources
> like this. The problem in the actual situation is that the narrow
> selfishness that is being promoted in the "modern society" is not only
> dysfunctional at the social level, because it also makes necessary
> the externalization of the compassion away from the individual,
> because it is incompatible with the narrow selfish concept of freedom
> as absence of obligations. Not only that, because it is also
> dysfunctional at the individual level, because we as humans need to
> help others . We need to feel useful to others to be happy.
>
> 2012/9/14 Roger Clough >:
> > Hi Craig Weinberg
> >
> > Fortunately or unfortunately, capitalism is Darwinism, pure and simple.
> > So it can prepare for a better future, although it can be painful
> > at present. My own take on this is that there needs to be
> > a calculus of pleasure and pain. Jeremy Bentham suggested
> > perhaps an impfect one.
> >
> > In lieu of that, I am all for food stamps and safety
> > nets.
> >
> >
> > Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 
> > 9/14/2012
> > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
> > so that everything could function."
> >
> > - Receiving the following content -
> > From: Craig Weinberg
> > Receiver: everything-list
> > Time: 2012-09-13, 12:28:09
> > Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: 

Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain.

[Stephen P. King]

On 9/15/2012 9:35 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Alberto G. Corona
At the heart of a market economy (which has existed since the cave man),
there is a fundamental freedom, you can buy or sell if the price is right,
where price = value = what you are willing to pay or sell for. So the 
market

is basically psychological and free and  is as old as man.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/15/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."


Hi Roger,

I agree 100%. One might ask what is the agenda of those that 
steadfastly refuse to understand this basic fact.


--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Alberto G. Corona 

At the heart of a market economy (which has existed since the cave man),
there is a fundamental freedom, you can buy or sell if the price is right,
where price = value = what you are willing to pay or sell for. So the market
is basically psychological and free and  is as old as man.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/15/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-15, 07:37:44
Subject: Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain.


Hi Roger,
But neither Darwin nor Spencer discovered darwinism. a selection
between alternatives is at the heart of every creative process (that
creates order). It is a form of creative destruction. The market and
the war are examples of such process. But it is also running now in
this discussion. It is in our mind, that select and discard ideas
depending on their consequences. It is in the political organization
of the society etc.

One of the first things that a darwinian process develops is a way to
protect the created order from its own destructive nature. Capitalism
in a democracy with the rule of law is a very sophisticated
organization that run above a human nature that is deeply social. And
this human nature is naturally selected. Probably the highest
satisfaction that a man may have, abobe money, is to be helpful to
others.

Probably the natural human instincts of compassion would be enough
without the inefficient artificial state-run welfare systems. A simple
traditional religious commandments would suffice to remember our
personal responsibilities with the others and would make these corrupt
structures innecessary. This has been that way until few centuries
ago. It would be more that enough in a society with so much resources
like this. The problem in the actual situation is that the narrow
selfishness that is being promoted in the "modern society" is not only
dysfunctional at the social level, because it also makes necessary
the externalization of the compassion away from the individual,
because it is incompatible with the narrow selfish concept of freedom
as absence of obligations. Not only that, because it is also
dysfunctional at the individual level, because we as humans need to
help others . We need to feel useful to others to be happy.

2012/9/14 Roger Clough :
> Hi Craig Weinberg
>
> Fortunately or unfortunately, capitalism is Darwinism, pure and simple.
> So it can prepare for a better future, although it can be painful
> at present. My own take on this is that there needs to be
> a calculus of pleasure and pain. Jeremy Bentham suggested
> perhaps an impfect one.
>
> In lieu of that, I am all for food stamps and safety
> nets.
>
>
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 9/14/2012
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
> so that everything could function."
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Craig Weinberg
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-09-13, 12:28:09
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Racism ? How's that implied ?
>
>
>
> On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:33:47 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>>
>> Hi Craig Weinberg
>>
>> The fact is that the only incentive businesses look to is profit.
>> So demonizing profit doesn't do any good.
>> And urging them to hire workers doesn't work.
>>
>
> Sounds exactly like cancer. The only incentive cancer looks to is growth.
> As long as any institution partitions itself off from responsibility to the
> full spectrum of human experience I think it is doomed to be a force for
> oppression. You can tell when this happens because the effect of the
> institution is inverted to its cause. Businesses perpetuate financial
> bondage rather than freedom. Hospitals perpetuate sickness and misery rather
> than health. Schools neutralize intellectual curiosity. Religions foment
> intolerance and the abuse of the innocent. It's inevitable since by
> definition the first order of business for an institution is to ensure its
> own growth and survival at all costs...which becomes the sole purpose
> forever.
>
> Craig
>
>>
>> Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
>> 9/13/2012
>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
>> so that everything could function."
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Craig Weinberg
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2012-09-12, 20:03:27
>> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Racism ? How's that implied ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 8:32:21 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>> Hi Craig Weinberg
>>
&

Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain.

[Alberto G. Corona]

Hi Roger,
But neither Darwin nor Spencer discovered darwinism. a selection
between alternatives is at the heart of every creative process (that
creates order).  It is a form of creative destruction. The market and
the war are examples of such process. But it is also running now in
this discussion.  It is in our mind, that select and discard ideas
depending on their consequences. It is in the political organization
of the society etc.

One of the first things that a darwinian process develops is a way to
protect the created order from its own destructive nature.  Capitalism
in a democracy with the rule of law is a very sophisticated
organization that run above a human nature that is deeply social.  And
this human nature is naturally selected.  Probably the highest
satisfaction that a man may have, abobe money, is to be helpful to
others.

Probably the natural human instincts of compassion would be enough
without the inefficient artificial state-run welfare systems. A simple
traditional religious commandments would suffice to remember our
personal responsibilities with the others and would make these corrupt
structures innecessary. This has been that way until few centuries
ago. It would be more that enough in a society with so much resources
like this.  The problem in the actual situation is that  the narrow
selfishness that is being promoted in the "modern society" is not only
dysfunctional at the  social level, because it also makes necessary
the externalization of the compassion away from the individual,
because it is incompatible with the narrow selfish concept of freedom
as absence of obligations.  Not only that, because it is also
dysfunctional at the individual level, because we as humans need to
help others . We need to feel useful to others to be happy.

2012/9/14 Roger Clough :
> Hi Craig Weinberg
>
> Fortunately or unfortunately, capitalism is Darwinism, pure and simple.
> So it can prepare for a better future, although it can be painful
> at present. My own take on this is that there needs to be
> a calculus of pleasure and pain. Jeremy Bentham suggested
> perhaps an impfect one.
>
> In lieu of that, I am all for food stamps and safety
> nets.
>
>
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 9/14/2012
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
> so that everything could function."
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> From: Craig Weinberg
> Receiver: everything-list
> Time: 2012-09-13, 12:28:09
> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Racism ? How's that implied ?
>
>
>
> On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:33:47 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>>
>> Hi Craig Weinberg
>>
>> The fact is that the only incentive businesses look to is profit.
>> So demonizing profit doesn't do any good.
>> And urging them to hire workers doesn't work.
>>
>
> Sounds exactly like cancer. The only incentive cancer looks to is growth.
> As long as any institution partitions itself off from responsibility to the
> full spectrum of human experience I think it is doomed to be a force for
> oppression. You can tell when this happens because the effect of the
> institution is inverted to its cause. Businesses perpetuate financial
> bondage rather than freedom. Hospitals perpetuate sickness and misery rather
> than health. Schools neutralize intellectual curiosity. Religions foment
> intolerance and the abuse of the innocent. It's inevitable since by
> definition the first order of business for an institution is to ensure its
> own growth and survival at all costs...which becomes the sole purpose
> forever.
>
> Craig
>
>>
>>  Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
>> 9/13/2012
>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
>> so that everything could function."
>> - Receiving the following content -
>> From: Craig Weinberg
>> Receiver: everything-list
>> Time: 2012-09-12, 20:03:27
>> Subject: Re: Re: Re: Racism ? How's that implied ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 8:32:21 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>> Hi Craig Weinberg
>>
>> I am intolerant of stupidity and deception, particularly
>> when the idea of carbon credits pops up. This suggests that
>> "Global warming" is just a method of raising taxes,
>> diminishing coal and oil,  and even globally sharing the wealth.
>>
>> Thankfully china won't go along with this stupidity.
>> It all seems to be politics rather than science.
>>
>> I don't know enough about it to say too much about it. I think that the
>> point is to make it political so
>>
>> that the greatest polluters will have an incentive to pollute less.
>> Otherwise, why would they ever reduce
>> emissions? Personally I think that the only issue that matters is
>> overpopulation. As long as we have
>> seven billion people making billions more people, nothing will stop the
>> devaluation of they quality of human life,
>> and of human lives. Whether it's the threat of running out of oil, food,
>> water, or money, it doesn't really matter
>>  which comes first. It's like putting more and more f

Re: Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg  

I should have said "capitalism is similar to Darwinism". 
But as you point out, they are are not literally the same. 
Consider these points:

Valuations in market economics are not fitness,  
but what you're willing to pay for what I have to sell.  

Natural selection is buying stocks or goods or not. 

Fitness is non-bankruptcy. 

Social Darwinism is too personal, and easily racial, 
and anyway not as usefulor powerful as  what is  
called Demographics:

" relating to the dynamic balance of a population especially 
with regard to density and capacity for expansion or decline."

It's useful for marketing and for any kind of planning,
such as probability of war and political dynamics.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
9/15/2012  
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him  
so that everything could function." 



- Receiving the following content -  
From: Craig Weinberg  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-14, 13:50:22 
Subject: Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain. 




On Friday, September 14, 2012 12:33:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: 
On 9/14/2012 8:07 AM, Roger Clough wrote: 

Hi Craig Weinberg  

Fortunately or unfortunately, capitalism is Darwinism, pure and simple. 
So it can prepare for a better future, although it can be painful 
at present. My own take on this is that there needs to be 
a calculus of pleasure and pain. Jeremy Bentham suggested  
perhaps an impfect one. 

In lieu of that, I am all for food stamps and safety 
nets.  


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 

Dear Roger, 

I completely disagree. Darwinism does not consider valuations beyond the 
concept of relative fitness. Capitalism is a theory of valuation and exchange 
between entities. It does include concept that are analogous to those in 
darwinism, just as the "fitness" of a trader to make multiple trades, and so I 
can see some analogy between them, but to claim equivalence is simply false.  


Yes! People conflate Social Darwinism 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism) with Darwin's evolution. The 
idea of 'survival of the fittest' is also (see the Wiki) a misinterpretation. 
Evolution is just a blind statistical filtering of organisms which happen to 
survive in any given niche. Being fit has nothing whatsoever with being 
aggressive, greedy, or selfish, and indeed most species on Earth seem much more 
relaxed and gentle than human beings most of the time. 



IMHO, Food stamps and safety nets encourage risky behavior that is better 
if suppressed for the general welfare of the population, thus I am against them 
in principle. Why work to sustain my physical existence with my own toil if I 
can depend on the coercive taxation on others to sustain me? 


Eh, I would rather increase that stuff by 10 times than five one more dollar to 
subsidize corporations. The amount of money set aside for that stuff is tiny 
compared to everything else. It can certainly be a disincentive for people to 
look for work, but I think we need to confront the reality that the US doesn't 
really need very many people to work anymore. Most of what the US does is own 
things. That doesn't require a large workforce. Without manufacturing or a 
growing middle class, there really isn't much demand for more undereducated, 
unhealthy, unrealistically ambitious American workers. 

Craig 
  



--  
Onward! 

Stephen 

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html 
--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/fXX6Zmxk7_MJ. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain.

[Stephen P. King]

On 9/14/2012 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, September 14, 2012 12:33:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On 9/14/2012 8:07 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg
Fortunately or unfortunately, capitalism is Darwinism, pure and
simple.
So it can prepare for a better future, although it can be painful
at present. My own take on this is that there needs to be
a calculus of pleasure and pain. Jeremy Bentham suggested
perhaps an impfect one.
In lieu of that, I am all for food stamps and safety
nets.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 

Dear Roger,

I completely disagree. Darwinism does not consider valuations
beyond the concept of relative fitness. Capitalism is a theory of
valuation and exchange between entities. It does include concept
that are analogous to those in darwinism, just as the "fitness" of
a trader to make multiple trades, and so I can see some analogy
between them, but to claim equivalence is simply false.


Yes! People conflate Social Darwinism 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism) with Darwin's 
evolution. The idea of 'survival of the fittest' is also (see the 
Wiki) a misinterpretation. Evolution is just a blind statistical 
filtering of organisms which happen to survive in any given niche. 
Being fit has nothing whatsoever with being aggressive, greedy, or 
selfish, and indeed most species on Earth seem much more relaxed and 
gentle than human beings most of the time.



IMHO, Food stamps and safety nets encourage risky behavior
that is better if suppressed for the general welfare of the
population, thus I am against them in principle. Why work to
sustain my physical existence with my own toil if I can depend on
the coercive taxation on others to sustain me?


Eh, I would rather increase that stuff by 10 times than five one more 
dollar to subsidize corporations. The amount of money set aside for 
that stuff is tiny compared to everything else. It can certainly be a 
disincentive for people to look for work, but I think we need to 
confront the reality that the US doesn't really need very many people 
to work anymore. Most of what the US does is own things. That doesn't 
require a large workforce. Without manufacturing or a growing middle 
class, there really isn't much demand for more undereducated, 
unhealthy, unrealistically ambitious American workers.


Craig


Amen!

--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain.

[Richard Ruquist]

Most people prefer working to looking for work.

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, September 14, 2012 12:33:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> On 9/14/2012 8:07 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>
>> Hi Craig Weinberg
>>
>> Fortunately or unfortunately, capitalism is Darwinism, pure and simple.
>> So it can prepare for a better future, although it can be painful
>> at present. My own take on this is that there needs to be
>> a calculus of pleasure and pain. Jeremy Bentham suggested
>> perhaps an impfect one.
>>
>> In lieu of that, I am all for food stamps and safety
>> nets.
>>
>>
>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>>
>> Dear Roger,
>>
>> I completely disagree. Darwinism does not consider valuations beyond
>> the concept of relative fitness. Capitalism is a theory of valuation and
>> exchange between entities. It does include concept that are analogous to
>> those in darwinism, just as the "fitness" of a trader to make multiple
>> trades, and so I can see some analogy between them, but to claim equivalence
>> is simply false.
>
>
> Yes! People conflate Social Darwinism
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism) with Darwin's evolution. The
> idea of 'survival of the fittest' is also (see the Wiki) a
> misinterpretation. Evolution is just a blind statistical filtering of
> organisms which happen to survive in any given niche. Being fit has nothing
> whatsoever with being aggressive, greedy, or selfish, and indeed most
> species on Earth seem much more relaxed and gentle than human beings most of
> the time.
>
>>
>> IMHO, Food stamps and safety nets encourage risky behavior that is
>> better if suppressed for the general welfare of the population, thus I am
>> against them in principle. Why work to sustain my physical existence with my
>> own toil if I can depend on the coercive taxation on others to sustain me?
>
>
> Eh, I would rather increase that stuff by 10 times than five one more dollar
> to subsidize corporations. The amount of money set aside for that stuff is
> tiny compared to everything else. It can certainly be a disincentive for
> people to look for work, but I think we need to confront the reality that
> the US doesn't really need very many people to work anymore. Most of what
> the US does is own things. That doesn't require a large workforce. Without
> manufacturing or a growing middle class, there really isn't much demand for
> more undereducated, unhealthy, unrealistically ambitious American workers.
>
> Craig
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Onward!
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/fXX6Zmxk7_MJ.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain.

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, September 14, 2012 12:33:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 9/14/2012 8:07 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>  
> Hi Craig Weinberg 
>  
> Fortunately or unfortunately, capitalism is Darwinism, pure and simple.
> So it can prepare for a better future, although it can be painful
> at present. My own take on this is that there needs to be
> a calculus of pleasure and pain. Jeremy Bentham suggested 
> perhaps an impfect one.
>  
> In lieu of that, I am all for food stamps and safety
> nets. 
>  
>  
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
>  
> Dear Roger,
>
> I completely disagree. Darwinism does not consider valuations beyond 
> the concept of relative fitness. Capitalism is a theory of valuation and 
> exchange between entities. It does include concept that are analogous to 
> those in darwinism, just as the "fitness" of a trader to make multiple 
> trades, and so I can see some analogy between them, but to claim 
> equivalence is simply false. 
>

Yes! People conflate Social Darwinism 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism) with Darwin's evolution. 
The idea of 'survival of the fittest' is also (see the Wiki) a 
misinterpretation. Evolution is just a blind statistical filtering of 
organisms which happen to survive in any given niche. Being fit has nothing 
whatsoever with being aggressive, greedy, or selfish, and indeed most 
species on Earth seem much more relaxed and gentle than human beings most 
of the time.


> IMHO, Food stamps and safety nets encourage risky behavior that is 
> better if suppressed for the general welfare of the population, thus I am 
> against them in principle. Why work to sustain my physical existence with 
> my own toil if I can depend on the coercive taxation on others to sustain 
> me?
>

Eh, I would rather increase that stuff by 10 times than five one more 
dollar to subsidize corporations. The amount of money set aside for that 
stuff is tiny compared to everything else. It can certainly be a 
disincentive for people to look for work, but I think we need to confront 
the reality that the US doesn't really need very many people to work 
anymore. Most of what the US does is own things. That doesn't require a 
large workforce. Without manufacturing or a growing middle class, there 
really isn't much demand for more undereducated, unhealthy, unrealistically 
ambitious American workers.

Craig
 

>
> -- 
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
> http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
>
>  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/fXX6Zmxk7_MJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain.

[Stephen P. King]

On 9/14/2012 8:07 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg
Fortunately or unfortunately, capitalism is Darwinism, pure and simple.
So it can prepare for a better future, although it can be painful
at present. My own take on this is that there needs to be
a calculus of pleasure and pain. Jeremy Bentham suggested
perhaps an impfect one.
In lieu of that, I am all for food stamps and safety
nets.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 

Dear Roger,

I completely disagree. Darwinism does not consider valuations 
beyond the concept of relative fitness. Capitalism is a theory of 
valuation and exchange between entities. It does include concept that 
are analogous to those in darwinism, just as the "fitness" of a trader 
to make multiple trades, and so I can see some analogy between them, but 
to claim equivalence is simply false.


IMHO, Food stamps and safety nets encourage risky behavior that is 
better if suppressed for the general welfare of the population, thus I 
am against them in principle. Why work to sustain my physical existence 
with my own toil if I can depend on the coercive taxation on others to 
sustain me?


--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Needed: A calculus of pleasure and pain.

[Roger Clough]

Hi Craig Weinberg 

Fortunately or unfortunately, capitalism is Darwinism, pure and simple.
So it can prepare for a better future, although it can be painful
at present. My own take on this is that there needs to be
a calculus of pleasure and pain. Jeremy Bentham suggested 
perhaps an impfect one.

In lieu of that, I am all for food stamps and safety
nets. 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/14/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-13, 12:28:09
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Racism ? How's that implied ?




On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:33:47 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg   

The fact is that the only incentive businesses look to is profit. 
So demonizing profit doesn't do any good. 
And urging them to hire workers doesn't work. 



Sounds exactly like cancer. The only incentive cancer looks to is growth.  As 
long as any institution partitions itself off from responsibility to the full 
spectrum of human experience I think it is doomed to be a force for oppression. 
You can tell when this happens because the effect of the institution is 
inverted to its cause. Businesses perpetuate financial bondage rather than 
freedom. Hospitals perpetuate sickness and misery rather than health. Schools 
neutralize intellectual curiosity. Religions foment intolerance and the abuse 
of the innocent. It's inevitable since by definition the first order of 
business for an institution is to ensure its own growth and survival at all 
costs...which becomes the sole purpose forever.

Craig



 Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 
9/13/2012   
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him   
so that everything could function." 
- Receiving the following content -   
From: Craig Weinberg   
Receiver: everything-list   
Time: 2012-09-12, 20:03:27 
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Racism ? How's that implied ? 




On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 8:32:21 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 
Hi Craig Weinberg   

I am intolerant of stupidity and deception, particularly 
when the idea of carbon credits pops up. This suggests that   
"Global warming" is just a method of raising taxes, 
diminishing coal and oil,  and even globally sharing the wealth.   

Thankfully china won't go along with this stupidity. 
It all seems to be politics rather than science.   

I don't know enough about it to say too much about it. I think that the point 
is to make it political so 

that the greatest polluters will have an incentive to pollute less. Otherwise, 
why would they ever reduce 
emissions? Personally I think that the only issue that matters is 
overpopulation. As long as we have 
seven billion people making billions more people, nothing will stop the 
devaluation of they quality of human life, 
and of human lives. Whether it's the threat of running out of oil, food, water, 
or money, it doesn't really matter 
 which comes first. It's like putting more and more fish in an overstocked fish 
tank, the bigger ones just 
eat more and more of the smaller ones while the whole thing fills up with crap. 

Craig 




Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 
9/11/2012   
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him   
so that everything could function." 
- Receiving the following content -   
From: Craig Weinberg   
Receiver: everything-list   
Time: 2012-09-11, 00:40:08 
Subject: Re: Re: Racism ? How's that implied ? 


Hi Roger, 

It's ok not to be obsessed with cleaning up the environment, but why be 
intolerant of people who are? Same with people who spend a lot of time talking 
in public about issues of racial discrimination. If you are going to speak and 
act on behalf of millions of people who are not speaking and acting, it is 
understandable that you might also be the type of person who is strongly 
motivated. 

What you don't seem to appreciate is that being able to not have to think about 
race is a luxury that non-whites do not have. That doesn't mean you have to 
make the world fair for everyone, but the least that we who have that luxury 
could do is acknowledge that we have that privilege. Have you ever considered 
what it would be like for you in a world with an alternate history? Where the 
Cherokee Nation developed guns and steel before the Europeans and colonized it 
using Siberian slaves instead? You could listen to descendants of those 
invaders and slavers discuss how the whining of pink people, their scapegoats 
and victims for centuries in a hostile land, is really not their cup of tea.   

Craig 

On Monday, September 10, 2012 7:19:44 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:   
Hi Craig Weinberg   

Not that I am against cleaning up the environment, but I am not 
obsessed with the idea.  Integrating with Nature is also a main principle 
of the Communist Manifesto.   


Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 
9/10/2012   
Leibniz would say, "If there's