Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 19:54 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> Socialism does get communistic if the administration covers a > >>> >> large geographic and/or population density. There isn't any > >>> >> other way to "control" renegades who don't like to be told > >>> >> what to do all the time. > >>> > > >>> >What nonsense is this now ? > >>> > > >>> >Where *do* you get these ideas ? > >>> > >>> I think about what I read. > >> > >>You'r reading garbage in that case. > > > > Historians write garbage? De Touqueville wrote garbage? The > > framers of our Constitution wrote garbage? Thatcher wrote > > garbage? Churchhill wrote garbage? Generals wrote garbage? > > Yes to all the above. If Thatcher wrote a book about the development of Iron > age cultures in the La Tene region, it would probably be garbage. I have > read books by Generals which have been nonsense. > > You repeatedly commit the authority fallacy. You assume because person X is > famous, what they write must be true. Autobiographies are the worst > offenders and normally full of self serving nonsense. Also see 'false authority syndrome'. Graham
From: Michael A. Terrell on 25 Nov 2006 19:56 Ken Smith wrote: > > In article <MPG.1fd11c17f0518b5a989c65(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > [.....] > >Whether you like it or not, radio is an interstate issue. Perhaps > >there should be some local control for ultra=-low power, but other > >than that 50 FCCs would be a nightmare. Can you imagine getting 50 > >certifications for a piece of gear? > > I like radio just fine. > > Is radio "interstate commerce" if the broadcast can't be heard in another > state? If not, I don't think the constitution gives the federal > government preemptive control. You can't keep the signal from crossing the state lines at night. I can hear radio stations from Ohio (700 KHz) and Tennessee (650 KHz) at night on the standard AM broadcast band. I can hear stations from most of the rest of the world on the shortwave bands. Not only is the RF spectrum controlled from the federal level, it is controlled under international agreement. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: unsettled on 25 Nov 2006 20:01 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <34acb$4568863c$4fe7197$9114(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: snip >>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. There's the old joke about what do you call a person who speaks two languages, bilingual. How about a person who speaks three languages, trilingual. How about 1 language, and American, >>>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. Old habits die hard. Look at the guy who just died of poisoning in England. > [..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. Possibly it is that a gang mentality sets in, I don't know. Perhaps that's why out multiple tiers in the US work reasonably well. > [....] >>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. If the USSR had managed to live in isolation from the rest of the world they probably would never have collapsed. If you think about this a bit, the beginning of the end came early, when Lenin met Armund Hammer. > 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. Liberty is another issue. If Soviet Communism had actually lived up to its ideas it might very well have been a wonderful place to live. But the simple fact is that it didn't work out in any of the nation sized attempts. > Right now I see two major threats to it. One is an aberrant form of > populism that believes that wealth falls from the sky. This actually led to the temporary shutdown of one of the two Shaker communities. When the state attempted to declare their property forfeit because of abandonment, the other community stepped in and resurrected it by transferring a few members and reopening acceptance of new members. I see the wealth from the sky thing in Puddledick's complaint that when the mines were shut down in Thatcher's days, nothing else was done to provide work. I think people need to look at this sort of mindset a little more in depth. I never thought I was entitled to live out my life where I was born or settled. In my life I've lived 7 time zones apart at the limits of my livelihood. I have always felt that it is a person's business to look after his own livelihood, to do whatever is necessary to live as well as he can within the limits of civilized behavior. If that requires one to relocate, then by darn, relocate. (This is one of the the "secrets" to earning the best possible income that others in this discussion considered "good luck.") Of course if one can successfully encourage business or the government to provide work, then that's fine and dandy. But to keep complaining for decades that economic circumstances forced the cessation of some local industry or another isn't a legitimate complaint IMO. > 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. LOL A fellow I knew told me his secret to success while in military service. "You just need to understand all the rules very well, then use them to assure the outcome you want." The same is true in any large organization with rules, including large corporations. The guys immediately above are stuck with the same rules you have, after all.
From: unsettled on 25 Nov 2006 20:04 T Wake wrote: > "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. Good grief!
From: Eeyore on 25 Nov 2006 20:05
T Wake wrote: > "Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote > > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Have you ever read anything modern ? > >> > >> Thatcher was quite mad btw. > > > > "Quite" - barking towards the end. There is no love for Thatcher in > > Wales, for example. Less then for Beeching, in faact. > > Yeah, she had some great ideas for making Britain strong by dismantling our > heavy industry, ruining our mining economy and making the country reliant on > FSU states for the import of basics like coal. > > For once I side with the Welsh here :-) Courtesy of what Thatcher started we are now apparently a 'post-industrial economy' with manufacturing recently only contributing 17% of the GNP. I reckon this bubble's due to burst. Graham |