Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 1 Dec 2006 11:34 In article <ekpetp$cdo$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net says... > In article <6d32b$456dc054$4fe7752$20089(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >Ken Smith wrote: > [...] > >> No, consider only the case I gave. The station in never going to be > >> heard out of state. How does the FCC constitutionally get the right to > >> regulate it, that can't also be used as an argument making the NHS > >> constitutional? Several people have asserted that the constitution bars a > >> NHS. > > > >You're missing an important aspect, interference with aviation. > > > >Same reason they regulate transmitter towers which don't cross > >state lines either. > > That would give the FAA the power to control a narrowly defined set of > things about radio stations. They would have no right to say anything > about program content for example. The federal government sets limits on > what is broadcast on KALW. THey regulate the airways because they're a public resource. > I say that they can only have this power by > logic that also allows an NHS. > I say that's not logic at all, rather a leap of fancy. > > > > > -- Keith
From: Lloyd Parker on 1 Dec 2006 06:37 In article <ekpd88$8ss_020(a)s920.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ekpc5r$gh6$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <ekpa2n$8ss_005(a)s920.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <ekmuf7$sk6$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>In article <95d74$456dc13c$4fe7752$20089(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <485af$456c7009$4fe7665$9791(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In article <ekhdog$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>But again, what you get doesn't depend on your ability to pay. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Huh? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In a pure socialistic system, you'd receive what you need without >>regards >>>>>> >>>>>> to >>>>>> >>>>>>>>ability to pay, right? That's how the military works. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In the military physical performance is required and >>>>>>>routinely tested. Inability to perform results in >>>>>>>separation. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But you get ahead without regard to wealth. Your ability to pay doesn't >>>>>> affect your advancement, as it does with a capitalistic system. >>>>> >>>>>Performance is the only currency deciding advancement, >>>>>which isn't socialist at all. >>>> >>>>Sure it is. While everyone gets what they need to stay alive and healthy, >>>the >>>>best advance. >>> >>>No, they don't. You need to learn what motivates people to do >>>estraordinary things. >>> >>>> However, wealth isn't a consideration in advancement as it is >>>>under capitalism. >>> >>>Wealth is a side effect of capitalism. >>> >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>/BAH >> >>Are you seriously suggesting someone born to a poverty family has the same >>chance of becoming successful as someone born to a rich family in a >>capitalistic society? > >Yes. I will even go further and state that the poor kid has more >motivation than the rich kid. Thus, the poor kid will succeed >more often than the rich kid. > >A lot of people are reasonably wealthy from working on a production >line and not spending all of their money on junk. That can only >happen in a capitalistic-based society. Not only do these people >become wealthy, they breed kids so become wealthier. Only >people who are hungry go out and shoot dinner. > >/BAH You've obviously led a very sheltered -- I'd even say cloistered -- life if you think that comes close to being reality.
From: unsettled on 1 Dec 2006 16:33 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:8628a$456f8d5b$4fe72f1$1303(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > <snip for brevity> > >>In a socialist "compassionate act" the quid pro quo doesn't >>exist, one side simply gives. Where there is *any* sort of >>an exchange involved, it isn't socialism no matter what >>pocket the money comes from. > > > I have snipped for brevity and nothing else. Nicely done. > The points you made were > relevant and, largely, I agree with them. > My personal motives for including the US military as an organisation which > could be deemed as "socialist" was simply to highlight the difficulties in > identifying a few traits of a system and declaring it Socialist - mainly in > the manner /BAH has decreed the UK Government a "Socialist" government and > the NHS as a socialist entity. > I was not trying to make the issue seem simplistic at all and I am sorry if > that is how it came across. Not to worry. > Again personally, the above paragraph from your post highlights one of the > reasons why it is incorrect to view the UK government as a "Socialist" > government and the NHS as a socialist organisation. There is an exchange of > sorts involved in both. Some people get more out of the system then they pay > in, but that is always the case with any form of insurance. I can see why, living in the midst of your country, you would see things as you do. However let's delve a bit more into the NHS program. It seems to me, from what I understand and what's been written in this thread, that all that is required for a person to receive medical care in the UK is to live there. Given there a are people who are not only unemployed, but who have never contributed to the economic welfare of the realm, and they're entitled to the same medical care as a corporate CEO or MP, their entitlement is socialistic because there has never been a quid pro quo. Taking another program, which was in force when I visited in 1990, and I assume it is still true, a parent is entitled to a steipend or allotment from the government each month for every child in the family under age 18 regardless of family income or need. Now if that's not a straight up redistribution of wealth with no consideration of quid pro qou then nothing is. I don't know what other programs in the UK are similarly socialistic, but from my perspective, using a very simple definition, at the very least these two discused are. So it seems to me, sitting here in the USA which has a few programs which can actually called socialistic and which don't affect large numbers of our population that Britain is much more socialist than we are. In the meanwhile yesterday's news reported some study or another that has the USA the most generous nation where it comes to giving to worthy causes, so perhaps these things go hand in hand. I was always of the opinion that properly endowed charities were the directly the business of the people rather than the government. Unfortunately it is never quite enough, so I accept that there are times government must step in, but I do think that healthcare and universal child support should not be to government's business. I realize this will open an entire Pandora's box related to child support in the case of divorce.
From: unsettled on 1 Dec 2006 16:36 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <c4cc2$456a56e4$4fe73b3$25337(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>Ken Smith wrote: > > [...] > >>>Not all of it goes there. Some goes to the parts needed. The money >>>changed hands but other than the repaired machine, nothing of value was >>>created. There is now slightly less value in the economy. >> >>Start with any loss being the fact the machine failed in the >>first place. Nothing lasts forever. The problem isn't as simple >>as you're presenting here. We'd have to get into an entire *huge* >>discussion about economics to resolve it. Try this definition >>on for size. > > > I am attempting to make a very simple example to make a point. Yes it is > a simplification, but I claim that the idea that it is showing is valid. > It is the wealth and not the money that matters. If it was just the > money, the government could print enough to make us all rich beyond our > wildest dreams. The government can't do that because the money is just > how you keep score. It is wealth that really matters. > > .... stopped here time to get going ........... Don't stop here please. The next part is where it starts getting interesting. >>S: (n) axiology (the study of values and value judgments) >> >>http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=axiology >> >>Then: >> >><http://www.amazon.com/What-Value-Introduction-Axiology-2nd/dp/0875480772/sr=8-3/qid=1164596439/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/103-6419119-2470246?ie=UTF8&s=books> >> >>I am fortunate enough to have scored a first edition copy of this >>book. As the FSU was collapsing I sent a (it was authorized by the >>publisher who had no intention of a second printing at the time) >>copy to a correspondant I had in Moscow at the time. >> >>I recommend this book, _What Is Value: An Introduction to Axiology_ >>by Frodizi. >> >> >>>[....] >> >>>>>No, I never said anything about outlawing them. This is a question of the >>>>>right way to look at what is happening in an economy. You have to follow >>>>>the flow of wealth, not merely the flow of money. There are places where >>>>>wealth is created and places where it is consumed. Pushing needless paper >>>>>around was my example of a place where wealth is consumed. If you can >>>>>reduce the amount of needless paper pushing, you can improve the economy. >> >>>>I'll leave you in BAH's hands for this one. She's made the point >>>>that every piece of paper had, and may still have, a valid reason >>>>for being. It only took a couple of hundred years to get rid of >>>>the US "Tea Taster." >> >>>Yes and look how much things have gotten better as a result. We can now >>>get PCs for less than a weeks pay. Back then we could have only dreamed >>>about such computing power for so little money. >> >>Now you're getting into imports and a one world economy, the >>capitalist dream world. >> >>Will the one world government be an Islamic republic? >> >> > > >
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 1 Dec 2006 17:37
On Fri, 01 Dec 06 14:12:24 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <ekpc5r$gh6$2(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <ekpa2n$8ss_005(a)s920.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <ekmuf7$sk6$1(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, >>> lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>>>In article <95d74$456dc13c$4fe7752$20089(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <485af$456c7009$4fe7665$9791(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In article <ekhdog$8qk_001(a)s1016.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>>>>>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>But again, what you get doesn't depend on your ability to pay. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Huh? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In a pure socialistic system, you'd receive what you need without >>regards >>>>>> >>>>>> to >>>>>> >>>>>>>>ability to pay, right? That's how the military works. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In the military physical performance is required and >>>>>>>routinely tested. Inability to perform results in >>>>>>>separation. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But you get ahead without regard to wealth. Your ability to pay doesn't >>>>>> affect your advancement, as it does with a capitalistic system. >>>>> >>>>>Performance is the only currency deciding advancement, >>>>>which isn't socialist at all. >>>> >>>>Sure it is. While everyone gets what they need to stay alive and healthy, >>>the >>>>best advance. >>> >>>No, they don't. You need to learn what motivates people to do >>>estraordinary things. >>> >>>> However, wealth isn't a consideration in advancement as it is >>>>under capitalism. >>> >>>Wealth is a side effect of capitalism. >>> >>> >>><snip> >>> >>>/BAH >> >>Are you seriously suggesting someone born to a poverty family has the same >>chance of becoming successful as someone born to a rich family in a >>capitalistic society? > >Yes. I will even go further and state that the poor kid has more >motivation than the rich kid. Thus, the poor kid will succeed >more often than the rich kid. I can't believe this comment. By your theory, those with capital would be smarter to just give it away because their children would be more likely "to succeed," then. I don't see this happening in droves, so there must be something to having money around that makes it worth the troubles. You think? I grew up poor, living in homes without walls, having to beg at stores for food, working the vegetable and berry fields here to eat and live. Yes, I was motivated. But then, there is another factor, too. I was lucky. What unmitigated bullshit to have to read. Wealth presents far more opportunity and it allows one to fail a few times to learn, as well. It provides access to better education and more of it, more access to important educational resources, better and more consistent medical care (health is, in fact, important to success by any measure), the time to cogitate about larger issues, and the time for personal care and upkeep (exercise, etc.) It also gives you your own time back. The key ingredient missed by those who imagine that hard work and intelligence are all that are needed to succeed, pasted together with motivation, is the very important element of 'opportunity.' For the poor, this amounts largely to 'luck.' For the rich, this includes all of the luck element but adds a lot more in terms of much wider access and the ability to create one's own opportunities with far less personal risk in quality of life. Like plants, which require many different ingredients to grow properly, success for the poor isn't just a matter of motivation or a matter of hard work or a matter of intelligence. Those certainly help, when opportunity does arrive, but it is also a matter of just being lucky enough to have an opportunity by which to apply those things well. Also, if you are poor, you are in little position to negotiate your value. Your needs are greater and you cannot risk satisfying them by taking a lot of chances in negotiating adequate pay. Eventually, this may change. But you have lost a lot of your life's time by then. And that is very important, too. There are a lot of people who work very hard their entire lives and are very intelligent folks, as well. They work just as hard and just as smartly and with just as much motivation to improve their situation as any who 'succeed' in life. And they live poor and die poor. The difference is the opportunity of beneficial relationships. In any case, other facts also fly in the face of this comment. There is no rapid disaffection of people and their wealth to give evidence to your comment. And everyone knows you are wrong about this kind of comment, anyway. It's downright nutty to see it in print. >A lot of people are reasonably wealthy from working on a production >line and not spending all of their money on junk. Yes. When they have opportunity. Perhaps you are talking about the US, by the way. I can't say. But I'm also speaking from my experiences as part of a 'train' moving people from El Salvador to Canada in the 1980's. I got to see first hand the effects on opportunity that happens when eight families control almost all of the arable land in a country. It's not all about motivation. That's only one ingredient in a mix of many others. And having sufficient money is far more benefit than otherwise. (Up to a point, perhaps. I'm not sure about being fabulously wealthy as I haven't yet experienced that -- except from a distance when my mother was dating someone who owned a 300 foot yacht [darn her for not marrying the guy, he was really nice, too.]) But I can tell you that being poor certainly isn't what seem to incorrectly imagine it as. >That can only >happen in a capitalistic-based society. Not only do these people >become wealthy, they breed kids so become wealthier. Only >people who are hungry go out and shoot dinner. Capitalism has its benefits. For a new society such as the early US with vast, untapped resources to the west of it, it makes eminent sense if you want to expand as fast as possible. But it is like a wildfire that burns the easy resources first, and quickly. When the easy resources are 'burned out,' and the perimeters are reached, then a new sustainable burning process needs to become the operating mode. Also, capitalism is often tethered to a partially separable concept, which is 'private property ownership,' and this relationship may need to change somewhat over time. I'm still mulling over those things and others. If you want to see a system where private property ownership wasn't present (and wasn't even imagined at the time and was learned only a great personal peril and expense by a clash of hidden social norms), take a look at earlier New Zealand Maori history. Jon |