Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 07:40 In article <ek45f0$8ss_002(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <456471FC.662B88EB(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>> > |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >>> >>unsettled wrote: >>> >>> Ken Smith wrote: >>> >>> > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>Nonsense! Capitalism perfectly defines what is fair; did someone >>> >>> >>pay the fair market value? If so, it is by *definition* fair. If >>> >>> >>not it is not "fair". >>> >> >>> >>There is no "fair" market price. There is only the price that one >>> >>particular individual is willing to pay for the specific goods or >>> >>services. If you want some fun try comparing how much you have paid for >>> >>an airline seat on a scheduled flight with your neighbours. And don't >>> >>get too upset if you find that one of them has paid half what you did >>> >>for the same journey and ticket. >>> >> >>> >>Willing seller willing buyer. If you don't like the price you are not >>> >>compelled to buy it. >>> > >>> >Water after a natural disaster. Monopolies. There are many examples >where >>> >unbridled capitalism is just plain wrong. >>> >>> Have you considered that people should plan ahead? >> >>Have you considered that we don't live in an ideal world ? > >I know it isn't ideal. Because of this fact, no national >social program will deliver satisfactory service efficiently. >It will deliver the minimum and that's all. > >/BAH So? At least everybody will have some health care coverage. Private insurance will let you purchase coverage above the minimum.
From: Lloyd Parker on 24 Nov 2006 07:40 In article <ek45av$8ss_001(a)s1002.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ek1q41$ucf$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <ek1equ$8ss_003(a)s853.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <ejv29u$vbq$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>In article <1164101047.711452.220630(a)f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, >>>> |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: >>>>> >>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ken Smith wrote: >>>>>> > In article <MPG.1fcae9c9199518f8989c01(a)news.individual.net>, >>>>>> > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>In article <ejqve0$fgo$2(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >>>>>> >>says... >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>In article <6af58$455ba5ff$4fe75f7$20998(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>> >>>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>[.....] >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>The original error starts with you two clowns failing to >>>>>> >>>>appreciate that capitalism has a soul. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>(Boggle) Capitalism is a cold hard logical system. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>To define a term >>>>>> >>>>"fair profit" isn't beyond the capacity of capitalism to >>>>>> >>>>embrace freely and without external (read governmental) >>>>>> >>>>imposition. >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>It is beyond the capacity of capitalism to define what "fair profit" >>>>>> >>>really means. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>Nonsense! Capitalism perfectly defines what is fair; did someone >>>>>> >>pay the fair market value? If so, it is by *definition* fair. If >>>>>> >>not it is not "fair". >>>>> >>>>>There is no "fair" market price. There is only the price that one >>>>>particular individual is willing to pay for the specific goods or >>>>>services. If you want some fun try comparing how much you have paid for >>>>>an airline seat on a scheduled flight with your neighbours. And don't >>>>>get too upset if you find that one of them has paid half what you did >>>>>for the same journey and ticket. >>>>> >>>>>Willing seller willing buyer. If you don't like the price you are not >>>>>compelled to buy it. >>>> >>>>Water after a natural disaster. Monopolies. There are many examples where >>>>unbridled capitalism is just plain wrong. >>> >>>Have you considered that people should plan ahead? > >>Have you considered compassion? Caring (about more than money, that is)? > >Babysitting adults does not do them any favor. All it does it >keep them dependent on an impersonal entity that is unable >to evaluate solutions from a human POV. OK, you people who've lost legs and arms, go to work or starve. > >> >>AT&T once had a monopoly on phone service. Tell me how someone could damn >>"plan ahead"! > >AT&T would still have that monopoly if they had continued to >deliver services that their customers needed. > >/BAH > So the gov't sued them because they weren't delivering services?
From: Ken Smith on 24 Nov 2006 13:07 In article <45665B31.26FD6496(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Ken Smith wrote: [....] >> Basically communists believe in "the efficiency of scale" like a religion. > >They're also not greatly into things like personal freedom whereas >liberal/social democrats are. There are a lot of socialist who also would place limits on personal freedoms and not all communists think that way. There is a large overlap in that area. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 24 Nov 2006 13:12 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > |||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> I know it isn't ideal. Because of this fact, no national > >>> >> social program will deliver satisfactory service efficiently. > >>> >> It will deliver the minimum and that's all. > >>> > > >>> >You just keep saying this with no factual basis. > >>> > > >>> >The truth is that the NHS ( a national social prgramme ) does deliver a > >>> > good > >>> >service very effectively. I'd call it better than a minimum too but it > >>> >is for sure essentially 'no frills'. > >>> > >>> It services a small geographic area with a uniform economy, a > >>> uniform governement, and a uniform political base of assumptions. > >> > >>It covers England, Scotland and Wales with slightly different rules in > >>each place according to local taste (devolution for Scotland saw to > >>that). I take it you have never heard of the North South divide then? > >>The UK is not a uniform economy by any means. > > > > It is run under the same laws. That is a uniform economy. Each > > of our states have their own laws. Very few federal laws > > supercede state law. Cases before our Supreme Court are cases > > where the Feds want control and the states say no. > > The law in Scotland is different from the law in England. Why do you think > they are the same? It would appear to be another of her mis / preconceptions. Mnay Americans don't even realise the UK is made up of 4 countries. Graham
From: Eeyore on 24 Nov 2006 13:22
lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote in message > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > He couldn't be a better troll if he tried. > >>>> > >>>> I got irritated because he, once again, assumed I would answer > >>>> one way. He expects negation of all subjects. > >>> > >>>I expect clarity of thought. > >> > >> Not really. You expect complete agreement when this is not > >> possible. You believe that a socialist tranfer from the UK > >> to the US is possible in all matters. > > > > Interesting, yet incorrect, assumption to make. > > > > Remember, if you want to learn discard your preconceived ideas. Not all > > that _you_ call socialist is socialist, and not all that is "socialist" is > > "bad." > > Sadly, this type of mindset got started in the US in the 1950s with the > McCarthy witch-hunt, and has never really gone away. Time and again, > history has shown that a mixed economy, with both private and public aspects > of economic control, and with both private and public aspects of social > support, is by far the most robust, and yet there are still those who have > the "socialist bad" knee-jerk response. Furthermore, the social aspect of the mixed economy can to some extent 'take up the slack' when the capitalist one gets into one of its periodic boom-bust hiccups. Graham |