Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 25 Nov 2006 16:17 In article <MPG.1fd25fcfeb3ecd75989c9b(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > For the lefty loons the "good old days" == "My parent's days (when > my every need was met, down to wiping snot from my nose)". And your DIRECT experience of socialism is? -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 25 Nov 2006 16:18 In article <MPG.1fd263c4e7918985989c9d(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > Just plonk the duck. He's never come close to write anything worth > reading. But yet you have to make that comment. Something tells me there's a little projection there, maroon... Terrible that people dare disagree with you ;-) -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Phineas T Puddleduck on 25 Nov 2006 16:27 In article <MPG.1fd266d5bdc0a343989c9f(a)news.individual.net>, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > What's the matter? You have to stoop to snip-forging? You are > areal piece of work. I think that's enough of you! Thats pretty rich coming from a poster who has to try hard to be noticeable, let alone interesting. It seems the quality of political debate in the UK is far more mature as we grew out of calling people "leftist" or "rightist" as insults quite a while ago. -- Just \int_0^\infty du it! -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: Ken Smith on 25 Nov 2006 16:36 In article <34acb$4568863c$4fe7197$9114(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > [....] >> I know some of these state enterprises were acting quite capitalistic when >> I was there in the 1990s. I expect it is more true today. One of the >> sections of the military bottled orange soda to help raise their operating >> budget. The soda bottling had to run at a profit to remain in existance. > >> The lab that made scientific glassware also made xmass decorations. These >> were sold in the market at a profit. > >> The oil and coal ministries were still fairly tightly held. > >State ownership is the key. I know that the xmass bulbs were on there way towards a spin off when I was there. The orange soda was less so. Perhaps by now it is. It was a good money maker back then. >> ********* >> Fact Monster content cannot be used commercially or on the Web without >> first obtaining our permission. Please address your request to our contact >> form. Make your request as detailed and specific as possible, and cite the >> relevant URL. Note, however, that most of the maps and photos on our site >> are obtained from third parties and we do not hold the rights to license >> these. >> ********* >> >> I won't tell on you. > >This isn't a commercial use. I guess this also isn't legally "on the web" thought the google groups will make it look like it is. > Read also the "fair use" doctrine >where copyrights are concerned. "fair use" is intended more to let you comment on someones work than to use it for another public[1] purpose. You can also copy it for reference so you may be in the clear. [1] as in not inside your house. > Publishers always try to make >it sound as though you can't resue a sequence of two words >without their permission, but it's not enforcable. I didn't say I would tell anyway. [.... china ....] >> Notice that they have added the protection of private property. A >> communists head would explode if they did that. > >Not true. As I mentioned someplace above, the FSU and Warsaw >pact had a practice of turning over really badly running >businesses to individuals to get them running well, Then they >used to nationalize them again. The communist mindset isn't >completely stupid. You claim that the FSU was communist. I think in may ways it wasn't. This is one case where it wasn't. They weren't the "true believer" sort of communists in anycase. Many years ago I shared a train car with 3 true communists. After about the first 3 minutes we changed the subject to auto racing. There was a lnaguage barrier with only one of them. The two others spoke very good english. >Have you ever read the constitution of the FSU? That is to >say the second constitution as they had a sequence of two. No I haven't but from what I hear if you read the constitution of China you would think the place is wonderful. The fact is that it has no real force of law over there. > >Compare their constitutional protections with the historical >information that came out of the FSU for the last 50 years >of their existence, as well as since. Just because there's a >law doesn't mean very much. Just as the name "People's >Democratic Republic" doesn't mean much either. As a general rule is the countries name has "democratic" in it, it isn't and if it has "peoples" in it a very small group of people really run the place. [....] > >And still Google provides special filters for Chinese >participants on the internet. Which the Chinese people have found many cute ways around. There are many sites run by "overseas Chinese" that provide blinding. If you are in China and know english you can get to the google site via one of those. BTW: When I was there, I had quite a few people come up to me and ask me "What is your name", "where do you live", "how old are you" and etc. Some could even understand answers longer than "My name is Ken". I imagine that today there are a lot of them that know english quite well. >> The regime maintaining control does not make it a communist country. >> There are lots of other types of tyranny. > >There's a major core error. Communism does not necessarily >mean tyranny. It specifically means the state owns the >means of production. It is the feudal system all over >again, usually with central control and central planning, >and generally a dictatorship. I think of feudal systems as being very multilayered. The top guy bosses the next layer down around a lot but he also needs their support. Everything is nominally owned by the top guy but as a practical matter it is often owned by the next layer down. Communism needn't have a large number of layers. It is as you say where the means of production is owned by the state. I don't think they can maintain that mindset without also assuming that the state will do a good job of running things. [..communism on small scale vs large..] >So the experiment is done, and so far as those >of us who undertand it, the impossibility of having an >effective large scale communism is proved impossible. I almost think we need to call large scale and small scale communism different things. When the ruled and the ruler are no longer in direct touch with each other, a whole new dynamic sets in. [....] >The danger with the progression towards strong socialism >is that it generally deals well with the first few >experimental programs. As it progresses, it eventually >becomes unstoppable, and deteriorates into communism, >which is taking civilization, as Hayek quite properly >pointed out, on the road to serfdom. I disagree with the idea that it is unstoppable. The USSR fell. The other countries that called themselves communists have largely given up on the idea. I think the trend has been towards liberty for the last 50 years at least. There have been set backs and twists in the road but the general trend is still a good one. Right now I see two major threats to it. One is an aberrant form of populism that believes that wealth falls from the sky. The other is a corporatism where corporations become more powerful than governments. We would just need to invent the game of "Roller Ball" at that point. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: T Wake on 25 Nov 2006 16:39
"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message news:phineaspuddleduck-AF9787.21140125112006(a)free.teranews.com... > In article <KsCdncy1lLqVDPXYRVnyuQ(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >> > Her idea of running the economy using 'corner shop' economics was a >> > total >> > disaster. >> >> Don't let /BAH hear you say that.... She is convinced Thatcher was the >> great >> saviour of UK economics. /BAH wouldn't for one second think that >> Thatcher's >> meddling caused all manner of long term problems. > > And not just political. I view the chav phenomenon that troubles area > near here as a social repercussion to the late thatcherite agenda. I certainly agree on that. "Chavs" have a tendency to crop up most in the areas most affected by Thacherite policies. |