Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 22 Nov 2006 23:31 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <6dd17$45646b74$4fe74f0$17139(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Ken Smith wrote: >> >> >>>In article <ek1kpf$8qk_002(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >> >>[.....] >> >> >>>>It is also >>>>accepted by the populace because your basic tenets are based on >>>>a socialism. The US is not. >> >>>BTW: I am not from the UK not am I there right now so I really can't >>>speak to what the tenets are for them. >> >>>I believe that Canada and the UK accept the NHS system because they know >>>it works. >> >>If we hadn't gotten past FDR as we have, we'd have some >>sort of an NHS as well. What's forgotten is that in most >>instances the US is the leader, not the follower. > > > Yes, it is strange the areas in which the US finds its self behind. The > US basically invented the auto industry and now finds its self lagging. > This may be a natural ebb and flow. The US may decide to invent something > new on the funding of healtcare and retake the lead in that area. > > > [...] > >>Society, governments, and politics, are all long term >>experiments. How long did it take for the FSU with its >>"wonderful new" system of politics to fail? NHS has not >>yet withstood the test of time. Wake me up in a few more >>decades. > > > Neither has a US economy running with fiat money been tested for long > enough. I expect that, that is a much greater rick of failure than the > NHS of the UK. > > > >>excerpt follows: >> >>"Many socialists have the tragic illusion that by depriving private >>individuals of the power they possess in an individualist system, and >>transferring this power to society, they thereby extinguish power. > > > Those arguing for the NHS need not be socialists, but to take the > socialists side just for a moment: The above statement is not what many > socialists assume. Many socialists would claim that the choice is between > having a few wealthy persons determine how power is used or having elected > representives do so. They do not believe that the power is extinguished > at all but rather that it is safer to place it in the hands of the elected > than the merely lucky. > > > >>What >>they overlook is that, by concentrating power so that it can be used in >>the service of a single plan, it is not merely transformed but >>infinitely heightened. By uniting in the hands of some single body power >>formerly exercised independently by many, an amount of power is created >>infinitely > > > Don't you just love infinity? It so impressive! The autor seems to have > confused socialism with communism. Many socialists are in favor of local > control. I'm glad you've given this some serious thought, so unusual for usenet newsgroups. It would be nice, if you have the time and the ambition, if you'd give Hayek a thorough read. He's well respected.
From: Ken Smith on 22 Nov 2006 23:31 In article <MPG.1fcd2eabaa87d2ea989c32(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >In article <ejtv5q$9su$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >says... [....] >> No, there are situations where the market does not work. Drugs are an >> example. You do not have the choice of going with a different drug if >> only the patented one will save your life and you don't have the option of >> waiting. That makes the market is not free since you are under duress. > >Name one. Alemtuzumab. > >> >> Is it 7% or 15%? >> > >> >Who cares, other than someone who wants to control others lives? >> >> I don't want to control others lives. I want to prevent others from >> controlling. > >You say. Your actions speak differently. What actions? I have neither taken actions or suggested that I will take actions to control others. > >> >> More importantly, who gets to decide and >> > >> >Exactly! >> >> Yes, exactly. Who. > >The market, dummy. It is the only "fair" arbiter. So you are stepping back from the "free market" to just "the market"? There are times when one side is under duress. Do you agree that this is not a free market. > >> Do the shareholders in a company decide that it is ok >> if half the people who catch some disease die because that it the price >> point the maximizes the stock value? Does the CEO of the company or the >> marketing department? It is a question of who decides who's life is not >> worth saving. > >Examples, please! Examples of what? The above was a question. [...] >> >Apparenlty you think *you* should be the arbiter. ...sounds >> >totalitarian to me! >> >> No, you have suggested that the market will deal with it. It doesn't. > >It certainly does! How? > >> How do you propose to solve the problem? There are lots of things that >> the market doesn't do well. For those we form governments. You can have >> tyranny in many forms. One is where corporations control everything. > >There are things in life that aren't directly monetary, for those >we have governments. What things are those? If the right to remain alive isn't on that list what is? [....] >> What if the new drug is the only one that will save the life and there is >> no older one? > >Name a case. Alemtuzumab as per above. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 22 Nov 2006 23:38 In article <a031$4565241d$4fe717b$21341(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: >> In article <6dd17$45646b74$4fe74f0$17139(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, [...] >I'm glad you've given this some serious thought, so unusual >for usenet newsgroups. It would be nice, if you have the time >and the ambition, if you'd give Hayek a thorough read. He's >well respected. Do you have the title of his work(s) hand? I could add it to my xmass list. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: 'foolsrushin' on 23 Nov 2006 00:58 Homer J Simpson wrote: > "Gordon" <gordonlr(a)DELETEswbell.net> wrote in message > news:00c0i29vn31ejl71pku1d0r1nfaevj6p4i(a)4ax.com... > >>So you are saying they are NOT better Xtians than everyone else? > > No, I'm saying that this war on terrorism started long before > > President Bush and the present Republican administration was > > involved in any way. > But it isn't a war. It is a problem for a police force that requires > international cooperation, something the US is notoriously unable or > unwilling to be involved in. Bush and 'Boy Blair' poked a nest of hornets, and now we all have to live with the consequences. Probably the intention was to stir up the guys to get at their oil, but the miscalculation was that this was a political issue: probably, whoever thermited the Towers, there was no recognition that there would be nobody to negotiate with and conversely, universal Islamic protest, with a highly significant number of them flying into a scattered self-sacrificial rage. The next and silly step was to declare war on 'terrorism', effectively inventing
From: lucasea on 23 Nov 2006 01:44
"Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message news:ek1qc7$ucf$3(a)leto.cc.emory.edu... > In article <ek1g07$8qk_001(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>In article <ejv2k6$vbq$5(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >> >>> It is a fact >>>that Medicare has a lower % of administrative costs than private >>>insurers. >> >>I'm sure you believe all those so-called facts. > > Google it, damn it! Don't hold your breath. She insists on ignoring any facts that don't support her wacky pre-conceived notions of how the world works. In order to do so, she refuses to get a computer of post-1990 vintage that can actually handle surfing the web. Her excuse is that she won't have control over viruses, which is of course patently false. Modern anti-virus programs are essentially 100 % effective (much more so than her "aha, I see the lights flashing, so I will turn off the modem"....never mind the fact that viruses generally come in attached to things invited by the computer owner, like email, and Usenet postings....), but if she conceded that reality, then her whole house of cards for insulating herself from actual data would come crashing down. Data are so inconvenient, ya know? Eric Lucas |