PDA

View Full Version : Protesting G.W Bush visit - What is wrong with some of these people!?



XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 01:19 PM
What is with these morons protesting?!. Ok, if you're going to protest, do so in a sensisble and peaceful manner.

Protesting is our democratic right. However, burning the American flag?, Toppling a statue of George Bush? That's just too far. It's down right disrespectful. They're supposed to be protesting the occupation of Iraq and America's foreign policies. That's fine, as I said before it's our right. But to burn the American flag, an object that represents all of America, not just the semantics around the war. That mob was burning the hundreds of familes that have emigrated to the States to live. They're burning the thousands of imports that we benefit from. They're burning all alliances and any future relationship we have between our two nations.

I wish half these fools had the intelligence to contemplate what a protest actually is, and indeed what it's about!

I swear, half these people are just there to cause a riot. They have no intention of protesting a war. Random violence on police, shops, others... just another means, in which they can use the protest as a smokescreen.

Subjecting your children to it. You see them on the floats with anti-bush propoganda. It's non-sense. Those children have no comprehension of what's going on around them. To force them to behave and be involved in such a big issue astounds me.

Also what's with our news casters? do they purposely find the most ignorant and naive person they can.

"I hate bush, he should go home, he's a mass murderer, he's killed millions of people" - When has he killed millions of people? That's funny I must have been in a coma while he set out mass-genocide.

"We should of just let things be how they were" - Yea, tell that to the thousands of Iraqis that lost their fathers, brothers, sons and close family members in the middle of the night, never to see them again, never to know what happened to them.

"We're taking too long to fix Iraq" - Too long? We've occupied Iraq for roughly a year now, the regime has been quashed. Do our people really expect us to just leave the state in an Anarchic mess? It took the US a few hundred years to settle down and establish a working democratic government. Do these people really expect us to do that in less than a year in Iraq?!

Terrorism is never a problem until if effects you - I wonder how these people's tone would change if their families were in the Turkish blasts yesterday.








Message Edited on 11/21/0312:24PM by DeSetuede

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 01:19 PM
What is with these morons protesting?!. Ok, if you're going to protest, do so in a sensisble and peaceful manner.

Protesting is our democratic right. However, burning the American flag?, Toppling a statue of George Bush? That's just too far. It's down right disrespectful. They're supposed to be protesting the occupation of Iraq and America's foreign policies. That's fine, as I said before it's our right. But to burn the American flag, an object that represents all of America, not just the semantics around the war. That mob was burning the hundreds of familes that have emigrated to the States to live. They're burning the thousands of imports that we benefit from. They're burning all alliances and any future relationship we have between our two nations.

I wish half these fools had the intelligence to contemplate what a protest actually is, and indeed what it's about!

I swear, half these people are just there to cause a riot. They have no intention of protesting a war. Random violence on police, shops, others... just another means, in which they can use the protest as a smokescreen.

Subjecting your children to it. You see them on the floats with anti-bush propoganda. It's non-sense. Those children have no comprehension of what's going on around them. To force them to behave and be involved in such a big issue astounds me.

Also what's with our news casters? do they purposely find the most ignorant and naive person they can.

"I hate bush, he should go home, he's a mass murderer, he's killed millions of people" - When has he killed millions of people? That's funny I must have been in a coma while he set out mass-genocide.

"We should of just let things be how they were" - Yea, tell that to the thousands of Iraqis that lost their fathers, brothers, sons and close family members in the middle of the night, never to see them again, never to know what happened to them.

"We're taking too long to fix Iraq" - Too long? We've occupied Iraq for roughly a year now, the regime has been quashed. Do our people really expect us to just leave the state in an Anarchic mess? It took the US a few hundred years to settle down and establish a working democratic government. Do these people really expect us to do that in less than a year in Iraq?!

Terrorism is never a problem until if effects you - I wonder how these people's tone would change if their families were in the Turkish blasts yesterday.








Message Edited on 11/21/0312:24PM by DeSetuede

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 02:10 PM
That was beautiful.

*makes love to DeSetuede*

-----------------------------------------------
http://www.iceblade.onestop.net/divisi1.gif
Pitty the poor insomniacn dyslexic agnostic. He stays up all night wondering if there really is a dog.-funniest joke of all time.

<a href=http://www.fallen-angels.net/members.asp?divid=58>Fallen
Angels</a>

<a href=http://ladder.ubi.com/index.asp?gamename=RAVENSHIELD&ladderid=0&modeid=0&lan=en&FILTERCHANGE=1&SELECT_ALIAS=EXACT&INPUT_ALIAS=fa_death&SELECT_COUNTRY=&SELECT_RATING=EQUAL&INPUT_RATING=&SELECT_KILL=EQUAL&INPUT_KILL=&SELECT_DEATH=EQUAL&INPUT_DEATH=&SELECT_COMBAT=EQUAL&INPUT_COMBAT=&x=0&y=0>My ladder stats</a>

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 02:58 PM
DeSetuede wrote:

A very sensible post,

.... and my whole point to my debates with the oposition to this war. All these Idiots demonstrating and calling Bush a liar and a baby killer is redicoulous and only discredits any miniscule point they might have about all of this.

Tonly Blair says there where about 400,000 dead Iraqis in those mass graves Men women and children. Did anyone organized a protest against Saddam? Was there a good reason not to protest in that case? How about the reports of people now free saying how they or their families and friends have been tortured by saddam. Did those people made all that up?
But still all these "I care for the incocent deaths" is just what it sounds like plain BS.

Good post DeSetuede


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

<font size="4">Lead follow or get out of the way</font size="4">

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 05:15 PM
Well I guess there's two sides to every coin isn't there. Calling people "morons" for topling statues of Dubya is like putting a screen door in a sub-marine. The flag burning is totally un-called for but definitely gets ones attention. That said the people of Britain were and still are greatly opposed to Dubyas politics and policies. Tony Blair, [edited] that he is has commited political suicide by backing Dubya. ( do you really think T.Blair will be re-elected?) unlikely.. That being said, Dubya can kiss his "most important ally against the war on terror" bye -bye. In a world where the UN has become irrelevent in the minds of many ignorrant individuals, Dubya should be paying more attention to his own cards. The world spoke against the invasion of Iraq and is still voicing its opinion. This whole situation smacks of sheer ignorant indulgance all the while Dubya has a found new found faith in the UN begging for cash from any country of " good will" only makes the entire deal stink of redneck Dubya policy.

OPEN YOUR EYES AND EARS PEOPLE.... TURN OFF YOUR WWF FOR AN EVENING AND READ A [edited] BOOK!!!!
Its better to be vaguely right about something than percicely wrong.

KILL YOUR T.V



Watch your language. This is your only warning. Next offense = ban. -Witness

Message Edited on 11/24/0304:16PM by Witness

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 06:23 PM
Well, I'm against the war and I don't much care for Bush and his policies, but right now I think people have to accept that we are in Iraq, and probably for the long haul. There's an obligation on the part of the US and Britain to see that the job they started is finished properly.

That said, there's nothing wrong with protesting those policies. People have a right to say what they think. The burning of flags and toppling of statues, while crude, draws media attention to the protests. This is clearly a mixed bag, because a good portion of these people are bound to be radical boneheads, and somehow these are always the people that end up in front of the camera.

Still, slamming these people for protesting at all is a huge mistake. It reminds me of that line, "But nobody talks about all the GOOD things Hitler did!" I'm not trying to equate Bush to you-know-who, but people just can't be expected to sit around and sing the praises of the US when they disagree with what the US is doing, even with all the good that America does.

I'd argue that in a democracy, people have a DUTY to speak up when they think that a country or leader is acting in an irresponsible or reckless manner, like I feel Bush has done in invading Iraq. That's the whole point.

As an interesting bit of trivia, it's completely untrue that the population of Britain has turned against Blair, Bush, and the US. According to the current polls, if an election were held today, Blair would win a majority government, even with all that's gone on.

Just don't go blaming the 'liberal media' for only covering the protests; when 100 000 people take to the streets, that's news. When the majority of voters in a country sit home in quiet approval, it's not. They put the government there in the first place, it's no surprise that they'd support its actions.

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 09:10 PM
Well said, BaldBeard.

http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 09:21 PM
good post de.

http://members.lycos.co.uk/cordfu/dench2.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 09:26 PM
"Still, slamming these people for protesting at all is a huge mistake."

That's funny, I thought it was my democratic right to free speech which you seem to adament about.

Besides I never 'slammed' them for protesting, I slammed them for the manner in which they protested. Notice the word 'some' in my post. Don't for one minute think I was referring to the protesters as a whole.

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 09:51 PM
That's true enough, what I probably should have said was that it'd be a huge mistake to tell these people they should shut up, which I'm sure you'd like them to do.

I'll give you credit for not going that far, it's hugely hypocritical when people invoke free speech to try and deny someone else theirs.

Still, while you're calling many of these protesters 'morons' who are looking for an excuse to break things, I'd remind you that hooliganism under the banner of political protest is hardly a foreign concept to Americans. The WTO riots in Seattle and Quebec City a few years ago, for instance.

And it's just my opinion, but I can forgive much more quickly a group that goes over the line protesting a war than I can one protesting free trade.

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2003, 11:36 PM
look at the ones protesting, we had the same type in the G8 protests in Ottawa, a lot of the people protesting want to do so in a peaceful manner, when you get the louts who seem to make a living from protests, that is when the trouble starts. Here in Canada they showed the ones on TV, all young, probably didn't have a clue about what they were protesting about, yet smashing windows, throwing rocks, etc etc then complaining because they were tear gassed and pepper sprayed. The older folks got the heck out of the way, even after trying to stop the instigators, and yes, that is what they are, from doing this mindless destruction. I have no pity for demonstrators that use violent methods to protest against violence. The police have been very restrained in my opinion, at least here in Canada. I don't want to start anything and don't take this the wrong way, but did you ever notice that after Kent State, you don't see too many demonstrations on campuses anymore.

http://members.cox.net/radragracing/Animation2.gif


you want some of this? In your dreams.

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 12:05 AM
Someone can protest and still be considered a fool without having his freedom to express himself as such impaired or scrutinized. It is the actions which define a person, not the ideals he stands for. The problem is when people take their ideals too far. Anyone that loots stores, flip cars, demonstrate acts of violence, etc. during a riot, claiming that he/she is there to protest, is a damn fool. And damn anyone with a functioning brain for defending them on the basis that they were supporting a prominent cause. Sure, some of the people are going to have a genuine supporting attitude, and the rest are simply going to be followers. They can all still be considered fools by the rest of us without infringing on their right to free speech. Is it not also our right to our own opinions?

Also, situations like Iraq have little to no effect on most of our lives, unless we are connected to it in some way (i.e. family fighting or living in Iraq). And if a situation does not directly effect us, we generally don't give a damn. So when people say they are there to protest things like "Bush's incursion in Iraq", or whatever, and say something stupid like "it is because of all the people he is (or had been) killing", they are full of crap. Obviously they do not care that much about the death factor, because the number Saddam has killed is incomparably greater.

Personally, I don't give a damn about the Iraqis or what they are going through. If I was an Iraqi, you're damn right I'd care; but I'm not, so I don't. That is the way of humanity. If we all really and truly cared about one another, there would be no conflict, and life would be dull and peaceful.

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 03:13 AM
Anyone who takes democracy seriously should always respect mass protest. That is how we won our liberties in the first place. That said unless you are at war you really shouldn't be burning anyone's flag that's very insulting. I didn't take kindly to the Turks burning the English flag so it's certainly not a practice I would condone.

However, destroying effigies is very commonplace in England so I wouldn't take that personally. It could have been worse - Bush could have been hit by an egg.

I disagree that we should accept that we are in Iraq for the long haul. That's a roundabout way of saying that war creates its own justification. The action that we can take at this point is for all foreign occupiers of Iraq to leave immediately. Of course this won't happen because that pathetic human emotion pride will get in the way.

Asteroids exterminated the dinosaurs; pride will do the same to us.

See you on the other side.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"Why, we have gotten into a mess, a quagmire from which each fresh step renders the difficulty of extrication immensely greater. I'm sure I wish I could see what we were getting out of it, and all it means to us as a nation." - Mark Twain, during the US occupation of the Phillippines <font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 04:02 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:

The action that we can take at this point is for all
- foreign occupiers of Iraq to leave immediately.

And who is going to stop Saddam from returning to power and murdering another few million people?

Of course this won't happen because that pathetic human
- emotion pride will get in the way.

No its not pride MNG, its called keeping a promise.
-
- Asteroids exterminated the dinosaurs; pride will do
- the same to us.

Or the terrorist will..........if we sit on our hands and listen to the redicoulous protests
-
- See you on the other side.

I hope not


<center>
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-4/146066/HDZUVJETRBTPXHHFKWSU-Roguefear.jpg

<font size="4">Lead follow or get out of the way</font size="4">

XyZspineZyX
11-22-2003, 06:11 PM
drugbox wrote:
- like putting a screen door in a
- sub-marine.


*blank look*



Whats wrong with that? All 3 Canadian Subs have those, as well as the dent in the front that makes it go faster. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

<Center>
http://www3.telus.net\robert\girl.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 05:19 AM
Let me tell you something about protestors that people don't know, simply because the news media will not air this footage.

The protestors are prepared, they have gas masks, they have bags of crap and urine to throw at the police officers, and the PURPOSEFULLY provke the police to beat them, they'll take the pain just as long as it's captured by the news media. The news will only show the part of the police chasing down and maybe beating the crap out of a protestor, they will NEVER show the footage of what that protestor did to provoke it, even though they do capture that on tape also. They will also NEVER air the footage of protestors who provoke the police to chase them, lead them down a narrow alley way where there are people waiting on the other side to jump the police officer.

One thing they do to provoke the action is they have bats or sticks with nails on the end, where they dip the tip of the nail in feces and they run by a police officer and stab him/her in the back of the leg with this nail. Of course the little puncture would be invisible to the camera since they are wearing long black pants usually. So the news media will cut out the part of the protestor doing this, and they will air the part where the police is chasing down this protestor, then arresting him/her.

On a milder note, they will also rush the police line, and there will be people in the back with the video cameras. The police are actually not approaching the protestors. In fact, a lot of events where protestors are expected, the police form a line that is static, meaning they don't move, they simply prevent protestors from going beyond that point. The protestors in the front will actually rush the police line, this part is cut out of the footage of course, and they will continue to push and throw punches at the police until the police starts to act back, mostly by shoving or hitting with wooden batons.

Now get this, this is how well organized the protestors are, there will be a small group of people all lined up in the front who will rush the police, but make it seem like the police are rushing into them, then right behind that group, there is a nice tidy line of protestors all with some sort of video camera, they are holding it up to get a good shot of the police supposedly rushing the group up front and beating them with the batons. I've seen this with my own eyes, the video is pretty close, so you assume it's a huge crowd and the police are rushing toward the crowd, but in real life, it's this nice and neat line of protestors rushing the police, with the video people behind them, and no one else behind them, the main protest groups are a good distance away, the cops are not getting anywhere close to where they are protesting.

And they don't even bother to edit the video before they send it to the news media, they keep the beginning part where they are actually forming up and rushing the police, the news media gladly edits it for them, only airing the footage where the police starts using their batons.

We had the FTAA meetings here a little while back, and about a week before the protests were to begin, cops found some of the soon-to-be protestors on the roof tops of the surrounding building scoping out the area to get an idea how to organize their groups. That's how devious they are. And for whatever reason, the media supports them, hm, I don't think it can possibly have anything to do with how the left hates the police and how the media is very biased can it?? I don't know, this is a tough call...

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 05:56 AM
there are a core of professional protesters on the left. The whole intl answer, so called civil rights groups, watermellons(enviroment groups), labor, anarchist (WTO guys). They are funded by world workers party, democrat party, bab striesand, mike moore, etc.

I did a great paper on this in school. Basically how these lil countries are lil pawns in a war of 2 ideas...the collective society and the individual. got a A-. Basically how we need to do somethings cummunally but the only way to provide freedom and liberty is through the individual.

I would find this topic more interesting then the endless bush is a evil oil loving lair debate.....gets old



never underestimate the logical power of sarcasm

I am 49 years old and havent lived a day...i am living from now on: Iraqi Citizen after fall of Bagdad

XyZspineZyX
11-24-2003, 06:31 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- Anyone who takes democracy seriously should always
- respect mass protest.

You forgot a very important word. You should have said "peacful mass protest." Violent protest is generally inappropriate to put it mildly.

- I disagree that we should accept that we are in Iraq
- for the long haul. That's a roundabout way of
- saying that war creates its own justification. The
- action that we can take at this point is for all
- foreign occupiers of Iraq to leave immediately.

You are of course welcome to disagree. However, you have yet to provide a viable alternative. If every "foreign occupier" (and I'll give you the credit to assume that you meant all non-Iraqis) leaves Iraq, then what? Granted, it will be a much nicer place without Syrians terrorists. However, there is not an extant Iraqi army or enough or a police force to keep the peace there. Iraq has demonstrated on multiple occasions that it presents a number of unique problems, not the least of which is the violence present in that society.

So your plan for peace is what exactly?

- Asteroids exterminated the dinosaurs; pride will do
- the same to us.

I think this may be your most over-dramatic statement yet. Rwally more than a bit over the top.

"A person should not choose the form in which he wishes to perform the service of the Lord, but he should perform it in any manner the opportunity affords. He should be like a vessel into which anything may be poured - wine, milk, or water."

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 01:41 AM
MDS_Geist wrote:
-
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-- Anyone who takes democracy seriously should always
-- respect mass protest.
-
- You forgot a very important word. You should have
- said "peacful mass protest." Violent protest is
- generally inappropriate to put it mildly.

Well that goes without saying Geist. But which protest are you talking about? I don't believe there was any serious violence during London's demonstations.
-
-- I disagree that we should accept that we are in Iraq
-- for the long haul. That's a roundabout way of
-- saying that war creates its own justification. The
-- action that we can take at this point is for all
-- foreign occupiers of Iraq to leave immediately.
-
- You are of course welcome to disagree. However, you
- have yet to provide a viable alternative.
-
- So your plan for peace is what exactly?

As Tommy Franks said, there has never in all of history been peace. I don't have a plan for peace. But we were much better off before we became involved in this mess.
-
-- Asteroids exterminated the dinosaurs; pride will do
-- the same to us.
-
- I think this may be your most over-dramatic
- statement yet. Rwally more than a bit over the top.

How many tens of millions of people have been exterminated during the 20th Century because of pride, arrogance call it what you will. Over-dramatic? I don't think so. It won't take much to destroy us all - war over Taiwan?


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"Why, we have gotten into a mess, a quagmire from which each fresh step renders the difficulty of extrication immensely greater. I'm sure I wish I could see what we were getting out of it, and all it means to us as a nation." - Mark Twain, during the US occupation of the Phillippines <font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 02:00 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- Well that goes without saying Geist. But which
- protest are you talking about? I don't believe
- there was any serious violence during London's
- demonstations.

I was speaking generally. However, it doesn not go without saying or it would never be necessary to say. Many people seem to feel that their right to protest is unlimited and includes insurrection. Attacking police officers is simply unacceptable behavior, to say nothing of engaging in looting or random destruction.

- As Tommy Franks said, there has never in all of
- history been peace. I don't have a plan for peace.

With due respect to General Franks, I disagree. That truly is a matter or perspective. But I do appreciate the response.

- But we were much better off before we became
- involved in this mess.

So you would advocate for isolationism?

- How many tens of millions of people have been
- exterminated during the 20th Century because of
- pride, arrogance call it what you will.

Many of them were murdered out of baseless hatred. You're ascribing motives based on your own beliefs. By saying "call it what you will" you're abandoning your original argument and trying to change the scope. There have also never been so many people alive.

- Over-dramatic? I don't think so. It won't take
- much to destroy us all - war over Taiwan?

War over Taiwan would hardly "destroy us," and is unlikely to happen in any event. China is slowly opening itself up to the rest of the world. Of course, what it means to "destroy us" is also rather subjective.

"A person should not choose the form in which he wishes to perform the service of the Lord, but he should perform it in any manner the opportunity affords. He should be like a vessel into which anything may be poured - wine, milk, or water."

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 02:07 AM
humm well I don't understand. If someone wants to burn a peice of cloth who cares? If that's how they feel and it's not physicaly hurting anyone then go ahead and burn the american flag.

I don't agree with it but they should have the right to, like weed.

http://www.gwpda.org/photos/bin07/imag0627.jpg


War sucks

XyZspineZyX
11-25-2003, 08:22 AM
Well, it doesn't really help their cause any bit, if anything, they are hurting the people who are supposed to stand for the same opinion. I might not be that person they are representing and hurting by what they do, but some other people are.

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 05:18 AM
MDS_Geist wrote:
-
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-- Well that goes without saying Geist. But which
-- protest are you talking about? I don't believe
-- there was any serious violence during London's
-- demonstations.
-
- I was speaking generally. However, it doesn not go
- without saying or it would never be necessary to
- say. Many people seem to feel that their right to
- protest is unlimited and includes insurrection.
- Attacking police officers is simply unacceptable
- behavior, to say nothing of engaging in looting or
- random destruction.

That depends on who the police doesn't it (if you want to get particular about it! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif )
-
- So you would advocate for isolationism?

No I would advocate non-interventionism specifically in markets and in other country's internal strife.
-
-- How many tens of millions of people have been
-- exterminated during the 20th Century because of
-- pride, arrogance call it what you will.
-
- Many of them were murdered out of baseless hatred.
- You're ascribing motives based on your own beliefs.
- By saying "call it what you will" you're abandoning
- your original argument and trying to change the
- scope. There have also never been so many people
- alive.

No mate I was just never that committed to the word "pride". Pick any uncivilized emotion you like - it will do.
-
-
-- Over-dramatic? I don't think so. It won't take
-- much to destroy us all - war over Taiwan?
-
- War over Taiwan would hardly "destroy us," and is
- unlikely to happen in any event. China is slowly
- opening itself up to the rest of the world. Of
- course, what it means to "destroy us" is also rather
- subjective.

Yes and the US is slowing closing it down. If China and the US engage in a nuclear war it will destroy us. I suppose I simply don't have the faith in the intrinsic goodness or wisdom of our leaders that you seem to have.

http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"Why, we have gotten into a mess, a quagmire from which each fresh step renders the difficulty of extrication immensely greater. I'm sure I wish I could see what we were getting out of it, and all it means to us as a nation." - Mark Twain, during the US occupation of the Phillippines <font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 08:14 PM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- That depends on who the police doesn't it (if you
- want to get particular about it!)

While I believe I understand the point you are trying to make, the answer is no. There is a difference between attacking the police and responding to being attacked by them.

- No I would advocate non-interventionism specifically
- in markets and in other country's internal strife.

Interesting. And you're making a distinction between this and isolationism in what way? Markets are very much interdependent, so that's really quite an interesting statement.

- No mate I was just never that committed to the word
- "pride". Pick any uncivilized emotion you like - it
- will do.

Ignorance is not an emotion.

- Yes and the US is slowing closing it down. If China
- and the US engage in a nuclear war it will destroy
- us. I suppose I simply don't have the faith in the
- intrinsic goodness or wisdom of our leaders that you
- seem to have.

What are you talking about? The US is doing more and more to help China open up, and certainly more than any other nation. Relations between the US and China are slowly but steadily improving and a nuclear exchange between the two nations is a highly unlikely and pessimistic scenario.

It has nothing to do with "faith in the intrinsic goodness or wisdom," but a refusal to subscribe to your sort of pessimism. Moreover, it has far more to do with looking at information dispassionately rather than coloring it the first time around.

"A person should not choose the form in which he wishes to perform the service of the Lord, but he should perform it in any manner the opportunity affords. He should be like a vessel into which anything may be poured - wine, milk, or water."

XyZspineZyX
11-26-2003, 10:43 PM
MDS_Geist wrote:
There is a
- difference between attacking the police and
- responding to being attacked by them.

Who determines this difference?
-
-- No I would advocate non-interventionism specifically
-- in markets and in other country's internal strife.
-
- Interesting. And you're making a distinction
- between this and isolationism in what way? Markets
- are very much interdependent, so that's really quite
- an interesting statement.

Isolationism would be imposed by the government on its own population preventing trade between them and another country. It would also limit diplomatic ties to other countries. Non-interventionism in markets means that the government does not intervene at all but lets market participants make their own decisions about who to trade with and at what price. Political non-interventionism means no interference in other sovereign nations, whether military, economical or otherwise.
-
-- No mate I was just never that committed to the word
-- "pride". Pick any uncivilized emotion you like - it
-- will do.
-
- Ignorance is not an emotion.


Yeah... and?

-
-- Yes and the US is slowing closing it down. If China
-- and the US engage in a nuclear war it will destroy
-- us. I suppose I simply don't have the faith in the
-- intrinsic goodness or wisdom of our leaders that you
-- seem to have.
-
- What are you talking about? The US is doing more
- and more to help China open up, and certainly more
- than any other nation. Relations between the US and
- China are slowly but steadily improving and a
- nuclear exchange between the two nations is a highly
- unlikely and pessimistic scenario.

Everything could change if Taiwan procedes with its current political activities. The world's worst wars have started over seemingly inconsequential events. I am not sure about the improving relations between China and the US. The US is sore about the exchange rate between the yuen and the dollar, the Chinese are sore about Bush's new tarriffs. All this notwithstanding the souring relations with Europe over steel tariffs and the sanctions Europe is threatening the US with in response.
-
- It has nothing to do with "faith in the intrinsic
- goodness or wisdom," but a refusal to subscribe to
- your sort of pessimism.

Geist I'm now offering subscriptions at only $49 a year. Thats well below the current newstand price. Are you sure you won't change your mind?



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"Why, we have gotten into a mess, a quagmire from which each fresh step renders the difficulty of extrication immensely greater. I'm sure I wish I could see what we were getting out of it, and all it means to us as a nation." - Mark Twain, during the US occupation of the Phillippines <font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 02:54 AM
disgruntled_god wrote:
- humm well I don't understand. If someone wants to
- burn a peice of cloth who cares? If that's how they
- feel and it's not physicaly hurting anyone then go
- ahead and burn the american flag.
-
- I don't agree with it but they should have the right
- to, like weed.

It's what it sybolises, not what it actually is.

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 04:10 AM
DeSetuede wrote:
- disgruntled_god wrote:
-- humm well I don't understand. If someone wants to
-- burn a peice of cloth who cares? If that's how they
-- feel and it's not physicaly hurting anyone then go
-- ahead and burn the american flag.
--
-- I don't agree with it but they should have the right
-- to, like weed.
-
- It's what it sybolises, not what it actually is.


I think they have a right to, just like you have a right to call your boss lewd names. It is just unnecessarily insulting behaviour to people whom the flag is important to. We're all friends here and just because we disagree with the policies of a particular leader is no need to insult a nation of millions.

Also, I know I don't like it when I see people burning the English flag. I don't care about a piece of burning cloth but it rather suggest that the person burning the flag does not respect me.

http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"Why, we have gotten into a mess, a quagmire from which each fresh step renders the difficulty of extrication immensely greater. I'm sure I wish I could see what we were getting out of it, and all it means to us as a nation." - Mark Twain, during the US occupation of the Phillippines <font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 06:25 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- Who determines this difference?

It really isn't that hard. If you charge a police line, you're attacking them. If a police officer sharges you, then you're being attacked. The fact that you're even asking this question is somewhat absurb and seems to indicate an attempt to introduce some form of reletivism isnto the equation. That is simply inappropriate. Protests should not be intereactive with the police, since they are there for the safety of both the protestors and the municipality. Should the protestors become violent, then they have abrogated their right to protest.

- Isolationism would be imposed by the government on
- its own population preventing trade between them and
- another country. It would also limit diplomatic
- ties to other countries. Non-interventionism in
- markets means that the government does not intervene
- at all but lets market participants make their own
- decisions about who to trade with and at what price.

And that's simply not how the world works, particularly with how so many markets are intertwined. Since there are always at least two parties involved in any such affair, any international realtions issue will by its very nature be interventionist. To be at the state you are proposing would require isolationism.

- Political non-interventionism means no interference
- in other sovereign nations, whether military,
- economical or otherwise.

Which would equate to isolationism and the severing of diplomatic ties. By its very nature, diplomatic discourse is intervention. For that matter, so is trade.

- Yeah... and?

You made a rather bleak blanket statement that I felt did not apply and was rather foolish. Your backing away from that language in no way ennobles your statement. Pride and Ignorance are not synonomous, nor can your statement about "picking any emotion" be seen in any other light. Your outlook on the future and humanity appears to be quite bleak, and I find that to be most unfortunate.

- Everything could change if Taiwan procedes with its
- current political activities. The world's worst
- wars have started over seemingly inconsequential
- events. I am not sure about the improving relations
- between China and the US. The US is sore about the
- exchange rate between the yuen and the dollar, the
- Chinese are sore about Bush's new tarriffs. All
- this notwithstanding the souring relations with
- Europe over steel tariffs and the sanctions Europe
- is threatening the US with in response.

Taiwan is no closer to declaring independence today than they ever were. Nor is China any closer to being able to stage a successful invasion of Taiwan. Nor would such a conflict be likely to devolve into a nuclear exchange. The US and China are becoming much closer, and the Chinese are doinga number of things internally to open up and improve relations. Europe is not relevant to the doomsday scenario you are clinging to.

- Geist I'm now offering subscriptions at only $49 a
- year. Thats well below the current newstand price.
- Are you sure you won't change your mind?

Positive, thanks. I can buy a volume of Talmud for that price, and that would actually be both useful and interesting. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"A person should not choose the form in which he wishes to perform the service of the Lord, but he should perform it in any manner the opportunity affords. He should be like a vessel into which anything may be poured - wine, milk, or water."

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 10:06 AM
Alright guys, I deem friday to be national burn France's flag day. Everyone go out and buy a French flag and burn it in the street! Woot!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
11-27-2003, 03:01 PM
MDS_Geist wrote:
-
- It really isn't that hard. If you charge a police
- line, you're attacking them. If a police officer
- sharges you, then you're being attacked. The fact
- that you're even asking this question is somewhat
- absurb and seems to indicate an attempt to introduce
- some form of reletivism isnto the equation. That is
- simply inappropriate. Protests should not be
- intereactive with the police, since they are there
- for the safety of both the protestors and the
- municipality. Should the protestors become violent,
- then they have abrogated their right to protest.

In reference to your police debate:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/local/7363249.htm
Sometimes it takes a third party to determine the answers you find so obvious Geist.


- And that's simply not how the world works,
- particularly with how so many markets are
- intertwined. Since there are always at least two
- parties involved in any such affair, any
- international realtions issue will by its very
- nature be interventionist. To be at the state you
- are proposing would require isolationism.
-
And here you are tripping over MNG's idea of an economic utopia (governments should never interfere with 'free trade', no tariffs, no protectionism, etc) and has nothing to do with a national policy of so-called 'isolationism' except in so far as the latter negates the former. Ergo, governments should not intervene except to establish trade relations, and even then only to recognize a given party's participation. Just an ideal.

And for absolutely no reason whatever except I found the article interesting at the very least, an example of government priceing policies:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1093319,00.html

I think MNG is libertarian at heart, and far from a bleeding heart liberal. SHould the government... NO!.. okay but how about... NO!

Oh yeah, have a Happy Thanksgiving everyone! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-30-2003, 05:19 AM
MDS_Geist wrote:
-
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-- Who determines this difference?
-
- It really isn't that hard. If you charge a police
- line, you're attacking them. If a police officer
- sharges you, then you're being attacked. The fact
- that you're even asking this question is somewhat
- absurb and seems to indicate an attempt to introduce
- some form of reletivism isnto the equation. Should the protestors become violent,
- then they have abrogated their right to protest.

You always assume the worst of me Geist. I am far from a relativist. My point is this: if the protesters are attacked by the police presumably you would agree that they have a a right of self-defence. However, in the eyes of the State they would have no such right. In the eyes of the State, regardless of whether there is any justification under natural law the protesters are always under-taking a criminal act by attack the police, even in manifest self-defence.
-
- And that's simply not how the world works,
- particularly with how so many markets are
- intertwined. Since there are always at least two
- parties involved in any such affair, any
- international realtions issue will by its very
- nature be interventionist. To be at the state you
- are proposing would require isolationism.

Not so. You are confusing an act of the State (isolationism, interventionism etc.) with an act of the individual (free trade). Perhaps that is my fault for not making it clear. True, the world does not work that way anymore but to my determination that is the optimal state of affairs for promoting continued and stable human prosperity.
-
-
-- Political non-interventionism means no interference
-- in other sovereign nations, whether military,
-- economical or otherwise.
-
- Which would equate to isolationism and the severing
- of diplomatic ties. By its very nature, diplomatic
- discourse is intervention. For that matter, so is
- trade.

No I mean invasive violent interventions such as war, sanctions, blockades etc. This is what I mean by interventionism - to influence a political outcome in another sovereign nation.
-
-- Yeah... and?
-
- You made a rather bleak blanket statement that I
- felt did not apply and was rather foolish. Your
- backing away from that language in no way ennobles
- your statement. Pride and Ignorance are not
- synonomous, nor can your statement about "picking
- any emotion" be seen in any other light.

Yes but sir, I was not the one who said "ignorance", it was you. And I must reiterate, I am not married to the word "pride", so please lets not continue with this discussion.

- Taiwan is no closer to declaring independence today
- than they ever were. Nor is China any closer to
- being able to stage a successful invasion of Taiwan.
- Nor would such a conflict be likely to devolve into
- a nuclear exchange. The US and China are becoming
- much closer, and the Chinese are doinga number of
- things internally to open up and improve relations.
- Europe is not relevant to the doomsday scenario you
- are clinging to.

If you say so. I am not so comfortable with the wisdom of our leaders.
-
-- Geist I'm now offering subscriptions at only $49 a
-- year. Thats well below the current newstand price.
-- Are you sure you won't change your mind?
-
- Positive, thanks. I can buy a volume of Talmud for
- that price, and that would actually be both useful
- and interesting.

Yes but you probably already own a copy, Geist. Wouldn't you find Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation far more exciting? I have a copy sitting here one my desk that I am sure will enthrall you... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." - Martin Niemoller, written in 1945 after he was freed from Dachau. <font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 07:17 AM
Please Gandalf, do yourself a favor and never read anything printed by the Miami Herald ever again! That's my local newspaper and they are a poor excuse for journalism, in fact, most of their stuff is chock full of grammatical and spelling errors. Really really simply things. Civilian review boards is the dumbest idea because they have absolutely no idea how things really are. They judge all circumstances from a subjective point of view and don't realize that people behave and do different things when around police officers.

This whole FTAA crap is a joke, I saw it myself, all those people who are claiming to have been "brutalized" by the police staged it. I explained it before, they have nice and neat lines of people who would rush the police and force the police to defend themselves and try to keep this group of rushing *******es from getting through while right behind them is a nice and neat line of people with video cameras taping it to seem like the police are the ones that rushed the crowd, it's a bunch of crap. If anyone believes the crap they say, they are incredibly gullible, naive and stupid, sorry.

<hr>
--"General Hammond, request permission to beat the crap out of this man." -Col. Jack O'Neill -Stargate SG-1
--Capt. Carter: "You think it might be a booby trap?"
Teal'c: "Booby?"
--"I'm a bomb technician, if you see me running, try to catch up" -in Russian on a bomb tech's shirt from "The Sum of All Fears"
--"All my life, I've been waiting for someone and when I find her, she's a fish!" -Tom Hanks "Splash"
--"War is not about who's right, it's about who's left." -Anders Russell

XyZspineZyX
12-01-2003, 06:24 PM
Demon_Mustang wrote:
- Please Gandalf, do yourself a favor and never read
- anything printed by the Miami Herald ever again!
- That's my local newspaper...

Ah so we are yet one step closer to figuring out who you really are. Time to track down all the Asian Mustang owners in Miami...



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." - Martin Niemoller, written in 1945 after he was freed from Dachau. <font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>


Message Edited on 12/01/0312:25PM by MisterNiceGuy

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 04:28 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- You always assume the worst of me Geist. I am far
- from a relativist.

Far from it. I generally avoid making any such assumptions. I can only respond to what I read.

- My point is this: if the
- protesters are attacked by the police presumably you
- would agree that they have a a right of
- self-defence. However, in the eyes of the State
- they would have no such right. In the eyes of the
- State, regardless of whether there is any
- justification under natural law the protesters are
- always under-taking a criminal act by attack the
- police, even in manifest self-defence.

Except that neither you nor anyone else have been able to prove that anyone was attacked by the police. We're a long way from Alabama here. Police do not go out and attack people en masse, and certainly not in front of the media - their bosses want to keep their jobs if you want to look at it cynically.

Should the protestors fail to obey a lawful order to disperse or move, then they are in violation of the law and must pay the consequences. Resisting arrest is not only one of the less intelligent things to do, but a cracked skull is a high price to pay.

- Not so. You are confusing an act of the State
- (isolationism, interventionism etc.) with an act of
- the individual (free trade). Perhaps that is my
- fault for not making it clear.

Trade is regulated. And it is regulated by national entities. To suggest that it exists outside of such limitations is not realistic or accurate.

- True, the world does
- not work that way anymore but to my determination
- that is the optimal state of affairs for promoting
- continued and stable human prosperity.

That's nice that you believe in the libertarian ideal. However, for such an "optimal state" to exist there would have to be a rather remarkable set of circumstances that are unlikely to occur in the near future. As such, let's deal with reality.

- No I mean invasive violent interventions such as
- war, sanctions, blockades etc. This is what I mean
- by interventionism - to influence a political
- outcome in another sovereign nation.

Don't kid yourself. Trade is a battlefield as much as any other. Btw, a blockade is not necessarily a violent intervention. However, to start a run on the Yuan would be a hostile act and could reasonably be considered to be a precursor to war.

- Yes but sir, I was not the one who said "ignorance",
- it was you. And I must reiterate, I am not married
- to the word "pride", so please lets not continue
- with this discussion.

There is not much of a discussion. You are presenting a pessimisitic outlook that I refuse to accept as having a reasonable basis in reality.

- If you say so. I am not so comfortable with the
- wisdom of our leaders.

It has very little to do with the wisdom or lack thereof of any leader. It has far more to do with dealing with the reality of the situation. Referring to Taiwan, China is not capable of taking Taiwan and is not likely to have the capability to do so at any near point in the future.

- Yes but you probably already own a copy, Geist.

Of the whole Talmud? Only in electronic form, and that is hardly the same thing. I do have a number of individuals volumes, but not an entire Shas - they can be quite expensive for a good set.

- Wouldn't you find Schopenhauer's The World as
- Will and Representation far more exciting? I
- have a copy sitting here one my desk that I am sure
- will enthrall you...

I'll have to get back to you after I finish my finals.

"A person should not choose the form in which he wishes to perform the service of the Lord, but he should perform it in any manner the opportunity affords. He should be like a vessel into which anything may be poured - wine, milk, or water."

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 05:39 AM
Wow MNG< I think it's been long established that I live/work in the Miami/Greater Hollywood area... OH well, I'll pretend it was a secret and you have just discovered something. You should work for CNN! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

hehe, j/k man. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<hr>
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism, and they will follow that path all the way to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." - George W. Bush (09-20-2001)

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 03:02 PM
What part of Miami you from? I lived on the Coast of Miami for a year or so, before moving up to Tampa (clearwater Beach), then Orlando (Kissimmee (sp?)) before finally moving back to London.

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 09:03 PM
I'm actually north of Miami, south of Fort Lauderdale, but I am frequently in Miami, whether it's for business or pleasure, I have many friends from Miami that I visit often.

<hr>
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism, and they will follow that path all the way to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." - George W. Bush (09-20-2001)

XyZspineZyX
12-09-2003, 05:50 AM
MDS_Geist wrote:
-- My point is this: if the
-- protesters are attacked by the police presumably you
-- would agree that they have a a right of
-- self-defence. However, in the eyes of the State
-- they would have no such right. In the eyes of the
-- State, regardless of whether there is any
-- justification under natural law the protesters are
-- always under-taking a criminal act by attack the
-- police, even in manifest self-defence.
-
- Except that neither you nor anyone else have been
- able to prove that anyone was attacked by the
- police. We're a long way from Alabama here. Police
- do not go out and attack people en masse, and
- certainly not in front of the media - their bosses
- want to keep their jobs if you want to look at it
- cynically.

Well lets not mention that Cincinatti beating... But I am not trying to prove that the protesters were attacked by the police. I am saying that since the State owns the courts and the police, any violent action taken by protesters against agents of the State will be considered unjustified and criminal. The State is not subject to the law unlike its subjects. It does not matter if pure logic can demonstrate that the action of the protesters is ethically just.
-
-- Not so. You are confusing an act of the State
-- (isolationism, interventionism etc.) with an act of
-- the individual (free trade). Perhaps that is my
-- fault for not making it clear.
-
- Trade is regulated. And it is regulated by national
- entities. To suggest that it exists outside of such
- limitations is not realistic or accurate.

Well... it does. Free trade does not require the hand of the State.
-
-- True, the world does
-- not work that way anymore but to my determination
-- that is the optimal state of affairs for promoting
-- continued and stable human prosperity.
-
- That's nice that you believe in the libertarian
- ideal. However, for such an "optimal state" to
- exist there would have to be a rather remarkable set
- of circumstances that are unlikely to occur in the
- near future. As such, let's deal with reality.

What is real? It is real that trade is far more controlled and regulated than ever before in human history. Two hundred years ago, the Founding Fathers would scoff if you told them that in the 21st Century trade would be centrally (mis)managed the way it is today. Furthermore, simply because something is "unlikely" or difficult does not mean it is impossible or unrealistic. Human civilizations most significant advances have developed under the most oppressive circumstances. Compared to Copernicus and Galileo I would say we have it quite easy, wouldn't you?

Optimal means an ideal we should move towards Geist. We may not ever reach this goal but does that mean we should give up? We have two directions to move in Geist, Socialism or Capitalism, which would you rather?
-
-- No I mean invasive violent interventions such as
-- war, sanctions, blockades etc. This is what I mean
-- by interventionism - to influence a political
-- outcome in another sovereign nation.
-
- Don't kid yourself. Trade is a battlefield as much
- as any other. Btw, a blockade is not necessarily a
- violent intervention. However, to start a run on
- the Yuan would be a hostile act and could reasonably
- be considered to be a precursor to war.

Absurd. Trade is not a battefield unless the State gets involved. A blockade is a violent act because it is backed-up by guns. Starting a run on a currency is not a hostile act regardless of whether it leads to war (but you have proven my point about violent intervention here). Individuals are free to sell their property - if that means selling dollars en masse then the consequences are due to the Fed not the Chinese government.

- It has very little to do with the wisdom or lack
- thereof of any leader. It has far more to do with
- dealing with the reality of the situation.
- Referring to Taiwan, China is not capable of taking
- Taiwan and is not likely to have the capability to
- do so at any near point in the future.

Not the point. The lack of capability to pacify a foreign nation has not stopped the US, why would it stop the Chinese?
-
- I'll have to get back to you after I finish my
- finals.

Good luck!

http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." - Martin Niemoller, written in 1945 after he was freed from Dachau. <font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
12-09-2003, 06:00 AM
I don't know how you can argue about protestor violence. The cops, at least now, not talking about during the civil rights movements or anything, don't usually initiate any kind of brutality like they try to make it look like. Everytime you see the police using any kind of force, trust me, the protestors did more than enough to provoke it. And that's what really matters, who is on the offense, and who is simply defending themselves, but people have a tendancy to distrust the police and would give the protestors the benefit of the doubt, but I've personally seen these demonstrations, so I'm not fooled by CNN's reporting techniques.

<hr>
"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism, and totalitarianism, and they will follow that path all the way to where it ends: in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies." - George W. Bush (09-20-2001)

XyZspineZyX
12-09-2003, 07:03 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- Well lets not mention that Cincinatti beating...

How is that in any way relevant here? It is a wholly different scenario that has no bearing.

- But I am not trying to prove that the protesters
- were attacked by the police. I am saying that since
- the State owns the courts and the police, any
- violent action taken by protesters against agents of
- the State will be considered unjustified and
- criminal. The State is not subject to the law
- unlike its subjects. It does not matter if pure
- logic can demonstrate that the action of the
- protesters is ethically just.

Action taken against agents of the state is usually criminal unless it can be lawfully justified. The US is a nation ruled by law and that does include the state itself.

- Well... it does. Free trade does not require the
- hand of the State.

"Free trade" on a very limited scale does not require the hand of the state. Anytime it crosses national or even many internal boundaries it most certainly does involve the state.

- What is real?

Do you really want to get into a discussion of reality here?

- It is real that trade is far more
- controlled and regulated than ever before in human
- history.

That is correct. As such, trade is regulated and "free trade" does involve national entities who have interest in such affairs.

- Two hundred years ago, the Founding
- Fathers would scoff if you told them that in the
- 21st Century trade would be centrally (mis)managed
- the way it is today.

They also would scoff at the notion of 25,000 pounds of metal carrying 200 people through the sky. Things change - adapt or die.

- Furthermore, simply because
- something is "unlikely" or difficult does not mean
- it is impossible or unrealistic.

Again, you're interesting in pursuing a Libertarian ideal that does not currently exist. Until such time as this is feasible, it is irrelevant. If you really want that type of life, I would suggest a Kibbutz.

- Human civilizations most significant advances have
- developed under the most oppressive circumstances.
- Compared to Copernicus and Galileo I would say we
- have it quite easy, wouldn't you?

That's a faulty comparisson. There is a difference between challenging fundamental ideas regarding the natural world and discussing alterations to existing systems of commerce. The former involves a shift in thinking, but not necessarily one that involves significant action or inconvenience on your part. The latter involves literally world-altering changes that could cause a great deal of chaos and harm.

- Optimal means an ideal we should move towards Geist.
- We may not ever reach this goal but does that mean
- we should give up? We have two directions to move
- in Geist, Socialism or Capitalism, which would you
- rather?

There are more than two directions to move in, and socialism is only effective when there is no greed involved and all people involved have complete "buy-in." Again, I'd suggest a kibbutz. That is the only place this works for a very simple reason - everyone there has chosen to live there in that society.

- Absurd. Trade is not a battefield unless the State
- gets involved. A blockade is a violent act because
- it is backed-up by guns. Starting a run on a
- currency is not a hostile act regardless of whether
- it leads to war (but you have proven my point about
- violent intervention here). Individuals are free to
- sell their property - if that means selling dollars
- en masse then the consequences are due to the Fed
- not the Chinese government.

Hardly. Trade is most certainly a battlefield, it simply involves far less blood. Intentionally starting a run on currency is most certainly a hostile act that is designed to weaken your opponent. To start a full run on the Yuan for example would involve the complicity of at least one US government agency and could therefore be considered an overtly hostile act by the Chinese. By the same token, flooding a market with cheap pirate products is also a hostile act in a trade war. Just because no one gets shot doesn't make it any less of a battlefield.

- Not the point. The lack of capability to pacify a
- foreign nation has not stopped the US, why would it
- stop the Chinese?

Again, apples and oranges. There is no nation that the US is not capable of "pacifying" given the political will to do so. We simply have that capability. The Chinese are unable to take Taiwan intact. The fact that there is usually at least one US Navy warship tied up in the harbor there doesn't make it any easier for them. China wants Taiwan intact and in unable to take it.

- Good luck!
-
Thanks. And here I am posting rather than writing ten more pages of Biblical criticism and preparing a presentation for tomorrow. Oh wait, now it's for today. But like Ferris Bueller said: "there's a kind of freedom in being completely screwed." Boy, do I feel free right now!

"A person should not choose the form in which he wishes to perform the service of the Lord, but he should perform it in any manner the opportunity affords. He should be like a vessel into which anything may be poured - wine, milk, or water."

XyZspineZyX
12-09-2003, 03:49 PM
MDS_Geist wrote:
And here I am posting rather than writing
- ten more pages of Biblical criticism and preparing a
- presentation for tomorrow.

Biblical criticism?
Like a book review?
Just for fun, make your intro sentence something like: "Whomever wrote this crap..." or "Clearly a freshman effort by the author(s)..."

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Just a little humor there Geist. Very little? Then all's good!
Audiences like a little humor at the bigging of a tedious...er, that is, "thorough" presentation of that nature. Give it a whirl, let us know how it goes/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-09-2003, 04:17 PM
Gandalf_is_dead wrote:
- Biblical criticism?
- Like a book review?

Something like that. It involves reviewing parts of the two dozen books on and around my desk at the moment and turning them into some form of coherent and theoretically well-written work by around noon or so. That should give me about three hours to prepare a presentation for the same class on a wholly different topic.

- Just for fun, make your intro sentence something
- like: "Whomever wrote this crap..." or "Clearly a
- freshman effort by the author(s)..."

You know, the thought had occured to me. And since it is a class on critical biblical historiagraphy I can do that. Actually I do critique the author's (or really the editor's) choices in a few places.

- Just a little humor there Geist. Very little? Then
- all's good!

Humor is good, we like it. Of course, when the lightning bolts begin to fry you, well... Heck, just ask Jim Cavezio how much fun it is to get hit by lighting. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

- Audiences like a little humor at the bigging of a
- tedious...er, that is, "thorough" presentation of
- that nature. Give it a whirl, let us know how it
- goes

The hell with humour. I'm bringing scotch.

No, I'm not kidding. We have six presentations today and twelve next week. Lucky me for having to give both my paper and presentation on the same day. Right about now I should be in a Biblical Grammar review. Oops.

"A person should not choose the form in which he wishes to perform the service of the Lord, but he should perform it in any manner the opportunity affords. He should be like a vessel into which anything may be poured - wine, milk, or water."

XyZspineZyX
12-10-2003, 05:23 AM
MDS_Geist wrote:

- Action taken against agents of the state is usually
- criminal unless it can be lawfully justified. The
- US is a nation ruled by law and that does include
- the state itself.

Exactly. Ruled by law instead of rule of law. It is not a stretch of the imagination to suppose that the owner of the legal system is favoured by such system.
-
- "Free trade" on a very limited scale does not
- require the hand of the state. Anytime it crosses
- national or even many internal boundaries it most
- certainly does involve the state.

I do not dispute this. My stance is that the State's involvement is undesirable. It results in the benefit of narrow special interests (i.e. steel industry) at the expense of the population.
-
-- What is real?
-
- Do you really want to get into a discussion of
- reality here?

No. But you are the one who invoked "reality" to imply that my arguments were somehow invalid.
-
-- Two hundred years ago, the Founding
-- Fathers would scoff if you told them that in the
-- 21st Century trade would be centrally (mis)managed
-- the way it is today.
-
- They also would scoff at the notion of 25,000 pounds
- of metal carrying 200 people through the sky.
- Things change - adapt or die.

Your argument appears to lack consistency. Previously you implied that since something was "unlikely" my argument was invalid. Now you imply that because something appears "unlikely" at a particular moment in time does not mean it is impossible. Exactly what is your stance Geist?

- Again, you're interesting in pursuing a Libertarian
- ideal that does not currently exist. Until such
- time as this is feasible, it is irrelevant.

Now you hop on the other foot. Democracy and Socialism were once ideals - now they exist. Corporations never used to exist. Do you suppose that our current system of political economy is economically feasible (bear in mind it has been around since about 1789) and will not collapse? Consider also, the fiat dollar has existed for 32 years and is already in serious trouble. Is a return to a gold standard completely infeasible in our lifetimes? The Euro has not been around ten years and may not last the decase.
-
-- Human civilizations most significant advances have
-- developed under the most oppressive circumstances.
-- Compared to Copernicus and Galileo I would say we
-- have it quite easy, wouldn't you?
-
- That's a faulty comparisson. There is a difference
- between challenging fundamental ideas regarding the
- natural world and discussing alterations to existing
- systems of commerce. The former involves a shift in
- thinking, but not necessarily one that involves
- significant action or inconvenience on your part.
- The latter involves literally world-altering changes
- that could cause a great deal of chaos and harm.

What's the difference? Thousands suffered and died to defeat the dogmatic religious world view. Even physical proof means nothing if no one wants to believe it. You cannot even convince most people that Einstein's relativity is true. Furthermore, you must be aware that in physics there are two contradictory theories of reality and neither one satisfactorily describes the universe. Compared to this, organizing commerce seems easy.

You also forget that the shift in thinking to a scientific worldview contributed to a collapse in our feudal god-centered system of government and has formed the (i)rational basis of authoritarian government. Science has convinced men that they can form governments that by use of mathematical models, can create an orderly happy society. It has also given them the most destructive weapons known to man so that they can purge those who disagree. No Geist, science involves more than just a shift in thinking.
-
-- Optimal means an ideal we should move towards Geist.
-- We may not ever reach this goal but does that mean
-- we should give up? We have two directions to move
-- in Geist, Socialism or Capitalism, which would you
-- rather?
-
- There are more than two directions to move in, and
- socialism is only effective when there is no greed
- involved and all people involved have complete
- "buy-in." Again, I'd suggest a kibbutz. That is the
- only place this works for a very simple reason -
- everyone there has chosen to live there in that
- society.

So why does the US work? Sure there are other options like feudalism, monarchism and tribalism but I doubt we will go back there. If you support the expansion of government you support Socialism. If you support the shrinking of government you support Capitalism. It's either one way or the other. But did I read right? You think Socialism can work in certain circumstances?
-
-- Absurd. Trade is not a battefield unless the State
-- gets involved. A blockade is a violent act because
-- it is backed-up by guns. Starting a run on a
-- currency is not a hostile act regardless of whether
-- it leads to war (but you have proven my point about
-- violent intervention here). Individuals are free to
-- sell their property - if that means selling dollars
-- en masse then the consequences are due to the Fed
-- not the Chinese government.
-
- Hardly. Trade is most certainly a battlefield, it
- simply involves far less blood. Intentionally
- starting a run on currency is most certainly a
- hostile act that is designed to weaken your
- opponent. To start a full run on the Yuan for
- example would involve the complicity of at least one
- US government agency and could therefore be
- considered an overtly hostile act by the Chinese.
- By the same token, flooding a market with cheap
- pirate products is also a hostile act in a trade
- war. Just because no one gets shot doesn't make it
- any less of a battlefield.

I think you proved my point. Trade is only a battlefield if (ignorant) governments get involved. Isn't that what you are saying? BTW the Fed is that agency you are looking for. They are the ones flooding the market with currency. Further no government can flood a market with cheap pirates. This would be the work of individuals. It is only government that considers "dumping" hostile and that uses terms like "trade war". Ever heard about Walmart starting a "trade war"? What does this tell you about Government involvement in trade?
-
-- Not the point. The lack of capability to pacify a
-- foreign nation has not stopped the US, why would it
-- stop the Chinese?
-
- Again, apples and oranges. There is no nation that
- the US is not capable of "pacifying" given the
- political will to do so. We simply have that
- capability.

The US has the capability to defeat any army. They do not have the capability to conquer a nation. The Chinese may lack the capability to defeat the US but that didn't stop the Japanese did it?
-
-- Good luck!
--
- Thanks. And here I am posting rather than writing
- ten more pages of Biblical criticism and preparing a
- presentation for tomorrow.

Oops! Better let you get back to work.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." - Martin Niemoller, written in 1945 after he was freed from Dachau. <font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
12-10-2003, 04:16 PM
You cannot even convince most people that Einstein's relativity is true.

Really, I find it amazingly easy to convince people it's true. Getting them to understand it or it's inherent contradiction with Quantum theory is another story. Most people have a harder time swallowing Quantum theory even though it appears to have a much broader impact on our daily lives. Then again, you have a hard time convincing anyone of anything. . .

<font color = "red"> "Your dungeon lies on an incline, angry creatures can not play marbles." <font color = "white">

XyZspineZyX
12-10-2003, 05:18 PM
- So why does the US work? Sure there are other
- options like feudalism, monarchism and tribalism but
- I doubt we will go back there. If you support the
- expansion of government you support Socialism. If
- you support the shrinking of government you support
- Capitalism. It's either one way or the other. But
- did I read right? You think Socialism can work in
- certain circumstances?

Sure if the whole of society jumps onboard. but it crumbles the moment someone wants something they dont need /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif damn human nature can ruin a darn good idea.


-If you support the
- expansion of government you support Socialism.

No youre a idiot. And are lazy. to many ppl are allowing the govenment to take over roles that it has no busness in doing.

-If
- you support the shrinking of government you support
- Capitalism.


I would say you suport freedom. the less the government controls the more free you become.( plz dont go into the whole anarchy debate i understand and concede to point) Those that would trade a lil freedom for conveniance or safety scare me to some extent.


never underestimate the logical power of sarcasm

I am 49 years old and havent lived a day...i am living from now on: Iraqi Citizen after fall of Bagdad

XyZspineZyX
12-11-2003, 05:12 AM
Thoramir wrote:
- You cannot even convince most people that Einstein's
- relativity is true.
-
- Really, I find it amazingly easy to convince people
- it's true.

Yes but Thor you are special. Most of us mere mortals do not possess the amazing powers of communication that you so very clearly have. Not even my physics instructor who had great difficulty simply getting people to accept its validity can hope to match your inspiring talents. You see Thor in my experience Relativity is easy to understand - it's the implications that people have trouble with. But everyone's experience is different - clearly though only your experience is the one that counts.


Message Edited on 12/10/0311:40PM by MisterNiceGuy

XyZspineZyX
12-11-2003, 05:13 AM
casauboneco wrote:
-- So why does the US work? Sure there are other
-- options like feudalism, monarchism and tribalism but
-- I doubt we will go back there. If you support the
-- expansion of government you support Socialism. If
-- you support the shrinking of government you support
-- Capitalism. It's either one way or the other. But
-- did I read right? You think Socialism can work in
-- certain circumstances?
-
- Sure if the whole of society jumps onboard. but it
- crumbles the moment someone wants something they
- dont need -
-
--If you support the
-- expansion of government you support Socialism.
-
- No youre a idiot. And are lazy. to many ppl are
- allowing the govenment to take over roles that it
- has no busness in doing.
-
--If
-- you support the shrinking of government you support
-- Capitalism.
-
-
- I would say you suport freedom. the less the
- government controls the more free you become.( plz
- dont go into the whole anarchy debate i understand
- and concede to point) Those that would trade a lil
- freedom for conveniance or safety scare me to some
- extent.

Cas I am very suspicious and somewhat afraid... are we agreeing on something?

http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." - Martin Niemoller, written in 1945 after he was freed from Dachau. <font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 05:35 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- Exactly. Ruled by law instead of rule of law. It
- is not a stretch of the imagination to suppose that
- the owner of the legal system is favoured by such
- system.

And this exactly fails to prove your point since it involves you using a "stetch of the imagination." The state is governed by its own laws. Consider the Ninth and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeal.

- I do not dispute this. My stance is that the
- State's involvement is undesirable. It results in
- the benefit of narrow special interests (i.e. steel
- industry) at the expense of the population.

You may find thet state's involvement to be "undesirable," but that does not dictate that reality warp itself in accordance with your desires. The state is is responsible to itself, however states such as the US are also accountable to their population. Your example of the steel industry fails to prove any point.

- No. But you are the one who invoked "reality" to
- imply that my arguments were somehow invalid.

I dismissed the argument you were trying to bring because it is theoretical and based on a non-existent set of circumstances. As such, it is not based in reality.

- Your argument appears to lack consistency.
- Previously you implied that since something was
- "unlikely" my argument was invalid. Now you imply
- that because something appears "unlikely" at a
- particular moment in time does not mean it is
- impossible. Exactly what is your stance Geist?

My stance on what? Your views on the anture of trade? I disagree with them because you are not dealing with the reality of the situation.

- Now you hop on the other foot. Democracy and
- Socialism were once ideals - now they exist.

Hardly. Certain forms derived from democracy do exist, and socialism only exists on kibbutzim - and I would hazard a guess that you have never spent any time on a kibbutz and can't really speak to that.

- Corporations never used to exist. Do you suppose
- that our current system of political economy is
- economically feasible (bear in mind it has been
- around since about 1789) and will not collapse?

At present, our current system is quite stable and unlikely to collapse since it is no longer based on physical objects such as gold and silver. It is based on confidence, and while that appears to be stable there is nothing to say that it could not drastically change. The plusses and minuses of the modern world.

- Consider also, the fiat dollar has existed for 32
- years and is already in serious trouble. Is a
- return to a gold standard completely infeasible in
- our lifetimes? The Euro has not been around ten
- years and may not last the decase.

Yes, a return to the gold standard is very unlikely. The fact that the euro may collapse is something wholly different, and the euro has been gaining in both strength and acceptance.

- What's the difference? Thousands suffered and died
- to defeat the dogmatic religious world view.

The difference is quite fundamental. Faith is based on the principle that you believe in something that you may not be able to prove empirically. Altering a system of commerce merely involves showing a substantial improvement over the old system. The "dogmatic religious world view" is quite alive and well - see the file marked "Saudi Arabia."

- Even physical proof means nothing if no one wants to
- believe it. You cannot even convince most people
- that Einstein's relativity is true.

That's not a very strong support for you argument since you would be hard pressed to provide me with physical proof of Einstein's theory of General Relativity. By the way, most people who are moderately familiar with it accept it, and those who are more knowledgable have been questioning it quite substantially in the last decade.

Hard evidence means a great deal, but you have to be able to present it.

- Furthermore, you must be aware that in physics there are
- two contradictory theories of reality and neither one
- satisfactorily describes the universe. Compared to
- this, organizing commerce seems easy.

I recall learning that there were more than two, but that's again not a relevant issue here. The first one you may not be able to ever prove since such Truths (capital T) may be forever beyond our understanding while the second one "simply" requires that one prove that there is a better way to do things and get buy-in from parties with sufficient power to make it happen.

- You also forget that the shift in thinking to a
- scientific worldview contributed to a collapse in
- our feudal god-centered system of government and has
- formed the (i)rational basis of authoritarian
- government.

I may be exhausted (actually, I AM exhausted) but I forget very little. The shift you are referring to had the net effect of removing the top layer of government - that being the Pope. However, it added other layers of complexity and effectively moved the church over rather than down. This could of ocurse happen again, but would require another paradigm shift.

- Science has convinced men that they can
- form governments that by use of mathematical models,
- can create an orderly happy society. It has also
- given them the most destructive weapons known to man
- so that they can purge those who disagree. No
- Geist, science involves more than just a shift in
- thinking.

Science may have convinced some people of that, but many others would use science to show the opposite. And I hate to break it to you, but scientific advances generally boil down to a paradigm shift, which is not just a shift in thinking, but a recognition of the fact that the old models must be thrown out and new ones developed.

- So why does the US work? Sure there are other
- options like feudalism, monarchism and tribalism but
- I doubt we will go back there. If you support the
- expansion of government you support Socialism. If
- you support the shrinking of government you support
- Capitalism. It's either one way or the other. But
- did I read right? You think Socialism can work in
- certain circumstances?

Do you know what a kibbutz (plural: kibbutzim) is? It's a collective farm/community in Israel. They are the ONLY working models of socialism and communism on the planet. Because everyone is there because they want to be there and has chosen that lifestyle. They work because they put the SOCIAL part first.

And no, it isn't an either/or system. The US is a republic.

- I think you proved my point. Trade is only a
- battlefield if (ignorant) governments get involved.

As someone who has been involved in more than one hostile corporate takeover - it doesn't require a government to make it a bettlefield.

- Isn't that what you are saying?

No, not at all. But it is what you are choosing to see in order to make your point. There is a reason why the majority of business schools have Sun Tzu, Machiavelli and Somtimes Musashi as required reading.

- BTW the Fed is that agency you are looking for.

Actually it is more often than not the SEC and or the FTC.

- They are the ones flooding the market with currency.

That generally is how you cause inflation, something that they try to avoid. They have actually increased their shredding of currency in the last few years.

- Further no government can flood a market with cheap
- pirates.

Hardly the case, since it is the entity that makes a decision regarding the enforcement. There is also the issue of government controlled manufacturing facilities being used to violate copyrights.

- This would be the work of individuals. It is only
- government that considers "dumping" hostile and that
- uses terms like "trade war". Ever heard about
- Walmart starting a "trade war"? What does this
- tell you about Government involvement in trade?

Ever hear about Walmart selling millions of dollars worth of pirates software? Me either. And it is isn't just governments that consider dumping to be hostile, but it is often the government that is forced to act to deal with such situations. Shorting and dumping are often the first stages of a takeover. And yes, many of them are extremely hostile.

- The US has the capability to defeat any army. They
- do not have the capability to conquer a nation. The
- Chinese may lack the capability to defeat the US but
- that didn't stop the Japanese did it?

Again, that's not a good analogy. The Japanese strategic assessment of the US forces concluded that our might was bound to our battleships and they presented the greatest threat to Japan. Frankly, they were correct at that time. They made the mistake of projecting their own tactical inflexibility onto their adversaries, not an uncommon mistake. That was also before the advent of the nuclear age.

"A person should not choose the form in which he wishes to perform the service of the Lord, but he should perform it in any manner the opportunity affords. He should be like a vessel into which anything may be poured - wine, milk, or water."

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 04:32 PM
A few minor comments if I may gents/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

MDS_Geist wrote:
- That's not a very strong support for you argument
- since you would be hard pressed to provide me with
- physical proof of Einstein's theory of General
- Relativity. By the way, most people who are
- moderately familiar with it accept it, and those who
- are more knowledgable have been questioning it quite
- substantially in the last decade.

The last decade? Surely longer than that? And what have they found Geist?
The reason I ask is that your comment seems to imply that general relativity is incorrect, when I think 'incomplete' would be more appropriate. As far as I know GR is holding up well to scientific scrutiny. Are you referring to something specific?
Which leads to the next point I wanted to comment on:

MNG wrote:
-- Furthermore, you must be aware that in physics there are
-- two contradictory theories of reality and neither one
-- satisfactorily describes the universe. Compared to
-- this, organizing commerce seems easy.
- I recall learning that there were more than two, but
- that's again not a relevant issue here.

I believe MNG is referring to (and I think Thor mentioned this somewhere) the difficulty reconciling einsteinian relativity with quantum theory: one assumes all things measurable and the other insists all things are not measurable and we can only ever know part of the properties of an object at any instance of observation (uncertainty principle for any who care to investigate further). And this is why we need big brains like Stevo Hawkings to search for the GUT. Stitch it all together. Grand unification theory, the holy grail of physics.


Okay, carry on/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
And please, for the rest of the thread, throw in some expletives, condescending tones, quips, jibes, insults, and general unpleasantness. The current line of discussion is too civil. Spice it up a bit dammit, Im trying to stay awake over here/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



http://www.speakeasy.org/~mattdp/Gandalfsig1.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 06:25 PM
Gandalf_is_dead wrote:
- The last decade? Surely longer than that? And what
- have they found Geist?

I'm frankly not knowledgable enough to say what has been "found" with any degree of certainly or enough accuracy for me to be comfortable. However, it is in the last decade when physicists have been challenging it more regularly and some of the finding have been interesting.

- The reason I ask is that your comment seems to imply
- that general relativity is incorrect, when I think
- 'incomplete' would be more appropriate. As far as I
- know GR is holding up well to scientific scrutiny.

There is no question that it is incomplete since it is not the GUT. However, there have been some finindgs from astrophysicists which would seem to indicate that the basic premise (of the speed of light as a constant) may in fact be incorrect.

- Are you referring to something specific?

The only specific I can mention is the one I just did, and I'm simply not expert or even familiar enough to talk about it with an acceptable degree of accuracy.

"A person should not choose the form in which he wishes to perform the service of the Lord, but he should perform it in any manner the opportunity affords. He should be like a vessel into which anything may be poured - wine, milk, or water."

XyZspineZyX
12-12-2003, 08:01 PM
MNG wrote:

Absurd. Trade is not a battefield unless the State gets involved. A blockade is a violent act because it is backed-up by guns. Starting a run on a currency is not a hostile act regardless of whether it leads to war (but you have proven my point about violent intervention here). Individuals are free to sell their property - if that means selling dollars en masse then the consequences are due to the Fed not the Chinese government.


Ever hear of a thing called piracy? Only occasionally (and in some quite remarkable circumstances) has it been state sponsored. It was most common when there was a complete lack of state involvement in trade.

<font color = "red"> "Your dungeon lies on an incline, angry creatures can not play marbles." <font color = "white">

XyZspineZyX
12-13-2003, 03:27 AM
Thoramir wrote:
-
-
- Ever hear of a thing called piracy? Only
- occasionally (and in some quite remarkable
- circumstances) has it been state sponsored. It was
- most common when there was a complete lack of state
- involvement in trade.

Ever hear of a thing called taxation? Think about it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." - Martin Niemoller, written in 1945 after he was freed from Dachau. <font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
12-13-2003, 04:18 AM
No Text

Message Edited on 12/13/0301:12PM by MisterNiceGuy

XyZspineZyX
12-13-2003, 07:12 PM
MDS_Geist wrote:
-
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-- Exactly. Ruled by law instead of rule of law. It
-- is not a stretch of the imagination to suppose that
-- the owner of the legal system is favoured by such
-- system.
-
- And this exactly fails to prove your point since it
- involves you using a "stetch of the imagination."
- The state is governed by its own laws. Consider the
- Ninth and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeal.

Lets consider this statement shall we? "The state is governed by its own laws". As you have indicated, the State makes the law. This is a departure from the high point of ethical philosophy during the 18th Century (RE Blackstone) wherein law was something to be discovered through logic a priori. Now the arrogance of man suggests that law is something to be created (RE Bentham). It is na¯ve to suppose the lawmaker will not favour himself in any law that he creates.
-
-- I do not dispute this. My stance is that the
-- State's involvement is undesirable. It results in
-- the benefit of narrow special interests (i.e. steel
-- industry) at the expense of the population.
-
- You may find thet state's involvement to be
- "undesirable," but that does not dictate that
- reality warp itself in accordance with your desires.
- The state is is responsible to itself, however
- states such as the US are also accountable to their
- population. Your example of the steel industry
- fails to prove any point.

Lets not be pedantic shall we Geist? You can tell clearly from the context in which I used the word "undesirable" that I was not attaching personal feelings to my argument. So please lets not waste anymore time on semantics.

Let me expand on the steel industry. There is no net gain to the economy at large by resorting to protectionism. This is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Placing tariffs on cheaper foreign products raises the domestic price to domestic consumers. Further, it harms domestic import companies and every company that uses steel. The only party to gain at the expense of all of these others is the domestic steel industry. There is no economic analysis that can be conducted to rationally support protectionism. This is basic economics 101.

Only baseless political arguments can be raised in support of protectionism. The steel industry has a powerful lobby which can be exploited for votes by an unscrupulous politician who claims he is "saving American jobs from being shipped abroad".

- I dismissed the argument you were trying to bring
- because it is theoretical and based on a
- non-existent set of circumstances. As such, it is
- not based in reality.

Well then let me point out that gravity is merely a theory and judging by your argument is not based in reality.
-
-- Now you hop on the other foot. Democracy and
-- Socialism were once ideals - now they exist.
-
- Hardly. Certain forms derived from democracy do
- exist, and socialism only exists on kibbutzim - and
- I would hazard a guess that you have never spent any
- time on a kibbutz and can't really speak to that.

I am confused. Socialism has existed for decades in countries like Russia, China, Cuba, Nazi Germany, etc. Socialism has existed many places other than kibbutzim (no I have no idea what one is) but your suggestion that that kibbutzim are socialist confuses me further. I am obviously making an libertarian argument - why on earth would you suggest I should move to a kibbutz?
-
-- Corporations never used to exist. Do you suppose
-- that our current system of political economy is
-- economically feasible (bear in mind it has been
-- around since about 1789) and will not collapse?
-
- At present, our current system is quite stable and
- unlikely to collapse since it is no longer based on
- physical objects such as gold and silver. It is
- based on confidence, and while that appears to be
- stable there is nothing to say that it could not
- drastically change. The plusses and minuses of the
- modern world.

Interesting. The last person I saw contradict himself in the same sentence twice in a row was Evander Holyfield after his first fight with Lennox Lewis - Evander wasn't feeling very well.

The reason our current system is doomed to collapse is precisely because it is based on a fiat currency (instead of gold) and because it is based on confidence instead of substance.
- Yes, a return to the gold standard is very unlikely.
- The fact that the euro may collapse is something
- wholly different, and the euro has been gaining in
- both strength and acceptance.

The Euro's relative strength is merely an accident of the fact that Greenspan is destroying the purchasing power of the dollar. The Euro is on shaky ground a) because it is a fiat currency and b) the lack of budgetary restraint by France and Germany.
-
-
-- What's the difference? Thousands suffered and died
-- to defeat the dogmatic religious world view.
-
- The difference is quite fundamental. Faith is based
- on the principle that you believe in something that
- you may not be able to prove empirically. Altering
- a system of commerce merely involves showing a
- substantial improvement over the old system. The
- "dogmatic religious world view" is quite alive and
- well - see the file marked "Saudi Arabia."

Pedantic semantics again. I am [still] obviously referring to Western Civilization
-
-- Even physical proof means nothing if no one wants to
-- believe it. You cannot even convince most people
-- that Einstein's relativity is true.
-
- That's not a very strong support for you argument
- since you would be hard pressed to provide me with
- physical proof of Einstein's theory of General
- Relativity. By the way, most people who are
- moderately familiar with it accept it, and those who
- are more knowledgable have been questioning it quite
- substantially in the last decade.

"Most people"? Or "most people" you know? Furthermore, you are contradicting yourself again. You suggested before that because something is theoretical and not empirical it is invalid. Now here you are suggesting just the opposite and at the same time completely misunderstanding the point I just made. That is, physical proof cannot prove the validity of a theory, only a hypothesis. Meaning that your argument that my theory is invalid because it is not based on "reality" is meaningless.

-- Science has convinced men that they can
-- form governments that by use of mathematical models,
-- can create an orderly happy society. It has also
-- given them the most destructive weapons known to man
-- so that they can purge those who disagree. No
-- Geist, science involves more than just a shift in
-- thinking.
-
- Science may have convinced some people of that, but
- many others would use science to show the opposite.
- And I hate to break it to you, but scientific
- advances generally boil down to a paradigm shift,
- which is not just a shift in thinking, but a
- recognition of the fact that the old models must be
- thrown out and new ones developed.

And why is that different for economic science?

Yes maybe today scientific advances lead to a paradigm shift, but discovering that the world involved around the sun had a slighter larger impact on Western Civ (right Gandalf?)
-
-- So why does the US work? Sure there are other
-- options like feudalism, monarchism and tribalism but
-- I doubt we will go back there. If you support the
-- expansion of government you support Socialism. If
-- you support the shrinking of government you support
-- Capitalism. It's either one way or the other. But
-- did I read right? You think Socialism can work in
-- certain circumstances?
-
- Do you know what a kibbutz (plural: kibbutzim) is?
- It's a collective farm/community in Israel. They
- are the ONLY working models of socialism and
- communism on the planet. Because everyone is there
- because they want to be there and has chosen that
- lifestyle. They work because they put the SOCIAL
- part first.

Geist I really don't care what a kibbutz is but I am sure Castro would disagree with you. And it appears that you are talking about cooperatives which may or may not be socialism - you'll need to prove that to me (OK maybe I do care what one is).
-
- And no, it isn't an either/or system. The US is a
- republic.

Scant difference. Economically it comes down to the same thing.

- As someone who has been involved in more than one
- hostile corporate takeover - it doesn't require a
- government to make it a bettlefield.

Really? So there were dead bodies strewn about?

-- BTW the Fed is that agency you are looking for.
-
- Actually it is more often than not the SEC and or
- the FTC.

No its not Geist.
-
-- They are the ones flooding the market with currency.
-
- That generally is how you cause inflation, something
- that they try to avoid. They have actually
- increased their shredding of currency in the last
- few years.

Geist, inflation has increased exponentially since the Fed's inception. Saying the Fed tries to avoid inflation is like saying the man with a flamethrower is trying to put the fire out!

- Ever hear about Walmart selling millions of dollars
- worth of pirates software? Me either.

Geist walk down a busy street in Manhattan -you find lots of street vendors selling pirates. You won't find any hostile governments though.

And it is
- isn't just governments that consider dumping to be
- hostile, but it is often the government that is
- forced to act to deal with such situations.
- Shorting and dumping are often the first stages of a
- takeover. And yes, many of them are extremely
- hostile.

Geist, this has nothing to do with the market for corporate control. You must really be exhausted.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." - Martin Niemoller, written in 1945 after he was freed from Dachau. <font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." - Martin Niemoller, written in 1945 after he was freed from Dachau. <font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
12-14-2003, 01:34 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- Lets consider this statement shall we? "The state is
- governed by its own laws". As you have indicated,
- the State makes the law.

The state is bound by the laws. No one is above them. It really isn't that difficult a concept to grasp.

- This is a departure from
- the high point of ethical philosophy during the 18th
- Century (RE Blackstone) wherein law was something to
- be discovered through logic a priori. Now the
- arrogance of man suggests that law is something to
- be created (RE Bentham).

The "arrogance of man?" Nice to know that you're stepping into misantrophy here, but it's really a rather silly statement. Laws are something that we create, just as we do with social contracts. There are no "natural laws" as Locke posits.

- It is na¯ve to suppose the
- lawmaker will not favour himself in any law that he
- creates.

And it is pessimistic and counter productive to always look for the worst in every situation. The state is governed by the laws that you would like to think favor them. If you always go out of your way to look for the worst in human nature, you'll find it.

- Lets not be pedantic shall we Geist?

Not a problem. You first.

- You can tell
- clearly from the context in which I used the word
- "undesirable" that I was not attaching personal
- feelings to my argument. So please lets not waste
- anymore time on semantics.

Actually no, you can't. You seem to forget that this is written text and not spoken word and therefore tone and inflection are not conveyed. If I could "tell clearly" I wouldn't have made the comment. If you think it's a waste of time, then don't reply - but precision in language is important.

- Let me expand on the steel industry. There is no
- net gain to the economy at large by resorting to
- protectionism. This is cutting off your nose to
- spite your face. Placing tariffs on cheaper foreign
- products raises the domestic price to domestic
- consumers. Further, it harms domestic import
- companies and every company that uses steel. The
- only party to gain at the expense of all of these
- others is the domestic steel industry. There is no
- economic analysis that can be conducted to
- rationally support protectionism. This is basic
- economics 101.

I don't have an economics degree, but there are several problems with your statement. However, I have no interest in addressing any of them since it still fails to make your comment relevant.

- Only baseless political arguments can be raised in
- support of protectionism. The steel industry has a
- powerful lobby which can be exploited for votes by
- an unscrupulous politician who claims he is "saving
- American jobs from being shipped abroad".

Thanks for the editorializing, but it fails to make your argument any stronger or more moving. Your point of view is quite clear.

- Well then let me point out that gravity is merely a
- theory and judging by your argument is not based in
- reality.

Really? So why exactly are you still sitting and not being thrown into space by the rotation of the earth? Gravity is quite real.

- I am confused. Socialism has existed for decades in
- countries like Russia, China, Cuba, Nazi Germany,
- etc. Socialism has existed many places other than
- kibbutzim (no I have no idea what one is) but your
- suggestion that that kibbutzim are socialist
- confuses me further. I am obviously making an
- libertarian argument - why on earth would you
- suggest I should move to a kibbutz?

Yes, it is quite clear that you are a libertarian. However, you claim that there are only two options and that is simply incorrect. Furthermore those countries are not true socialist countries any more than the West is composed of true democracies. Russia and China are oligarchies, while Cuba and Nazi Germany were dictatorships. The only place where you will find true socialism is on a kibbutz - which is also the only place that a socialist model, such as the ones claimed by the countries you named, actually works.

- Interesting. The last person I saw contradict
- himself in the same sentence twice in a row was
- Evander Holyfield after his first fight with Lennox
- Lewis - Evander wasn't feeling very well.

You seem to be having diffucltiy with terms such as "unlikely" and "appears." Unlike some others, I will not make absolute statements that I cannot prove, such as claiming that something is "doomed to collapse"

- The reason our current system is doomed to collapse
- is precisely because it is based on a fiat currency
- (instead of gold) and because it is based on
- confidence instead of substance.

And since our current system of government is quite stable and unlikely to collapse, such doomsaying is both imprudent and silly.

- The Euro's relative strength is merely an accident
- of the fact that Greenspan is destroying the
- purchasing power of the dollar. The Euro is on
- shaky ground a) because it is a fiat currency and b)
- the lack of budgetary restraint by France and
- Germany.

Your dislike of fiat currency is so noted, as is your opinion on this matter. However, there are other factors as well such as the fact that irrelevant of Greenspan and your dislike of him is the simple issue of what had appeared to be until today a strengthening European Union.

- Pedantic semantics again. I am [still] obviously
- referring to Western Civilization

Again, if it were "obvious" I would not have said anything. Get it through your head - I'm only responding to what you write. The fact that you do not like it should simply encourage you to be more precise and specific in the future.

- "Most people"? Or "most people" you know?

True, this is an anecdotal statment. Can you prove otherwise?

- Furthermore, you are contradicting yourself again.
- You suggested before that because something is
- theoretical and not empirical it is invalid.

You're really not seeming to get this, but that is probably my fault for not being more precise. Your arguments certainly do not equate to Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Furthermore, do you have proof in either direction?

- Now here you are suggesting just the opposite and at the
- same time completely misunderstanding the point I
- just made. That is, physical proof cannot prove the
- validity of a theory, only a hypothesis. Meaning
- that your argument that my theory is invalid because
- it is not based on "reality" is meaningless.

No, that is quite incorrect. Your ideas are invalid because they are dependent on a set of circumstances that do not exist. Now, if you can prove that the speed of light is in fact not a constant, as has been suggested, then Einstein's theory of General Relativity ceases to be "general" and is limited to a more specific set of circumstances that may not exist. So too it is with your conception of economic models based on conditions that do not exist.

- And why is that different for economic science?

And your point is what exactly? You have not yet offered a theory, just written about what you would like ot see happen.

- Yes maybe today scientific advances lead to a
- paradigm shift, but discovering that the world
- involved around the sun had a slighter larger impact
- on Western Civ (right Gandalf?)

You do know what a paradigm shift is do you not? That is a paradigm shift.

- Geist I really don't care what a kibbutz is but I am
- sure Castro would disagree with you. And it appears
- that you are talking about cooperatives which may or
- may not be socialism - you'll need to prove that to
- me (OK maybe I do care what one is).

Then stop talking about socialism if you have no idea what it is. Cuba is not a socialist country but a dictatorship. I've never met Castro (which is a good thing since I really don't like the smell of cigar smoke), and whether or not he would disagree is irrelevant - anyone who disagrees with him has a tendency to disappear. That's not how socialism is supposed to work.

- Scant difference. Economically it comes down to the
- same thing.

Then you really need to specify what you mean. And no, a republic operates differently from a democracy - it has a great deal to do with the political model.

- Really? So there were dead bodies strewn about?

Being deliberately obtuse doesn't serve anyone. However, someone blowing his brains out in a car is just as dead because someone else blew them out.

- No its not Geist.

Actually yes it is in reference to corporate takeovers and hostile moves on a fairly large scale. The fact that you seem to prefer to demonize the Fed and its chairman does not cause the laws to indicate that.

- Geist, inflation has increased exponentially since
- the Fed's inception. Saying the Fed tries to avoid
- inflation is like saying the man with a flamethrower
- is trying to put the fire out!

That's a really nice attempt at analogy. However, do you know that 98% of the people who get cancer wear shoes? And what does that prove? Once again, a simple correlation does not indicate causality.

- Geist walk down a busy street in Manhattan -you find
- lots of street vendors selling pirates. You won't
- find any hostile governments though.

As someone who walks down the busy streets in Manhattan quite often, I can also assure you that you also often see those same "pirates" being arrested. By the way, you're somewhat behind the times - most of those vendors are selling legitimate products.

- Geist, this has nothing to do with the market for
- corporate control. You must really be exhausted.

I'm well beyond exhausted, but you have taken the discussion quite far afield. Now that you attempt to limit it because it is either out of your realm of understanding or because you don't like it is rather pointless. And it has a great deal to do with the "market for corporate control" since a run on currency can be set off by the actions of a company.

"A person should not choose the form in which he wishes to perform the service of the Lord, but he should perform it in any manner the opportunity affords. He should be like a vessel into which anything may be poured - wine, milk, or water."

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 05:54 AM
MDS_Geist wrote:
- The state is bound by the laws. No one is above
- them. It really isn't that difficult a concept to
- grasp.

Really? The state outlaws murder and theft and then commits murder (war) and theft (taxation) on a grand scale. Bound by the law? Only the law of might my friend. State laws can only be broken by the individual, not by the State.
-
- The "arrogance of man?" Nice to know that you're
- stepping into misantrophy here, but it's really a
- rather silly statement. Laws are something that we
- create, just as we do with social contracts. There
- are no "natural laws" as Locke posits.

You don't really know what "natural law" is, do you?
-
-- Let me expand on the steel industry. There is no
-- net gain to the economy at large by resorting to
-- protectionism. This is cutting off your nose to
-- spite your face. Placing tariffs on cheaper foreign
-- products raises the domestic price to domestic
-- consumers. Further, it harms domestic import
-- companies and every company that uses steel. The
-- only party to gain at the expense of all of these
-- others is the domestic steel industry. There is no
-- economic analysis that can be conducted to
-- rationally support protectionism. This is basic
-- economics 101.
-
- I don't have an economics degree, but there are
- several problems with your statement. However, I
- have no interest in addressing any of them since it
- still fails to make your comment relevant.

Oh really? Do tell!
-
-- Only baseless political arguments can be raised in
-- support of protectionism. The steel industry has a
-- powerful lobby which can be exploited for votes by
-- an unscrupulous politician who claims he is "saving
-- American jobs from being shipped abroad".
-
- Thanks for the editorializing, but it fails to make
- your argument any stronger or more moving. Your
- point of view is quite clear.

Is that a fact? This paragraph is quite vacuous as are many of your counter-points. Care to add some substance?
-
-- Well then let me point out that gravity is merely a
-- theory and judging by your argument is not based in
-- reality.
-
- Really? So why exactly are you still sitting and
- not being thrown into space by the rotation of the
- earth? Gravity is quite real.

How do you know its gravity Geist? How do you know gravity won't suddenly stop working? "Why" is exactly the question. Gravity is merely a theory my friend.
-
- Yes, it is quite clear that you are a libertarian.
- However, you claim that there are only two options
- and that is simply incorrect. Furthermore those
- countries are not true socialist countries any more
- than the West is composed of true democracies.
- Russia and China are oligarchies, while Cuba and
- Nazi Germany were dictatorships. The only place
- where you will find true socialism is on a kibbutz -
- which is also the only place that a socialist model,
- such as the ones claimed by the countries you named,
- actually works.

I guarantee to you that kibbutz is not "true" socialism because if it was it would not work. Such is the paradox. Cuba, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, China etc. are/were based on an economic system of central planning. That is socialism Geist. You can make the argument that they were not "true" socialism to the extent that they traded with other countries or are now liberating certain parts of their economies but at the end of the day they were all self-avowed socialist countries. A socialist country can exist under an authoritarian government whether a dictatorship or a party leadership.
-
-- The reason our current system is doomed to collapse
-- is precisely because it is based on a fiat currency
-- (instead of gold) and because it is based on
-- confidence instead of substance.
-
- And since our current system of government is quite
- stable and unlikely to collapse, such doomsaying is
- both imprudent and silly.

Another vacuous statement Geist. I'll make a deal with you - you explain why I am wrong and I will write you a nice long essay explaining why fiat currencies will continue to fail in the future as they have always done in the past. Deal?
-
-- The Euro's relative strength is merely an accident
-- of the fact that Greenspan is destroying the
-- purchasing power of the dollar. The Euro is on
-- shaky ground a) because it is a fiat currency and b)
-- the lack of budgetary restraint by France and
-- Germany.
-
- Your dislike of fiat currency is so noted, as is
- your opinion on this matter. However, there are
- other factors as well such as the fact that
- irrelevant of Greenspan and your dislike of him is
- the simple issue of what had appeared to be until
- today a strengthening European Union.

Dislike of Greenspan? I have nothing against him. I'm sure he's a very charming chap once you get to know him. But my personal feelings concerning Alan have nothing to do with the economics of money or my thoughts on his monetary policy. Now what are these other factors you were talking about?

- You're really not seeming to get this, but that is
- probably my fault for not being more precise. Your
- arguments certainly do not equate to Einstein's
- theory of General Relativity. Furthermore, do you
- have proof in either direction?

That's a matter of perspective (i.e. whether "my" arguments equate to Einstein). I already told you that physical "proof" is irrelevant to logic. Economics is not a set of testable hypothesis's to be confirmed empirically any more than mathematics. Only by logic can the validity of these arguments be established.

Meaning
-- that your argument that my theory is invalid because
-- it is not based on "reality" is meaningless.
-
- No, that is quite incorrect. Your ideas are invalid
- because they are dependent on a set of circumstances
- that do not exist.

Just what "set of circumstances" are you referring to? I am referring to trade which most certainly exists. I am also referring to human action which most certainly exists.
-
-- And why is that different for economic science?
-
- And your point is what exactly? You have not yet
- offered a theory, just written about what you would
- like ot see happen.

Very rude of you to answer a question with a question. But that is the sophisticated game you play. You answer questions with questions and merely deny my arguments without making any attempt to refute them. In your world they are simply "wrong". As for offering a theory - I do not need to "offer any theory" - the theory is already there. We call it economics. It is economic theory that holds that government intervention is "undesirable" from the point of view of an efficiently working market. And this theory equates very well with any major physics theory in its importance. In any case your assertion is incorrect - I have already "offered" you the theory of international trade above. Pay attention.
-
-- Yes maybe today scientific advances lead to a
-- paradigm shift, but discovering that the world
-- involved around the sun had a slighter larger impact
-- on Western Civ (right Gandalf?)
-
- You do know what a paradigm shift is do you not?
- That is a paradigm shift.

Well I suppose I am not infallible after all Geist but apparently neither are you since you said that a paradigm shift "is not just a shift in thinking, but a recognition of the fact that the old models must be thrown out". This is a tautology. Now shall we stop impressing each other with our astounding knowledge of philosophical definitions and fallacies and get back to the debate? Better yet, why don't you try refuting just one of my propositions?
-
-- Geist I really don't care what a kibbutz is but I am
-- sure Castro would disagree with you. And it appears
-- that you are talking about cooperatives which may or
-- may not be socialism - you'll need to prove that to
-- me (OK maybe I do care what one is).
-
- Then stop talking about socialism if you have no
- idea what it is.

Getting defensive are we here, Geist? And yes it turns out that Kibbutzim are indeed cooperatives. But as I said they cannot be "pure" socialism since that is impossible.

Cuba is not a socialist country
- but a dictatorship. That's not how socialism is
- supposed to work.
-
Oh really? Just how is it supposed to work comrade?

-- No its not Geist.
-
- Actually yes it is in reference to corporate
- takeovers and hostile moves on a fairly large scale.

Geist, explain how so-called "dumping" by foreign nations has anything to do with corporate takeovers.
-
-
-- Geist, inflation has increased exponentially since
-- the Fed's inception. Saying the Fed tries to avoid
-- inflation is like saying the man with a flamethrower
-- is trying to put the fire out!
-
- That's a really nice attempt at analogy. However,
- do you know that 98% of the people who get cancer
- wear shoes? And what does that prove? Once again,
- a simple correlation does not indicate
- causality.

Geist, please, they are the ones that print the money! Do you remember nothing from your "Intro to Macroeconomics" courses? Banks create money and the entire banking system is pyramided on top of the Fed. It takes a fractional reserve banking system cartelized with a central bank to create the kind of inflation we have seen throughout the 20th Century. Or perhaps if you disagree, you would like to explain how inflation occurs?

And it has a great deal to do
- with the "market for corporate control" since a run
- on currency can be set off by the actions of a
- company.

What does a run on a currency have to do with the market for corporate control Geist?


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." - Martin Niemoller, written in 1945 after he was freed from Dachau. <font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
12-15-2003, 06:36 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- Really? The state outlaws murder and theft and then
- commits murder (war) and theft (taxation) on a grand
- scale. Bound by the law? Only the law of might my
- friend. State laws can only be broken by the
- individual, not by the State.

States are composed of individuals, and said laws cannot apply to other states. War follows a different set of laws (such as it follows any law) and taxation is hardly theft. You don't like the taxes, move to a place where there are no taxes. Have fun finding one. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

- You don't really know what "natural law" is, do you?

Answering a question with a question? How tremenduosly perfidious of you! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Actually I do know what a "natural law" is. However, I differ with Locke philosophically.

- Oh really? Do tell!

Sure. I don't have a degree in economics, and I have no interest in a discussion of the steel industry. It's quite remarkable how you're moved from a discussion of protestors and police into one of economics.

- Is that a fact? This paragraph is quite vacuous as
- are many of your counter-points. Care to add some
- substance?

Well, thank you once again for editorializing. "Baseless" arguments really hold no interest for me.

- How do you know its gravity Geist? How do you know
- gravity won't suddenly stop working? "Why" is
- exactly the question. Gravity is merely a theory my
- friend.

And do you have an alternate acceptable theory? No one knows if "gravity" will suddenly stop working or not because we accept the fact that we do not fully understnad all physical "laws." As such (mention the movie The Core and I will have you strung up by your heels) I certainly can't say that the earth's rotation will suddenly stop or if the poles will suddenly flip. But people who know far more about these things than I do assure me that such things are highly unlikely to occur anytime soon, so I don't worry about them. Faith really is a very nice thing. You should try it out for a few years and see how it fits.

- I guarantee to you that kibbutz is not "true"
- socialism because if it was it would not work. Such
- is the paradox. Cuba, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union,
- China etc. are/were based on an economic system of
- central planning. That is socialism Geist.

No, that is a form of practical socialism. Centralized planning does not guarantee or constitute a socialist ideal. And Kibbutzim work quite well, some of them are thriving now in a time of economic hardship.

- You can
- make the argument that they were not "true"
- socialism to the extent that they traded with other
- countries or are now liberating certain parts of
- their economies but at the end of the day they were
- all self-avowed socialist countries. A socialist
- country can exist under an authoritarian government
- whether a dictatorship or a party leadership.

My argument is from an entirely different perspective than yours, and deal with the socialist philosophy rather than their economic model. Many countries claim to be many thigns, but that does not make it so.

- Another vacuous statement Geist. I'll make a deal
- with you - you explain why I am wrong and I will
- write you a nice long essay explaining why fiat
- currencies will continue to fail in the future as
- they have always done in the past. Deal?

I really have no interest in reading another essay on why fiat currency is bad. Nor is it any more vacuous that your constant statements of gloom and doom about how everything is going to fall apart. If I wanted to read more about that, "The Second Coming" is far more engaging.

Now again, I do not have a degree in economics or even a specilialty in that field. However, I do recall quite well that economics is a constantly evolving science and that history is not always a valid model for predicting future performance. So saying that someting is doomed to fail because it has failed in the past is doomsaying.

- Dislike of Greenspan? I have nothing against him.

I couldn't tell.

- Now what are these
- other factors you were talking about?

The constitutional convention of the European states.

- That's a matter of perspective (i.e. whether "my"
- arguments equate to Einstein). I already told you
- that physical "proof" is irrelevant to logic.

Perhaps. However, that is what I read and responded to. Are you claiming that such was not your intent?

- Economics is not a set of testable hypothesis's to
- be confirmed empirically any more than mathematics.

And mathematics is fundamentally an empirical science with empirical proofs. Many years ago I recall having to do torturous proof in mathematics, as well as recalling a friend who wrote a seven page proof (I was lost at the end of page three) which successfully showed that under no circumstances does one plus one ever equal two. I would imagine that you can do similar things with economic models, including ones which are considered to be ":tested" and "proven."

- Only by logic can the validity of these arguments be
- established.

Better yet, show that they work.

- Just what "set of circumstances" are you referring
- to? I am referring to trade which most certainly
- exists. I am also referring to human action which
- most certainly exists.

Why don't you go back to the first post in this exchange and read it again. Then you can try and explain yourself better.

- Very rude of you to answer a question with a
- question.

Oh my, how tremendously awful of me.Please refer to the second qoute from your previous post as listed above. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

- But that is the sophisticated game you play.

Guy, get over it. This is a message board. If you want to go back to trying and failing to infer motives again then that is really not my concern. I can only respond to what I read sans tone, inflection or timing. No games, just text.

- You answer questions with questions and
- merely deny my arguments without making any attempt
- to refute them.

I generally answer questions with questions when I want to know more. That's the reason I ask questions.

- In your world they are simply "wrong".

My world really isn't that bad a place to live in. If I say that something is wrong, then feel free to offer some proof that it is not or move on. Try and be persuasive rather than pedantic sometimes.

- As for offering a theory - I do not need
- to "offer any theory" - the theory is already there.

Well, if I knew what the theory was, I wouldn't be asking about it. So go ahead an offer one.

- We call it economics. It is economic theory that
- holds that government intervention is "undesirable"
- from the point of view of an efficiently working
- market.

I see. So you're positing here that all governments are well aware of the fact that their intervention in their markets is "undesirable?" That's rather odd, so is it not possible that there are other theories involved here?

- And this theory equates very well with any
- major physics theory in its importance. In any case
- your assertion is incorrect - I have already
- "offered" you the theory of international trade
- above. Pay attention.

I fail to see how government interventions in markets has any relevance to the relation between mass and energy. And no, you haven't offered anything other than your opinions. I always pay attention, even when someone isn't really saying anything - a habit I developed when listening to thousands of sermons.

- Well I suppose I am not infallible after all Geist
- but apparently neither are you since you said that a
- paradigm shift "is not just a shift in thinking, but
- a recognition of the fact that the old models must
- be thrown out". This is a tautology.

I have never claimed to be infallible. And no, it is not a tautology. Realizing that your electric razor does not shave as closely as your straight razor is not a paradigm shift but represent a shift in thinking. Recognizing that the speed of light is not a constant and that all theoretical models based on it must be discarded would be a paradigm shift.

- Now shall we
- stop impressing each other with our astounding
- knowledge of philosophical definitions and fallacies
- and get back to the debate? Better yet, why don't
- you try refuting just one of my propositions?

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. When I'm trying to impress you, I'll let you know. But don't hold your breathe waiting.

- Getting defensive are we here, Geist?

No, simply tired of repition. I can't see any possible circumstance that would lead me to become defensive over a post on a message board.

- And yes it turns out that Kibbutzim are indeed
- cooperatives.

Some are, some are not. There are lots of Kibbutzim.

- But as I said they cannot be "pure" socialism since
- that is impossible.

From your perspective that may be the case. But you have not explained why it is impossible, simply that "it would not not work" and "that is is impossible." But that would mean that you're doing what you have been accusing me of doing - how shocking! That's almost Freudian.

- Oh really? Just how is it supposed to work comrade?

Really. But since you seem to have been working quite hard to indicate that you are more expert in these matters than I am, please feel free to expound on how exactly a tyrranical dictatorship represents socialism.

- Geist, explain how so-called "dumping" by foreign
- nations has anything to do with corporate takeovers.

It's the same principle on a smaller scale. You cause a run on a company's stock the same way you do on currency. And large corporations can have a substantial effect on a country's market.

- Geist, please, they are the ones that print the
- money! Do you remember nothing from your "Intro
- to Macroeconomics" courses?

They are also the ones who shred the money, and currently destroy more than they are producing! My courses in econmics were a long time ago.

- What does a run on a currency have to do with the
- market for corporate control Geist?

I just answered that in brief.

"A person should not choose the form in which he wishes to perform the service of the Lord, but he should perform it in any manner the opportunity affords. He should be like a vessel into which anything may be poured - wine, milk, or water."

XyZspineZyX
12-16-2003, 05:08 AM
MDS_Geist wrote:
-
- MisterNiceGuy wrote:
-- Really? The state outlaws murder and theft and then
-- commits murder (war) and theft (taxation) on a grand
-- scale. Bound by the law? Only the law of might my
-- friend. State laws can only be broken by the
-- individual, not by the State.
-
- States are composed of individuals, and said laws
- cannot apply to other states. War follows a
- different set of laws (such as it follows any law)
- and taxation is hardly theft.

Theft is confiscation of property against your will. Taxation is confiscation of property against your will. This is quite basic. It is impossible to render a logical argument disproving these conclusions. Furthermore, tax increases expand the size and power of the State over individuals with the ultimate result being socialism prior to an eventual collapse. This occurs because the State's expansion of power manifests itself in increased legislation with the supposed aim of "protecting" the individuals. However, this increased legislation results in decreased liberty and destroys the efficiency of the market system of commerce. The effect is corruption, totalitarianism and poverty.

Note I have continued to use the capitalized "State". This is "State" as distinct from the individual. The State is an abstract, individuals are real. The State as an organizational entity operates with its own set of rules and as you made clear (as I mentioned already) the State "follows a different set of laws". The State allows itself the right to murder and plunder - no individual has this right unless he is doing it for the State.

When an individual acting as an agent of the State, drops a bomb in a residential neighbourhood and kills a family presenting a threat to no one, this is murder. It is categorically the same as an individual acting apart from the State. The only difference, as you said, is that States have a "different set of laws" for themselves.

-
-- You don't really know what "natural law" is, do you?
-
- Answering a question with a question? How
- tremenduosly perfidious of you!

Actually I didn't if you look again. But I was mimicking you. I know you know what "natural law" is I was teasing. But you do not appreciate its importance relative to the legislative law we have today.

- Sure. I don't have a degree in economics, and I
- have no interest in a discussion of the steel
- industry. It's quite remarkable how you're moved
- from a discussion of protestors and police into one
- of economics.

Perhaps this had something to do with it:

MNG: But we were much better off before we became
- involved in this mess [Iraq]

Geist: So you would advocate for isolationism?

MNG: No I would advocate non-interventionism specifically in markets and in other country's internal strife.

Now do you understand why my discussion of intervention in the steel industry is relevant?
-
-- How do you know its gravity Geist? How do you know
-- gravity won't suddenly stop working? "Why" is
-- exactly the question. Gravity is merely a theory my
-- friend.
-
- And do you have an alternate acceptable theory? No
- one knows if "gravity" will suddenly stop working or
- not because we accept the fact that we do not fully
- understnad all physical "laws." As such (mention
- the movie The Core and I will have you strung
- up by your heels) I certainly can't say that the
- earth's rotation will suddenly stop or if the poles
- will suddenly flip. But people who know far more
- about these things than I do assure me that such
- things are highly unlikely to occur anytime soon, so
- I don't worry about them. Faith really is a very
- nice thing. You should try it out for a few years
- and see how it fits.

Faith is irrational. You are straying very close to my point but not seeing the connection. We cannot test the proposition that "gravity" exists empirically because we cannot be everywhere in time and space at once. We can only "prove" that gravity is the correct explanation for why we don't fly off the Earth a priori. This is the same with mathematics and economics (what you did with your mathematical proof was a priori not empirical).

Geist, a country organized under a central planning regime is Socialist by definition. Kibbutzim may work for a small group of individuals but a) at some point they must trade or perish and b) to the extent they operate autarkical units they will realize low productivity (as you mentioned "economic hardship"). They can only exist because of the larger environment of non-Socialist states.

There is no division between the Socialist philosophy (which is illogical and inconsistent) and its economics. Socialism is a system of distribution, with said distribution directed by a central authority. The supposed "philosophy" is that people will recognize true happiness having been freed from the shackles of alienation from the fruits of their labour. The unfortunate truth is that the goal of Socialism is unrealizable with the economical system it implies. The result is low or non-existent productivity and mass impoverishment.
-
- I really have no interest in reading another essay
- on why fiat currency is bad.
So
- saying that someting is doomed to fail because it
- has failed in the past is doomsaying.

Geist, fiat currencies have no intrinsic value. That should tell you immediately that there is a problem. Inflation was non-existent prior to fractional reserve banking, central (planning?) banks and fiat currencies. Commodity monies such as gold do have an intrinsic value and are a finite resource, therefore a significant reduction in its purchasing power (inflation) is unlikely. Furthermore, since governments cannot simply print more gold (!), gold acts as a restraint on naturally fiscally irresponsible governments. Moving quickly to the problem of the international monetary system, we have a currency system in which the dollar is the world's reserve currency. All other currencies are pyramided on top of the dollar.

This works fine as long as these other countries have "faith" in the US Government's ability to pay. But naturally, as with any entity, the more the government borrows, the less confidence lenders will have that the government will be capable of repaying its debt. At this point, the lenders will sell their government securities and dollars will flood onto the market causing a massive plunge in the dollar's value. We have seen this happen before in countries like Germany and Mexico.

The US is so far able to get away with this because they are the reserve currency and have significant economical productive resources. However, if the economy continues to flounder, tax revenues continue to fall and the debt continues to rise we cannot remain confident that this will not happen. It is inevitable at some point because governments are naturally fiscally irresponsible.

-- Now what are these
-- other factors you were talking about?
-
- The constitutional convention of the European
- states.
-
Meaning what?

-- Just what "set of circumstances" are you referring
-- to? I am referring to trade which most certainly
-- exists. I am also referring to human action which
-- most certainly exists.
-
- Why don't you go back to the first post in this
- exchange and read it again. Then you can try and
- explain yourself better.

Geist I am very confused. I have no idea what you are talking about.

-- But that is the sophisticated game you play.
-
- Guy, get over it. This is a message board. If you
- want to go back to trying and failing to infer
- motives again then that is really not my concern

Geist you do this all the time.
-
-- You answer questions with questions and
-- merely deny my arguments without making any attempt
-- to refute them.
-
- I generally answer questions with questions when I
- want to know more. That's the reason I ask
- questions.

How about we both do that and see how far we get?
-
-- Well I suppose I am not infallible after all Geist
-- but apparently neither are you since you said that a
-- paradigm shift "is not just a shift in thinking, but
-- a recognition of the fact that the old models must
-- be thrown out". This is a tautology.
-
- I have never claimed to be infallible. And no, it
- is not a tautology. Realizing that your electric
- razor does not shave as closely as your straight
- razor is not a paradigm shift but represent a shift
- in thinking. Recognizing that the speed of light is
- not a constant and that all theoretical models based
- on it must be discarded would be a paradigm shift.

My understanding of "paradigm shift" is that it is a "shift in thinking" relative to the subject of discussion. So if you are talking about a paradigm shift in science then in my view rejecting the old models is implied. But whatever, this is a side bar.
-
-- Now shall we
-- stop impressing each other with our astounding
-- knowledge of philosophical definitions and fallacies
-- and get back to the debate? Better yet, why don't
-- you try refuting just one of my propositions?
-
- Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. When I'm
- trying to impress you, I'll let you know. But don't
- hold your breathe waiting.

Geist, I had gotten the suspicious feeling before but now I am almost positive - you're being facetious aren't you?

-- Geist, explain how so-called "dumping" by foreign
-- nations has anything to do with corporate takeovers.
-
- It's the same principle on a smaller scale. You
- cause a run on a company's stock the same way you do
- on currency. And large corporations can have a
- substantial effect on a country's market.

Geist, the accusation of "dumping" relates to foreign companies selling their merchandise at below market prices. Personally I think that complaining about is nonsense since domestic consumers gain - but consumers do not have powerful lobbies.



http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." - Martin Niemoller, written in 1945 after he was freed from Dachau. <font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." - Martin Niemoller, written in 1945 after he was freed from Dachau. <font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>

XyZspineZyX
12-16-2003, 04:02 PM
Is this even on topic anymore? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-16-2003, 10:52 PM
Perhaps it has suffered a slight shift topically, but I for one, am enjoying it immensely:

Carry on, gentlemen, and I mean that literally, you have brightened up an otherwise dull, sad existence./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Leep Out:

http://www.arach.net.au/~allanb/gr/leep/LEEP3.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-17-2003, 12:39 AM
MisterNiceGuy wrote:
- Theft is confiscation of property against your will.

It doesn't necessarily have to be property either. But that's mostly a semantic change.

- Taxation is confiscation of property against your
- will. This is quite basic. It is impossible to
- render a logical argument disproving these
- conclusions.

No, it's really not so basic since it is presupposing that a person is not chosing to pay taxes, tithes or tributes voluntarily. Since your conclusion is based on an assumption that someone is being taxed against their will, it fails if that assumption is not proven to be true.

There are many people who have relatively small income and who are self employed. By far the majority of them could quite easily get away with not paying any taxes. However, many choose to do so for a variety of reasons.

- Furthermore, tax increases expand the
- size and power of the State over individuals with
- the ultimate result being socialism prior to an
- eventual collapse.

So using this as a basis, are you suggesting that George W. Bush's administration is decreasing the size and power of the state because they are reducing taxes?

I would presume that many people would disagree with that premise since there are many other ways to increase the power of the state on multiple levels. For example, expansion of police powers.

- This occurs because the State's
- expansion of power manifests itself in increased
- legislation with the supposed aim of "protecting"
- the individuals.

There is no need for it to be a "supposed aim." That may very well be the aim. Don't presume that everyone feels as you do about what constitutes "protection." There very well may be honest people involved or proposing said legislation, who honestly feel that they are doing their duty to protect people.

- However, this increased
- legislation results in decreased liberty and
- destroys the efficiency of the market system of
- commerce. The effect is corruption, totalitarianism
- and poverty.

"Decreased liberty" is quite a subjective statement. There have been folks who have argued that we have less freedom post 9/11, however I know many people who feel considerably safer and more free. It's effect on commerce is also quesitonable because you know quite well that a great many things influence commerce. If more people feel safe, then more people are likely to go out to shop, thereby keeping the market moving.

As for the effects you suggest, I think you're being pessimistic again. Those are possible from other circumstances as well, and do not necessarily have any linkage with higher taxes.

- Note I have continued to use the capitalized
- "State". This is "State" as distinct from the
- individual. The State is an abstract, individuals
- are real. The State as an organizational entity
- operates with its own set of rules and as you made
- clear (as I mentioned already) the State "follows a
- different set of laws". The State allows itself the
- right to murder and plunder - no individual has this
- right unless he is doing it for the State.

Internally the State is still bound by its laws. Internationally different rules do apply. You're choosing to use your own definitions as you demonstrate in the next paragraph without consideration of motive or other relevant factors.

- When an individual acting as an agent of the State,
- drops a bomb in a residential neighbourhood and
- kills a family presenting a threat to no one, this
- is murder. It is categorically the same as an
- individual acting apart from the State. The only
- difference, as you said, is that States have a
- "different set of laws" for themselves.

No, it is quite different. War is not a normal set of circumstances and is not something that states generally have internal rules for since wars are usually considered to be emergency circumstances. If said pilot were operating without sanction, or even with sanction and released a weapon in a residential neighborhood without justification for doing so that pilot would face disciplinary action if here were a US pilot, or a pilot for most of our allies. It is categortiaclly not at all the same as someone entering a home and murdering a family. Motive and circumstance certainly make a difference.

I know for damn sure where every piece of ordnance I ever dropped or fired went, and never once hit a civilian target. Had I done so I would have been temporarily grounded while I was investigated, and then dealt as appropriate. We're soldiers, not butchers.

- Actually I didn't if you look again. But I was
- mimicking you. I know you know what "natural law"
- is I was teasing. But you do not appreciate its
- importance relative to the legislative law we have
- today.

That's tremendously presumptuous of you to tell me what I do and do not appreciate. I thought that we established some time ago that you were going to have to stop doing that. Again, I differ from Locke philosophically.

- Now do you understand why my discussion of
- intervention in the steel industry is
- relevant?

I still do not find it relevant, since it completely alters the scope of the argument. But it makes your thought process more clear.

- Faith is irrational.

But it sure is a beautiful thing.

- You are straying very close to
- my point but not seeing the connection. We cannot
- test the proposition that "gravity" exists
- empirically because we cannot be everywhere in time
- and space at once.

People have theorized that physical "laws" may only apply in certain localities, such as our planet or solar system. However, we know that they work here.

- We can only "prove" that gravity
- is the correct explanation for why we don't fly off
- the Earth a priori. This is the same with
- mathematics and economics (what you did with your
- mathematical proof was a priori not empirical).

How exactly are mathematical proofs not empirical?

- Geist, a country organized under a central planning
- regime is Socialist by definition. Kibbutzim may
- work for a small group of individuals but a) at some
- point they must trade or perish and b) to the extent
- they operate autarkical units they will realize low
- productivity (as you mentioned "economic hardship").
- They can only exist because of the larger
- environment of non-Socialist states.

Guy, we're working from different playbooks here and are simply not going to agree because I'm looking at things from political standpoint and you are looking at them from an economic standpoint. Yes, the two can be separated. And yes, some kibbutzim are completely self-sufficient.

- There is no division between the Socialist
- philosophy (which is illogical and inconsistent) and
- its economics. Socialism is a system of
- distribution, with said distribution directed by a
- central authority. The supposed "philosophy" is
- that people will recognize true happiness having
- been freed from the shackles of alienation from the
- fruits of their labour. The unfortunate truth is
- that the goal of Socialism is unrealizable with the
- economical system it implies. The result is low or
- non-existent productivity and mass impoverishment.

Except that it can be shown to be effective when everyone involved has an equal share as well as fully buys in to the ideology.

- Geist, fiat currencies have no intrinsic value.

Guy, what part of "I have no interest in reading another essay on why fiat currency is bad" was unclear? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Yes, I know what fiat currency is and why many people think they are inherently bad. And I also know why people are interested in moving back to a currency backed by gold. By the way, you're wrong about something here - governments can make more gold, since they're about the only ones who can afford such a ridiculously complicated and expensive process.

- This works fine as long as these other countries
- have "faith" in the US Government's ability to pay.

Considering the fact that the US is one of the most stable governments around as well as being the sole superpowers, this is pretty good right now.

- The US is so far able to get away with this because
- they are the reserve currency and have significant
- economical productive resources. However, if the
- economy continues to flounder, tax revenues continue
- to fall and the debt continues to rise we cannot
- remain confident that this will not happen. It is
- inevitable at some point because governments are
- naturally fiscally irresponsible.

Nice to know that the economy is doing moderately better these days.

- Meaning what?

Are you not aware of the recent EU constitutional convention which ended without resolution?

- Geist you do this all the time.

Not really. I am generally very careful to make clear that I am going with appearances rather than making pronouncments.

- How about we both do that and see how far we get?

Thank you captain obvious! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

- My understanding of "paradigm shift" is that it is a
- "shift in thinking" relative to the subject of
- discussion. So if you are talking about a paradigm
- shift in science then in my view rejecting the old
- models is implied. But whatever, this is a side
- bar.

This is a side bar? Most of this is a side bar!

But a paradigm shift is more than just a shift in thinking. You changing your plans from going sailing to going to see a movie is a shift in thinking. You realizing that everything you know about diet is wrong and only eating foods you grow yourself is closer to a paradigm shift. It is a fundamental change where all of the old models are thrown out.

- Geist, I had gotten the suspicious feeling before
- but now I am almost positive - you're being
- facetious aren't you?

Quite frequently. But you really shouldn't be so suspicious - you'll tend to look at people funny. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

- Geist, the accusation of "dumping" relates to
- foreign companies selling their merchandise at below
- market prices. Personally I think that complaining
- about is nonsense since domestic consumers gain -
- but consumers do not have powerful lobbies.

No, that's flooding the market. Dumping is to begin a trend or to be the trend of divesting yourself of a given product, such as stock or currency. For example, if Citi begins to sell off all of their Yuan and buy Dollars, they could very well begin a complete run on the Yuan due to their size and purchasing power. That would be dumping.

"A person should not choose the form in which he wishes to perform the service of the Lord, but he should perform it in any manner the opportunity affords. He should be like a vessel into which anything may be poured - wine, milk, or water."

XyZspineZyX
12-22-2003, 05:55 AM
Geist,

I have been frightfully busy this last week and I have had time to respond to your argument. But I will leave you right now with two things:

First Bush is not reducing taxes. This is because of a)AMT, b) budget deficit and c) fiat currency (we may well have to discuss that after all).

Second, lets end the dumping debate:

Exporting/importing merchandise into a country below the domestic price or the costs incurred in production and shipment.
www.business-in-asia.com/glossary2.htm (http://www.business-in-asia.com/glossary2.htm)


Occurs when goods are exported at a price less than their normal value, generally meaning they are exported for less than they are sold in the domestic market or third country markets, or at less than production cost.
www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min96_e/glossary.htm (http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min96_e/glossary.htm)


-selling merchandise in another country at a price below the price of the same merchandise in the home market, or selling merchandise below what it cost to produce and ship.
www.meetworldtrade.com/en/help/GlossaryD.jsp (http://www.meetworldtrade.com/en/help/GlossaryD.jsp)


The practice of selling goods abroad below their normal market value or below the price charged for the same goods in the domestic market of the exporting country. Dumping can be a predatory trade practice whereby the international market, or a certain national market, is flooded with dumped goods in order to force competitors out of the market and establish a monopoly position. Oftentimes, government subsidies are used to help absorb temporarily the losses caused by predation, leading to friction among trade partners. Dumping and predation are considered to be unfair trade practices and, as such, are prohibited under many national trade laws. The most common antidumping measure is an added import duty calculated to offset the "dumping margin," that is, the discrepancy between home price or cost and the export price.
www.indiana.edu/~ipe/glossry.html (http://www.indiana.edu/~ipe/glossry.html)


The practice of offering goods for sale in a foreign market at a price that is lower than that of the same product in the home market or a third country. As used in GATT, a special case of "differential pricing."
wps.aw.com/aw_moffett_fundmult_1/0,5906,227406-,00.html


The sale of a product abroad at a price below the common price in the country of origin. Domestically, attempting to import merchandise into the United States at a price less than the price it would fetch in the country of origin.
www.dnb.com/uk/communities/intlbusiness/general_export__info/intl_credit_terms_glossary.asp (http://www.dnb.com/uk/communities/intlbusiness/general_export__info/intl_credit_terms_glossary.asp)


Dumping occurs when imported merchandise is sold in, or for export to, the domestic market at less than the normal value of the merchandise, i.e., a price which is less than the price at which identical or similar merchandise is sold in the comparison market, the home market (market of exporting country) or third-country market (market used as proxy for home market in cases where home market cannot be used).
www.metalstrategies.com/glossary.htm (http://www.metalstrategies.com/glossary.htm)


The practice of selling goods in foreign markets at prices below the cost of production, usually with the aim of driving competitors out of the market.
www.web.net/rain/glossary.htm (http://www.web.net/rain/glossary.htm)


Importing merchandise into a country (e.g. the United States) at lower prices that are detrimental to local producers of the same kind of merchandise.
www.priority-one.com/Glossary.htm (http://www.priority-one.com/Glossary.htm)

I have a dozen more similar definitions if you are still not convinced.


http://www.nrm.org/illustration/obrien/tyson.jpg

<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up, because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me." - Martin Niemoller, written in 1945 after he was freed from Dachau. <font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>