The money masters

[Roger Johansson]

On Mar 13, 10:42 pm, BrunoR <***@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
.

You think you understand how the money system works?

.
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8753934454816686947>
.
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2665915773877500927>

It is mind-boggling beyond belief - just watch it..

.

To drive home the point the video should be edited to 1/10 th of its
content.

.
It could have been 10 times longer, covering more countries, and it
could have included other main factors behind many historical events.
They say in this movie that this is not the only factor behind
historical events, but a very important side of what has happened in
world history, and I agree.
.

It could be that the 'Money Masters' had their population's *best
interest* at
heart and finally they get blamed for their achievement (in typical
fashion ;-)).

.
Do you think killing a hundred million human beings during the 20th
century alone, is something some really good people would have done?
.
Which populations are you thinking about?
.
I don't think you have actually seen the movie, because it mentions no
population which has gained more than it has lost from the
manipulations of these "money masters".
.

There are always some very gifted persons born into any society. Others
are what they are--they'll never understand even if it is explained to them.

.
You don't have to be especially gifted to play an economic game, you
just need to know how it works.
.
Watch the movie and you will understand how it works too.

To understand the world history you need to have watched this movie.
In addition to that information you need to understand the role of
religion, real practical religion, not the ideology the religious
people hide behind.
Social traditions, gender roles, bullying, violence, male honor,
manipulative women, etc..

You need to understand that religion was seriously challenged
theoretically around the year 1500, when new ideas like humanism
versus theism, secularism versus religion, democracy versus religious
dictatorship gained strength enough to break the rule of the pope.

Since then we live in the era of enlightenment, spreading these new
ideas and struggling against reactionary ideas which try to stop the
advancement of the new ideas, secularism, equality, democracy, and
individual freedom.

Democracy lead to socialism, when the workers joined the class
struggle with worker's unions, worker's education, and millions of
poor people outvoted a few rich.
.
The pope saw this as a big problem, because with democracy and
socialism came secularism and individual freedom.

We are still in the process of abolishing religion and the rule of the
rich.
Watch this movie, and read my articles in alt.society.futures, and you
will know everything you need to know about the world history, and
what we can do about it.


--
Roger J.

[Roger Johansson]

<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8753934454816686947>
.
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2665915773877500927>

It is mind-boggling beyond belief - just watch it..

.

The american people have been used and abused, and horrible things
have been done behind its back.

http://www.killinghope.org/

"Killing Hope: US Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War II.

by William Blum

"I bought several more copies to circulate to
friends with the hope of shedding new light
and understanding on their political outlooks."
Oliver Stone

"A very valuable book. The research and organization
are extremely impressive."
A. J. Langguth, author, former New York Times Bureau Chief

"Each chapter I read made me more and more angry."
Dr. Helen Caldicott, international leader of
the anti-nuclear and environmental movements

Table of Contents
Introduction
1. China - 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid?
2. Italy - 1947-1948: Free elections, Hollywood style
3. Greece - 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client
state
4. The Philippines - 1940s and 1950s: America's oldest colony
5. Korea - 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be?
6. Albania - 1949-1953: The proper English spy
7. Eastern Europe - 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor
8. Germany - 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to
terrorism
9. Iran - 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings
10. Guatemala - 1953-1954: While the world watched
11. Costa Rica - Mid-1950s: Trying to topple an ally - Part 1
12. Syria - 1956-1957: Purchasing a new government
13. Middle East - 1957-1958: The Eisenhower Doctrine claims another
backyard for America
14. Indonesia - 1957-1958: War and pornography
15. Western Europe - 1950s and 1960s: Fronts within fronts within
fronts
16. British Guiana - 1953-1964: The CIA's international labor mafia
17. Soviet Union - Late 1940s to 1960s: From spy planes to book
publishing
18. Italy - 1950s to 1970s: Supporting the Cardinal's orphans and
techno-fascism
19. Vietnam - 1950-1973: The Hearts and Minds Circus
20. Cambodia - 1955-1973: Prince Sihanouk walks the high-wire of
neutralism
21. Laos - 1957-1973: L'Armée Clandestine
22. Haiti - 1959-1963: The Marines land, again
23. Guatemala - 1960: One good coup deserves another
24. France/Algeria - 1960s: L'état, c'est la CIA
25. Ecuador - 1960-1963: A text book of dirty tricks
26. The Congo - 1960-1964: The assassination of Patrice Lumumba
27. Brazil - 1961-1964: Introducing the marvelous new world of death
squads
28. Peru - 1960-1965: Fort Bragg moves to the jungle
29. Dominican Republic - 1960-1966: Saving democracy from communism by
getting rid of democracy
30. Cuba - 1959 to 1980s: The unforgivable revolution
31. Indonesia - 1965: Liquidating President Sukarno ... and 500,000
others
East Timor - 1975: And 200,000 more
32. Ghana - 1966: Kwame Nkrumah steps out of line
33. Uruguay - 1964-1970: Torture -- as American as apple pie
34. Chile - 1964-1973: A hammer and sickle stamped on your child's
forehead
35. Greece - 1964-1974: "Fuck your Parliament and your Constitution,"
said
the President of the United States
36. Bolivia - 1964-1975: Tracking down Che Guevara in the land of coup
d'etat
37. Guatemala - 1962 to 1980s: A less publicized "final solution"
38. Costa Rica - 1970-1971: Trying to topple an ally -- Part 2
39. Iraq - 1972-1975: Covert action should not be confused with
missionary work
40. Australia - 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dust
41. Angola - 1975 to 1980s: The Great Powers Poker Game
42. Zaire - 1975-1978: Mobutu and the CIA, a marriage made in heaven
43. Jamaica - 1976-1980: Kissinger's ultimatum
44. Seychelles - 1979-1981: Yet another area of great strategic
importance
45. Grenada - 1979-1984: Lying -- one of the few growth industries in
Washington
46. Morocco - 1983: A video nasty
47. Suriname - 1982-1984: Once again, the Cuban bogeyman
48. Libya - 1981-1989: Ronald Reagan meets his match
49. Nicaragua - 1981-1990: Destabilization in slow motion
50. Panama - 1969-1991: Double-crossing our drug supplier
51. Bulgaria 1990/Albania 1991: Teaching communists what democracy is
all about
52. Iraq - 1990-1991: Desert holocaust
53. Afghanistan - 1979-1992: America's Jihad
54. El Salvador - 1980-1994: Human rights, Washington style
55. Haiti - 1986-1994: Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?
56. The American Empire - 1992 to present
Notes
Appendix I: This is How the Money Goes Round
Appendix II: Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad,
1798-1945
Appendix III: U. S. Government Assassination Plots
Index"

--
Roger J.

[galathaea]

Post by Roger Johansson
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8753934454816686947>
.
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2665915773877500927>> > It is mind-boggling beyond belief - just watch it..
.
The american people have been used and abused, and horrible things
have been done behind its back.
http://www.killinghope.org/
"Killing Hope: US Military and CIA
Interventions Since World War II.
by William Blum
"I bought several more copies to circulate to
friends with the hope of shedding new light
and understanding on their political outlooks."
Oliver Stone
"A very valuable book. The research and organization
are extremely impressive."
A. J. Langguth, author, former New York Times Bureau Chief
"Each chapter I read made me more and more angry."
Dr. Helen Caldicott, international leader of
the anti-nuclear and environmental movements
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. China - 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid?
2. Italy - 1947-1948: Free elections, Hollywood style
3. Greece - 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client
state
4. The Philippines - 1940s and 1950s: America's oldest colony
5. Korea - 1945-1953: Was it all that it appeared to be?
6. Albania - 1949-1953: The proper English spy
7. Eastern Europe - 1948-1956: Operation Splinter Factor
8. Germany - 1950s: Everything from juvenile delinquency to
terrorism
9. Iran - 1953: Making it safe for the King of Kings
10. Guatemala - 1953-1954: While the world watched
11. Costa Rica - Mid-1950s: Trying to topple an ally - Part 1
12. Syria - 1956-1957: Purchasing a new government
13. Middle East - 1957-1958: The Eisenhower Doctrine claims another
backyard for America
14. Indonesia - 1957-1958: War and pornography
15. Western Europe - 1950s and 1960s: Fronts within fronts within
fronts
16. British Guiana - 1953-1964: The CIA's international labor mafia
17. Soviet Union - Late 1940s to 1960s: From spy planes to book
publishing
18. Italy - 1950s to 1970s: Supporting the Cardinal's orphans and
techno-fascism
19. Vietnam - 1950-1973: The Hearts and Minds Circus
20. Cambodia - 1955-1973: Prince Sihanouk walks the high-wire of
neutralism
21. Laos - 1957-1973: L'Armée Clandestine
22. Haiti - 1959-1963: The Marines land, again
23. Guatemala - 1960: One good coup deserves another
24. France/Algeria - 1960s: L'état, c'est la CIA
25. Ecuador - 1960-1963: A text book of dirty tricks
26. The Congo - 1960-1964: The assassination of Patrice Lumumba
27. Brazil - 1961-1964: Introducing the marvelous new world of death
squads
28. Peru - 1960-1965: Fort Bragg moves to the jungle
29. Dominican Republic - 1960-1966: Saving democracy from communism by
getting rid of democracy
30. Cuba - 1959 to 1980s: The unforgivable revolution
31. Indonesia - 1965: Liquidating President Sukarno ... and 500,000
others
East Timor - 1975: And 200,000 more
32. Ghana - 1966: Kwame Nkrumah steps out of line
33. Uruguay - 1964-1970: Torture -- as American as apple pie
34. Chile - 1964-1973: A hammer and sickle stamped on your child's
forehead
35. Greece - 1964-1974: "Fuck your Parliament and your Constitution,"
said
the President of the United States
36. Bolivia - 1964-1975: Tracking down Che Guevara in the land of coup
d'etat
37. Guatemala - 1962 to 1980s: A less publicized "final solution"
38. Costa Rica - 1970-1971: Trying to topple an ally -- Part 2
39. Iraq - 1972-1975: Covert action should not be confused with
missionary work
40. Australia - 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dust
41. Angola - 1975 to 1980s: The Great Powers Poker Game
42. Zaire - 1975-1978: Mobutu and the CIA, a marriage made in heaven
43. Jamaica - 1976-1980: Kissinger's ultimatum
44. Seychelles - 1979-1981: Yet another area of great strategic
importance
45. Grenada - 1979-1984: Lying -- one of the few growth industries in
Washington
46. Morocco - 1983: A video nasty
47. Suriname - 1982-1984: Once again, the Cuban bogeyman
48. Libya - 1981-1989: Ronald Reagan meets his match
49. Nicaragua - 1981-1990: Destabilization in slow motion
50. Panama - 1969-1991: Double-crossing our drug supplier
51. Bulgaria 1990/Albania 1991: Teaching communists what democracy is
all about
52. Iraq - 1990-1991: Desert holocaust
53. Afghanistan - 1979-1992: America's Jihad
54. El Salvador - 1980-1994: Human rights, Washington style
55. Haiti - 1986-1994: Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?
56. The American Empire - 1992 to present
Notes
Appendix I: This is How the Money Goes Round
Appendix II: Instances of Use of United States Armed Forces Abroad,
1798-1945
Appendix III: U. S. Government Assassination Plots
Index"

this is one of the clearest and most clinical books
on american foreign policy i have ever read

it is a very structural book
describing in detail the post-wwii growth of american militarism
and the cia-pentagon interactions that organise it

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar

[ZerkonX]

Post by Roger Johansson

To drive home the point the video should be edited to 1/10 th of its
content.

Yes, to drive home the point. In print form it could be a single page
flyer. In TV form it could be a 30sec PSA.

Post by Roger Johansson
.
It could have been 10 times longer,

Yes, to treat the point. In print form it could be a set of books - 10
volumes. In fact, it is an entire field of study.

This topic is not new. This film re-addresses the same issue that has been
addressed since the founding of the United States. It reached it's first
major peak during Andrew Jackson's time. Also, true conservatives AND true
liberals (YIKES!!) have kept this issue alive since then in their own
different ways.

However, this still needs tending to. Even though it is an old issue, the
horrors that come from it are as new as tomorrows headlines as this film
illustrates.

The generation that pulls the plug on this will be the greatest
generation that ever lived on this earth. This is not an exaggeration.
The best thing about this battle is that the weight of time is against
them.

Once we all come out of our gadget stupors, this jig will be up.

[Roger Johansson]

On Mar 15, 3:34 pm, ZerkonX <***@zerkonx.net> wrote:
.

Post by ZerkonX
The generation that pulls the plug on this will be the greatest
generation that ever lived on this earth. This is not an exaggeration.
The best thing about this battle is that the weight of time is against
them.

.
The most important issue to spread is the question;
How do you want the society to work?

When enough people have agreed on a vision of the future society we
can win the election and start realizing that vision.

The main hinder is that people are filled with anger, and want to get
an outlet for that anger. They want to find somebody to hate and
somebody to attack.

They do not realize that they are doing exactly what the enemy wants
them to do, go out on the streets and fight with the police.
That doesn't lead anywhere.

What we really should do is to create a vision, discuss and spread
that vision peacefully, so we can start political parties with that
vision as program, and vote for a better society.

Help people concentrate on the most important issue, how do you want
the society to work?

Do you want a lot of individual freedom?
Do you want material equality?
Do you want an open democratic system or do you want a few rich people
deciding the important issues about our world secretly?

Write down your own vision, and compare it with others, develop your
vision when you get new ideas or when people make you realize that
something in your vision is not such a good idea.

Have both an advanced vision and a program for today.

My advanced vision is a moneyless society where all work is voluntary
and everybody have the same amount of personal property. But today I
vote for the socialists in general elections in my country, because
they are closer to my future goals than the conservatives, the
religious rightwing parties.

When more people support the idea of a moneyless society and
individual freedom we can work together to make that vision known and
more accepted.

The socialists in my country want to abolish capitalism and the
kingdom, but they say that doing that today would not be good for the
swedish people.
We would be economically and politically isolated like Cuba.

The governments in many countries have a similar standpoint, Russia,
China, India, Canada, Latin America, Europe. As long as capitalism is
strong and the money system is backed up by USA and the strongest
military power in the world we need to continue with this compromise,
a little capitalism and a little socialism.

We are all waiting for the american people to become intelligent
enough to take control of their own government and military forces.


--
Roger J.

[Publius]

Post by Roger Johansson
When enough people have agreed on a vision of the future society we
can win the election and start realizing that vision.

Sorry, Roger, but people may not choose the kind of society in which they
live, except by moving to a different one if they don't like their present
one, or by withdrawing from it altogether.

The reason for that is that a society is nothing but people, and "realizing a
vision of a furture society" would involve choosing who those people shall be
and how they live their lives. Since no person may make those choices for
even one other person, they may not choose the kind of society in which they
live, except as noted above.

[Roger Johansson]

On Mar 15, 9:02 pm, Publius <***@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
.

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
When enough people have agreed on a vision of the future society we
can win the election and start realizing that vision.

.

Post by Publius
Sorry, Roger, but people may not choose the kind of society in which they
live,

.
I know you do not like democracy, but fact is that we live in a
democracy, and when enough people want to change it we can change it.
Democracy = the people rules itself.
.

Post by Publius
except by moving to a different one if they don't like their present
one, or by withdrawing from it altogether.

.
That is an option for you, who do not like democracy.

http://wikihost.org/wikis/program/wiki/start

Program

This is a simple and practical political program most people can
support.

Private property
Everybody can register the same amount of private property, like cars,
houses, apartments, boats, etc..
Special rules for children of different ages, they get a part of a
grownup's
amount of property to be handled by the parents.
When this program is implemented the ones who have less than the
average
can register more private property for free until they reach the
common limit,
the average. Those who have too much can only register the same amount
as
everybody else so they must give the rest to the society.

Consumption
Everybody has the same right to consumption of consumption stuff,
like food, clothes, etc..
Most simple consumption stuff is not checked in any way, just get it
for free at the supermarket. A few things like airplane travelling,
russian caviar,
must be divided fairly among all people, using a personal consumption
card.

Individual freedom
Everybody can choose for themselves what to do.
There is no money system, all work is voluntary.

We simply assume that enough people will work in the production of
food
to satisfy the needs for everybody. This needs less than 2% of the
people and
the food production is being further rationalized with time.

The rest of the production depends on what people want to produce, it
is up
to each person to contribute in any way he likes to the society.

He or she can also choose to do nothing if he likes. Freedom of the
individual
is more important than production results, and we are still convinced
that enough
people will contribute with things that are useful for us all.

Look at the open source and freeware software production, for example.
Millions of software writers are already today producing
software without getting paid for it.
A lot of people like to do things that are useful, or which generate
happiness,
like musicians, for example.

Laws
We must have some laws, like you must drive on the right side of the
road,
you may not steal other's property, you may not hurt anyone or
threaten
anyone. No laws against drug use, it is up to the individual.

Enterprise
Anybody can start a new company for production or other activities.
Apart from your own private resources you can ask for extra resources
from
the democratic institutions, like the town hall, the national
government, etc..
You can ask for help from other people to achieve more than you can
alone.
The company must be run democratically if more than one person is
involved.
And, of course, you cannot make any profit, there is no money system,
but
you can produce something you think is good for people.

Democracy
The society is run democratically, and the common resources are
ultimately
managed by the democratic institutions, which can delegate the running
of things
to single persons or companies, as suitable in each case.

Copyright
There are no laws about copyright and patents. Everything published is
the
property of all of us, it belongs to the human race. This means you
are free to
copy and distribute computer programs, music, movies, etc as you like.
The authors have no need for compensation as they are guaranteed
material equality as everybody else.

How-to implement this program
Start a new party in your country with this program.
When you have a majority you can implement it.
We have democracy already in most countries in the world,
so this can be done peacefully and legally.
Violence or illegal struggle for this program is useless, we need
the majority of the people behind this program before it can be
implemented.

Explanations
This program is intended to be a program for any and all countries,
and ideally for the whole world, in the post-capitalist era.
This program does not suffer from a lot of problems in the capitalist
system, like
problems with interest rates, inflation, wages, mortgages, insurance
companies, etc..

Discussions about this program are held in the newsgroup
alt.society.futures
available to everybody who has internet via google groups.

Program name
This program could be called anything but we recommend the name
Utopia,
because this program is in line with utopian thinkers through the
history, and that name does not have any serious negative connotations
to most people.
But if this name causes problems of misunderstandings you can choose
any name you like.

Earlier web site
For people wanting more background we can recommend an earlier web
site about this program: <http://hem.passagen.se/rj77/>

--
Roger J.

[Publius]

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
When enough people have agreed on a vision of the future society we
can win the election and start realizing that vision.

Sorry, Roger, but people may not choose the kind of society in which
they live,

I know you do not like democracy, but fact is that we live in a
democracy, and when enough people want to change it we can change it.
Democracy = the people rules itself.

Liberty = each person rules himself.

Each person is an autonomous individual, not a cell, and societies ("the
people") are free associations of such individuals, not organisms. When
democracy begins to treat individuals as cells, it is time to overthrow it.

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
except by moving to a different one if they don't like their present
one, or by withdrawing from it altogether.

.
That is an option for you, who do not like democracy.

No, it is an option for totalitarian democrats who would rather not be shot
for theft or trespass. They can withdraw from free society and launch a
commune.

[Roger Johansson]

Post by Publius
Liberty = each person rules himself.

So you support my program?
It gives everybody a maximum of freedom. All work is voluntary, and
everybody will have the same amount of property and are allowed to
consume food and clothes without paying for it, no matter what they
do.

You cannot design a more free society, where each individual has a
maximum of liberty, than in the model I suggest.

Post by Publius
Each person is an autonomous individual, not a cell, and societies ("the
people") are free associations of such individuals, not organisms.

In my model everybody are free to join any group or workplace they
want.
They will not be forced through the need for money or the need for
material necessities like food and housing.

Post by Publius
"People's democracy" is no fun when all the productive people have left. No

one is left to steal from.

Those you call "productive people" are probably the rich, investment
capitalists who have never produced anything, they just play a money
game.

They will be allowed to move to a deserted island with all their
dollar bills, if they like. It would be fun to watch how these
"productive people" would try to make others wash their clothes, and
make food for them, and build houses for them.
They will all be very rich, so they will all refuse to do any
practical work.

They will probably become so desperate that they try to eat dollar
bills.


--
Roger J.

[Publius]

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
Liberty = each person rules himself.

So you support my program?
It gives everybody a maximum of freedom. All work is voluntary, and
everybody will have the same amount of property and are allowed to
consume food and clothes without paying for it, no matter what they
do.

Well, Roger, your "program" is self-contradictory. If everyone is "maximally
free," then they will not have equal property, simply because people are not
equally productive or equally ambitious. So to maintain equality you'll have
to take some property from the more productive and give it to the less
productive, by force. Then the more productive are no longer free.

At that point they will either leave your "program" (as did the productive
Cubans or East Germans) or just stop producing (as did the productive
Soviets). Then there will be very little food and clothes to distribute.

[Roger Johansson]

On Mar 17, 6:25 am, Publius <***@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
...

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
Liberty = each person rules himself.

....

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
So you support my program?

...

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
It gives everybody a maximum of freedom. All work is voluntary, and
everybody will have the same amount of property and are allowed to
consume food and clothes without paying for it, no matter what they
do.

....

Post by Publius
Well, Roger, your "program" is self-contradictory.

....
It is you who are self-contradictory. You say you want a maximum of
personal liberty for each individual but you do not support the
program which gives everybody a maximum of individual liberty.
....

Post by Publius
If everyone is "maximally
free," then they will not have equal property,

..........
They will have equal amounts of property, because they have equal
right to own personal property. You can register as much personal
property as everybody else. This program has found a way to combine a
maximum of individual liberty with a maximum of personal property for
everybody.
..........

Post by Publius
simply because people are not
equally productive or equally ambitious.

...........
Everybody will have a maximum of freedom to do whatever they like, so
everybody can be happy, no matter how productive or ambitious they
are.
..........

Post by Publius
So to maintain equality you'll have
to take some property from the more productive and give it to the less
productive, by force.

.............
In capitalism force is used to take from the workers and give to the
capital owners, is that better?
..........

Post by Publius
Then the more productive are no longer free.

...........
Everybody are free to do whatever they like, and we can choose
individually how to be productive. For some people it means cutting
down trees to make furniture, for others it means playing chess or
composing new music. Others want to paint grafitti or start a new
industry.
.............

Post by Publius
At that point they will either leave your "program" (as did the productive
Cubans or East Germans) or just stop producing (as did the productive
Soviets). Then there will be very little food and clothes to distribute.

.............
This is a myth you are spreading.
How productive are the cubans in Miami?
Are they really known for making shoes or making clothes or harvesting
crop?

The people who will try to emigrate are the people who want others to
work for them, they want to be capital owners.

Many of the emigrants are simply people who harbor a lot of anger
which they choose to direct against the government, there are a lot of
such people in most countries. They become easy targets for anti-
government propaganda.
........


--
Roger J.

[Publius]

Post by Roger Johansson
They will have equal amounts of property, because they have equal
right to own personal property. You can register as much personal
property as everybody else. This program has found a way to combine a
maximum of individual liberty with a maximum of personal property for
everybody.

Post by Publius
simply because people are not
equally productive or equally ambitious.

Everybody will have a maximum of freedom to do whatever they like, so
everybody can be happy, no matter how productive or ambitious they
are.

Post by Publius
So to maintain equality you'll have
to take some property from the more productive and give it to the less
productive, by force.

In capitalism force is used to take from the workers and give to the
capital owners, is that better?

We're going to try to evaluate both of your claims, i.e., that your
system allows both "maximum possible liberty" and "maximum personal
property." We'll take up the "property" claim after we analyze the
"liberty" claim. OK?

You appear to be conceding that property will be taken from the more
productive by force. Is that correct?

You also seem to agree that to the extent a person is subject to force, he
is not free. Is that also correct?

Your argument then seems to be that some force is necessary in any system,
and that it is employed in "capitalism" also. Is that also correct?

You then argue that, while all systems require some force, your
egalitarian regime will require less force, or that force will be more
equally applied and will thus be less severe for any one person.

Thus your conclusion is that your system allows the "maximum possible
liberty," though not perfect liberty, to every person.

Do I have it right so far?

Let me hear your answers to those questions, and we can proceed from
there.

[Roger Johansson]

On Mar 17, 9:04 pm, Publius <***@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
.-

Post by Publius
You appear to be conceding that property will be taken from the more
productive by force. Is that correct?

.
No. The productive people who have low wages today, like the workers
who pick fruit, work in mines, those who wash clothes, serve food,
will all gain on this reform. They will get more property than before
and they do not have to worry about money anymore.
.
The improductive people, who today live off other's work, like
stockholders, bankers, owners of industry, will get a lower standard
of living when they get the same material equality as everybody else.
.

Post by Publius
You also seem to agree that to the extent a person is subject to force, he
is not free. Is that also correct?

.
Yes, today millions and billions of people are not free to choose for
themselves when to work and what to work with. Because of the money
system the rich can control the lives of the poor and how they must
work.

My program liberates billions of people, and it also liberates the
rich, because they no longer have to worry about how to play the
monetary game to get a maximum of profit.
.

Post by Publius
Your argument then seems to be that some force is necessary in any system,
and that it is employed in "capitalism" also. Is that also correct?

.
Capitalism creates a need for a very big police force and military
force which is needed to uphold the incredibly big in-equalities of
the capitalist system.
The capitalist system also creates a lot of anger and desperation for
millions of people and that desperation creates more crimes.

In a better world, where everybody already have the same material
equality and individual freedom there is much less reason for crimes.
And many crimes which are common today will be impossible or
meaningless. If there are no banks and no money it is impossible to
rob a bank or to rob somebody walking down the street.
.

Post by Publius
You then argue that, while all systems require some force, your
egalitarian regime will require less force, or that force will be more
equally applied and will thus be less severe for any one person.

.
When crimes become impossible or useless the level of crime will of
course decrease. The level of anger and desperation will also be a lot
lower.
.

Post by Publius
Thus your conclusion is that your system allows the "maximum possible
liberty," though not perfect liberty, to every person.

.
I don't know what you mean with the term "perfect liberty".
Do you mean the right to control other people and make them work for
you?
...................

On Mar 15, 3:34 pm, ZerkonX <***@zerkonx.net> wrote:
.

Post by Publius
The generation that pulls the plug on this will be the greatest
generation that ever lived on this earth. This is not an exaggeration.
The best thing about this battle is that the weight of time is against
them.

.
The most important issue to spread is the question;
How do you want the society to work?

When enough people have agreed on a vision of the future society we
can win the election and start realizing that vision.

The main hinder is that people are filled with anger, and want to get
an outlet for that anger. They want to find somebody to hate and
somebody to attack.

They do not realize that they are doing exactly what the enemy wants
them to do, go out on the streets and fight with the police.
That doesn't lead anywhere.

What we really should do is to create a vision, discuss and spread
that vision peacefully, so we can start political parties with that
vision as program, and vote for a better society.

Help people concentrate on the most important issue, how do you want
the society to work?

Do you want a lot of individual freedom?
Do you want material equality?
Do you want an open democratic system or do you want a few rich people
deciding the important issues about our world secretly?

Write down your own vision, and compare it with others, develop your
vision when you get new ideas or when people make you realize that
something in your vision is not such a good idea.

Have both an advanced vision and a program for today.

My advanced vision is a moneyless society where all work is voluntary
and everybody have the same amount of personal property. But today I
vote for the socialists in general elections in my country, because
they are closer to my future goals than the conservatives, the
religious rightwing parties.

When more people support the idea of a moneyless society and
individual freedom we can work together to make that vision known and
more accepted.

The socialists in my country want to abolish capitalism and the
kingdom, but they say that doing that today would not be good for the
swedish people.
We would be economically and politically isolated like Cuba.

The governments in many countries have a similar standpoint, Russia,
China, India, Canada, Latin America, Europe. As long as capitalism is
strong and the money system is backed up by USA and the strongest
military power in the world we need to continue with this compromise,
a little capitalism and a little socialism.

We are all waiting for the american people to become intelligent
enough to take control of their own government and military forces.


--
Roger J.

[Publius]

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
You appear to be conceding that property will be taken from the more
productive by force. Is that correct?

No. The productive people who have low wages today, like the workers
who pick fruit, work in mines, those who wash clothes, serve food,
will all gain on this reform. They will get more property than before
and they do not have to worry about money anymore.

Well, you didn't *completely* answer the question. You say, "No," that
property will not be taken from the more productive by force. If not, then
you'll have to explain how the workers who pick fruit, etc., "will get more
property." (1) Where will they get it? (2) Where will it come from?

But since you say "No," property will not be taken by force, then may I
assume that if I am a popular novelist, whose novels millions of people wish
to read, and I offer copies of my novel to anyone who will pay me $20, then
I may keep anything paid to me? (3) Nothing will be taken from me by force?

Post by Roger Johansson
The improductive people, who today live off other's work, like
stockholders, bankers, owners of industry, will get a lower standard
of living when they get the same material equality as everybody else.

You think stockholders, bankers, and owners of industry are unproductive?
(4) Where would the industry get the money to make its product, if not from
stockholders, bankers, and owners?

But let's consider the stockholder. A stockholder is a person who has
invested some money in a business enterprise. Why, under your system, would
their incomes be lower, unless property is taken from them by force? Or will
you just forbid them to invest in the enterprise of their choice in the
first place? (5) Isn't that also a violation of their liberty? How does that
reconcile with your "No" answer above?

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
You also seem to agree that to the extent a person is subject to force,

he is not free. Is that also correct?

Yes, today millions and billions of people are not free to choose for
themselves when to work and what to work with. Because of the money
system the rich can control the lives of the poor and how they must
work.

Well, we need to clarify what is meant by "free" and "force." You seem to
agree that a person is not free if he is subject to force. But not being
free to choose when to work and what work to do does not mean a person is
subject to force. I may not be free to choose to work as a doctor, because I
don't have the proper training, but there is no force involved. I may not be
free to work as a novelist because no one wants to read my novels. But that
lack of freedom is not due to any force exerted upon me. I may wish to work
as a fruit picker and earn $100/hour, and discover that no one will pay me
$100/hour. But no one is forcing me. If I demand $100/hour they will just
not do business with me. (6) How am I forced? (7) Who is forcing me?

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
Your argument then seems to be that some force is necessary in any
system, and that it is employed in "capitalism" also. Is that also
correct?

Capitalism creates a need for a very big police force and military
force which is needed to uphold the incredibly big in-equalities of
the capitalist system. The capitalist system also creates a lot of anger >
and desperation for millions of people and that desperation creates more >
crimes.

Yes, free economies do allow great inequalities, and free societies do try
to protect each person in the enjoyment of his property, no matter how
unequal, as long as that property has not been acquired by force. They do
resort to force to resist force. That is, force may be deployed against
persons who have themselves used force, but not against anyone who has not.

Apparently in your system force is allowed to insure equality. That
contradicts your answer to the first question, above. (8) Can you explain
that contradiction?

Post by Roger Johansson
When crimes become impossible or useless the level of crime will of
course decrease. The level of anger and desperation will also be a lot
lower.

Why would crimes becomes impossible? Suppose we have equal property, but I
want *more* than my "equal share" of certain property. (9) Why is it
"impossible" or "useless" for me to steal it from you? If I can't get the
quantity I want, why would I be any less angry?

Post by Roger Johansson
I don't know what you mean with the term "perfect liberty".
Do you mean the right to control other people and make them work for
you?

"Perfect liberty" would be a system where no one ever initiates force. But
everyone may respond to force with force.

And of course in such a system no one would have a right to control other
people, i.e., to use force against them. But if I refuse to hire you to do
some work for me, or refuse to pay you more than your work is worth to me, I
have not applied any force to you. (10) Merely not doing business with you
is not forcing you, is it?

There are 10 questions numbered above. Can you answer those and clarify
these issues?

[Roger Johansson]

Publius wrote:
..........

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
No. The productive people who have low wages today, like the workers
who pick fruit, work in mines, those who wash clothes, serve food,
will all gain on this reform. They will get more property than before
and they do not have to worry about money anymore.

..............

Post by Publius
Well, you didn't *completely* answer the question. You say, "No," that
property will not be taken from the more productive by force. If not, then
you'll have to explain how the workers who pick fruit, etc., "will get more
property." (1) Where will they get it? (2) Where will it come from?

...........

The car register, boat register, the house and land register are
combined into a property register. All citizens are allowed to
register the same amount of property.
When you decide to own a certain car you use the terminal in the car
shop and register yourself as the owner of that car.

Those who owned more than the average before the reform will have to
choose what property they want to keep. The majority, who owned less
than the average, can register more property as their property.
..............

Post by Publius
But since you say "No," property will not be taken by force, then may I
assume that if I am a popular novelist, whose novels millions of people wish
to read, and I offer copies of my novel to anyone who will pay me $20, then
I may keep anything paid to me? (3) Nothing will be taken from me by force?

Read my program, there is no money, everybody gets the same material
standard of living. There are no copyright and patent laws. There are
no drug laws, you can go to the pharmacy and get drugs for free.

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
The improductive people, who today live off other's work, like
stockholders, bankers, owners of industry, will get a lower standard
of living when they get the same material equality as everybody else.

..........

Post by Publius
You think stockholders, bankers, and owners of industry are unproductive?
(4) Where would the industry get the money to make its product, if not from
stockholders, bankers, and owners?

..............

Money is power, power is based on violence.
The spanish invaders in latin america claimed the new land for the
spanish king.
The land became the property of the spanish king, created and kept
through the use of force.

The spanish king delegated parts of his property to be ruled by
generals and other people he trusted. All big fortunes in the world
have been created in similar ways, through the use of force, and the
army still protects the rich people.
..............

Post by Publius
But let's consider the stockholder. A stockholder is a person who has
invested some money in a business enterprise. Why, under your system, would
their incomes be lower, unless property is taken from them by force? Or will

............

The money system is abolished, so there are no capitalists anymore.
So you cannot talk about an "income" anymore.
All work is voluntary, so people will produce whatever they like.
.............

Post by Publius
you just forbid them to invest in the enterprise of their choice in the
first place? (5) Isn't that also a violation of their liberty? How does that
reconcile with your "No" answer above?

..........

When there is no money it is impossible to "invest" any money.
You can only invest your own work according to your own wishes.
...........

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
Capitalism creates a need for a very big police force and military
force which is needed to uphold the incredibly big in-equalities of
the capitalist system. The capitalist system also creates a lot of anger >
and desperation for millions of people and that desperation creates more >
crimes.
When crimes become impossible or useless the level of crime will of
course decrease. The level of anger and desperation will also be a lot
lower.

..........

Post by Publius
Why would crimes becomes impossible? Suppose we have equal property, but I
want *more* than my "equal share" of certain property. (9) Why is it
"impossible" or "useless" for me to steal it from you? If I can't get the
quantity I want, why would I be any less angry?

.............

You cannot register more property than everybody else, so if you steal
a car you cannot become the legal owner of it. It will be reported as
stolen, and you will get caught very quickly because the police will
find that car very quickly.

And why would you want to steal a car, when you can get one for free,
as long as your personal property does not amount to more than the
maximum limit, the same limit everybody else must respect.
As we produce more cars, houses, apartments and boats the maximum
level will be raised accordingly.
..........

If you own a lot of money you have a lot of power over other people.
All monetary power stems from power achieved through violence.

To give every individual a maximum of freedom we cannot allow some
people to take control of other people, or take control of the
production and transport system. So you cannot hire people or boss
people or push people around with the help of a money system or any
other means.

Workplaces are ruled democratically by those who volunteer to work
there.


--
Roger J.

[Publius]

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
Well, you didn't *completely* answer the question. You say, "No," that
property will not be taken from the more productive by force. If not,
then you'll have to explain how the workers who pick fruit, etc., "will
get more property." (1) Where will they get it? (2) Where will it come
from?

The car register, boat register, the house and land register are
combined into a property register. All citizens are allowed to
register the same amount of property.
When you decide to own a certain car you use the terminal in the car
shop and register yourself as the owner of that car.

That doesn't answer the question, Roger. The questions were, (1) Where will
they get it? (2) Where will it (boat, house, car, etc.) come from?

Can you answer the question asked please?

Post by Roger Johansson
Those who owned more than the average before the reform will have to
choose what property they want to keep. The majority, who owned less
than the average, can register more property as their property.

So those who own "more than average" will have property taken from them by
force, contrary to your earlier claim. Correct?

Post by Roger Johansson
Read my program, there is no money, everybody gets the same material
standard of living. There are no copyright and patent laws. There are
no drug laws, you can go to the pharmacy and get drugs for free.

OK. Let's assume there is no money. Instead of $20, I demand that those who
want to read my novel must supply labor or materials for the 30-room mansion
I am building. Anyone who wishes to work for 1 hour may read my novel. They
must read it on the premises (since there are no copyright laws I distribute
no copies). I supply a comfortable reading room with a complimentary glass of
ice tea. Suppose the same number of people wish to read my book (many
millions), and they are lined up at the job site to put in their hour. Do I
get to keep the house when it is finished? Or will it be taken from me by
force because it is much bigger than everyone else's?

Can you answer that "yes" or "no", Roger?

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
You think stockholders, bankers, and owners of industry are
unproductive? (4) Where would the industry get the money to make its
product, if not from stockholders, bankers, and owners?

Money is power, power is based on violence.
The spanish invaders in latin america claimed the new land for the
spanish king.
The land became the property of the spanish king, created and kept
through the use of force.

You didn't answer the question again, Roger. The question was (4) Where would
the industry get the money to make its product, if not from stockholders,
bankers, and owners? But since there is no money to buy materials and no one
must work, and no property may be taken by force, where will the industry get
the materials and workers to make the product?

Can you answer that one please?

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
But let's consider the stockholder. A stockholder is a person who has
invested some money in a business enterprise. Why, under your system,
would their incomes be lower, unless property is taken from them by
force?

Ok. Why would their "material standard of living" be lower, unless some
property were taken from them by force?

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
Why would crimes becomes impossible? Suppose we have equal property,
but I want *more* than my "equal share" of certain property. (9) Why is
it "impossible" or "useless" for me to steal it from you? If I can't
get the quantity I want, why would I be any less angry?

You cannot register more property than everybody else, so if you steal
a car you cannot become the legal owner of it. It will be reported as
stolen, and you will get caught very quickly because the police will
find that car very quickly.

Why would they find it any more quickly than they do now? All cars are
registered now, but they are stolen regularly just the same. And cars are
fairly conspicuous. Much property (antiques, artworks, rare books, jewelry,
custom-made clothing, exotic foodstuffs, custom-made furniture, novel drugs,
etc.), would never be registered and never found, despite any laws.

You didn't answer any of the 10 questions I asked. Can you take another shot
at it?

[Roger Johansson]

On Mar 19, 4:01 am, Publius <***@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
..........

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
The car register, boat register, the house and land register are
combined into a property register. All citizens are allowed to
register the same amount of property.
When you decide to own a certain car you use the terminal in the car
shop and register yourself as the owner of that car.

...........

Post by Publius
That doesn't answer the question, Roger. The questions were, (1) Where will
they get it? (2) Where will it (boat, house, car, etc.) come from?

.............

Cars are made in big factories where industrial robots do most of the
work, supervised by engineers who control the computers.
The design of new car models is done by people who love to design
cars.
I watched a program on the discovery channel about the people who
design new cars, and it was obvious that they love their work.

Some cars are also made by enthusiasts like hotrod builders who make
cars manually.
.............

Post by Publius
So those who own "more than average" will have property taken from them by
force, contrary to your earlier claim. Correct?

No, I have said all the time that those who own more than the average
will have to choose what they want to keep, and return the surplus to
the society.
...........

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
Read my program, there is no money, everybody gets the same material
standard of living. There are no copyright and patent laws. There are
no drug laws, you can go to the pharmacy and get drugs for free.

..............

Post by Publius
OK. Let's assume there is no money. Instead of $20, I demand that those who
want to read my novel must supply labor or materials for the 30-room mansion
I am building. Anyone who wishes to work for 1 hour may read my novel.

If you try to control other people you will be warned, and if you
persist in creating schemes for the control of other people you will
be punished.
Because the freedom of the individual is the most important principle
in the new world.

If you write a novel you either publish it or not. If you publish it
it will be available for all people for free.

Post by Publius
Do I
get to keep the house when it is finished? Or will it be taken from me by
force because it is much bigger than everyone else's?

If you build a house it will be valued and you can register it as your
property, but you might have to unregister other property first so
your total amount of personal property will not be higher than the
same maximum limit as everybody else can own.

It doesnt matter if you build your own house or register a house
someone else has built, you still have to register it as your property
to become the legal owner of it.

Post by Publius
since there is no money to buy materials and no one
must work, and no property may be taken by force, where will the industry get
the materials and workers to make the product?

...............

Some people like to work in a car factory, others like to work in
mines, because we have very nice machines which do the job, we only
need people who drive the giant trucks and cranes.

I watched a program about the biggest trucks in the world, which are
used in mining gold, and most of the drivers were women who loved to
drive these giant trucks.

..........

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
You cannot register more property than everybody else, so if you steal
a car you cannot become the legal owner of it. It will be reported as
stolen, and you will get caught very quickly because the police will
find that car very quickly.

..............

Post by Publius
Why would they find it any more quickly than they do now? All cars are
registered now, but they are stolen regularly just the same.

Boats which are built today often have a chip built into them, like
you can put a chip under the skin of a dog, so you can prove that it
is your boat or your dog.
We see today how systems are built up for automatic reading of license
plates on cars in cities where you pay a tax for driving, because they
want to reduce the emission of harmful gas. These system also make it
easier to track terrorists.

In the future it will be impossible to drive around in a stolen car.
..............

Post by Publius
And cars are
fairly conspicuous. Much property (antiques, artworks, rare books, jewelry,
custom-made clothing, exotic foodstuffs, custom-made furniture, novel drugs,
etc.), would never be registered and never found, despite any laws.

.........
That is no problem, the important issue is the freedom of the
individual.
When nobody can use private property like an industry or millions of
dollars to gain control of other people we have succeeded in the
liberation of the individual.

You can own special furniture, special clothes and other stuff, as
long as you do not use it to gain control over other individuals.

--
Roger J.

[Publius]

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
That doesn't answer the question, Roger. The questions were, (1) Where
will they get it? (2) Where will it (boat, house, car, etc.) come from?

Cars are made in big factories where industrial robots do most of the
work, supervised by engineers who control the computers.

Which industrial robots are those? You cannot be referring to those which
presently exist, since if they existed auto makers would currently be using
them. Who is going to invent them? Who would invest the time and effort to
do so, if they were not to be compensated for their efforts?

Why would these "engineers" show up every morning to spend 8 hours in an
auto factory, when they receive nothing in return? Why would they not
prefer to spend the day playing video games?

Post by Roger Johansson
The design of new car models is done by people who love to design
cars.
I watched a program on the discovery channel about the people who
design new cars, and it was obvious that they love their work.

No doubt they do. But why would they hand over their designs to your
factory? Why wouldn't they sell them to a factory in a free country, or
move to that country and do their designing there? Your socialist factory
would never see one of their designs, Roger.

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
So those who own "more than average" will have property taken from them
by force, contrary to your earlier claim. Correct?

No, I have said all the time that those who own more than the average
will have to choose what they want to keep, and return the surplus to
the society.

What do you mean by "will have to choose"? What if they say, "I'm not
making any such choice. I'm keeping all that I have." Then you will take
the "excess" by force, correct?

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
OK. Let's assume there is no money. Instead of $20, I demand that those
who want to read my novel must supply labor or materials for the
30-room mansion I am building. Anyone who wishes to work for 1 hour may
read my novel.

If you try to control other people you will be warned, and if you
persist in creating schemes for the control of other people you will
be punished.
Because the freedom of the individual is the most important principle
in the new world.

Wait --- in what sense am I "controlling" anyone? Have I forced anyone to
show up at my gate? Do I force them to work? Do I force them to wish to
read my novel, through some kind of brainwashing? What "control" are you
taking about here?

Post by Roger Johansson
If you write a novel you either publish it or not. If you publish it
it will be available for all people for free.

Says who? You mean I can't write a novel and allow only those who are
willing to pay read it? How are you going to prevent me from doing that,
except by force? You may be sure that if authors are not to be paid for
their efforts, then your socialist publishing house will have nothing to
publish. Authors will find another way to distribute their works.

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
Do I
get to keep the house when it is finished? Or will it be taken from me
by force because it is much bigger than everyone else's?

If you build a house it will be valued and you can register it as your
property, but you might have to unregister other property first so
your total amount of personal property will not be higher than the
same maximum limit as everybody else can own.

But suppose I refuse to do that. I say, "I'm keeping the house and
everything else I have too." So then you resort to force, correct?

BTW, since there is no money, how will you "value" the house? Without money
there is no means of measuring value.

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
since there is no money to buy materials and no one
must work, and no property may be taken by force, where will the
industry get the materials and workers to make the product?

Some people like to work in a car factory, others like to work in
mines, because we have very nice machines which do the job, we only
need people who drive the giant trucks and cranes.

That is unbelievable, Roger. You suppose that hundreds or thousands of
workers will show up every morning to run machines in an auto factory, or
operate drills and pumps in a mine, because they enjoy the work? They'd
rather do that every day than sit on a beach and sip beer?

Roger, I suggest you take a poll. Go to an auto factory, and during a shift
change, ask the workers leaving for the day whether they would come to work
there every day if they did not need the money and were not being paid ---
whether, if all of their "needs" were taken care of, they would work there
anyway, just because they liked the work. It might be an eye opener for
you.

Post by Roger Johansson
Boats which are built today often have a chip built into them, like
you can put a chip under the skin of a dog, so you can prove that it
is your boat or your dog.

Ah, Roger. It will only take car thieves 5 minutes to figure out how to
remove that chip.

Post by Roger Johansson
In the future it will be impossible to drive around in a stolen car.

Don't hold your breath.

Post by Roger Johansson
That is no problem, the important issue is the freedom of the
individual.
When nobody can use private property like an industry or millions of
dollars to gain control of other people we have succeeded in the
liberation of the individual.

Well, you have to explain in what sense industry "controls" anyone, other
than those who have agreed to work for someone else, at their direction,
for 8 hours per day. You mean I can't agree to work for someone else, and
do what he asks of me, if I think it is in my interest to do so? You are
going to interfere in that agreement by force?

I should think the experience of the USSR would have taught you a lesson.
The Soviets were never able to produce enough cars, houses, food, or
anything else. The motto of the Soviet worker was, "They pretend to pay us,
and we pretend to work." As a result almost nothing was produced.
Housewives had to stand in line for hours when their local market finally
received a shipment of sugar, after being out for weeks. Auto assembly
lines shut down for days because the factory could not get a certain bolt.

As for your auto designers being willing to work for nothing, the USSR and
other socialist economies supply a lesson there too. Think about this:

*No socialist state has ever produced a product, of any kind, which was
marketable outside its own borders*. That is, that anyone would buy who had
a choice. There has never been a "brand name" good produced in any
socialist state --- no Sony, no CocaCola, no Volvo, no BMW, no Nikon, no
Microsoft Word, no Panasonic, no Boeing 747. Soviet-made cars, appliances,
food products, electronic products would be considered junk anywhere in the
West. That is what you get from designers in socialist states.

Please answer all the questions above regarding force, and explain why you
feel entitled to exercise force against persons who have not used force
against anyone else. And then explain how that reconciles with your claim
that your system guarantees "maximum liberty."

[Roger Johansson]

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
Cars are made in big factories where industrial robots do most of the
work, supervised by engineers who control the computers.

Which industrial robots are those? You cannot be referring to those which
presently exist, since if they existed auto makers would currently be using
them. Who is going to invent them?

...........

Don't you know anything about the real world?

My father worked for a company called ASEA which developed industrial
robots a long time ago. Today they have merged with a swiss company
and they are called ASEA Brown Bovery (ABB), and they are making
millions of industrial robots every month. There are Japanese and
Korean companies who are also producing industrial robots.

In our swedish car industry cars are made to 97% by robots, and 3 %
manual work. They are in the process of automating the last 3% too,
and then we can produce cars 24 hours a day seven days a week using
practically no manual labor at all.

look up "industrial robots car industry" on google and read about how
all kinds of industry is becoming increasingly automated.

quotes:

Food Robotics
Posted: 03/19/2007
The potential for robotics in the food and beverage industry is
immense, for both "traditional" applications such as picking, packing
and palletizing, as well as for cutting-edge applications such as meat
cutting and beverage dispensing. more...

Robots...A ''Butter'' Way to Palletize: A Robot Case Study
Posted: 03/19/2007
To help keep the product "moo-ving" through their plants, California
Dairies is implementing more and more automation, including a new
robotic palletizing system. more...

As the world's second largest automotive parts manufacturer, DENSO has
been a pioneer and industry leader in robot design and manufacturing
since the 1960s. DENSO is also the world's largest user of small
assembly robots, with over 15,000 DENSO robots employed in its own
manufacturing facilities. DENSO offers a range of 4-, 5- and 6-axis
robots for payloads up to 20 kg, reaches from 350 to 1300 mm and
repeatability to within ±0.015 mm, plus easy-to-use software,
controllers and teaching pendants. ANSI and CE compliance allows
global deployment. UL-listed models are available for both the U.S.
and Canada.

Modern industrial robots are true marvels of engineering. A robot the
size of a person can easily carry a load over one hundred pounds and
move it very quickly with a repeatability of +/-0.006 inches.
Furthermore these robots can do that 24 hours a day for years on end
with no failures whatsoever. Though they are reprogrammable, in many
applications (particularly those in the auto industry) they are
programmed once and then repeat that exact same task for years.
...........

Post by Publius
Who would invest the time and effort to
do so, if they were not to be compensated for their efforts?

...................
A lot of people are interested in technology or medicine or astronomy
just because they like to learn more about a certain field.
..............

Post by Publius
Why would these "engineers" show up every morning to spend 8 hours in an

................
They do not have to show up at a certain time, they can be a part of a
bunch of interested engineers who show up when they want, so there are
engineers present 24/7. One likes to show up late at night, another
early in the morning, etc..
The factory usually runs itself, so people are needed only when a
fault appears.
Some engineers are working from their own homes, via internet.
............

Post by Publius
auto factory, when they receive nothing in return?

................

They get something "in return". Free food, free clothes, free housing,
and individual freedom to do whatever they like.
..............

Post by Publius
Why would they not
prefer to spend the day playing video games?

...............
They probably played enough video games as children, grownups want to
play with the real world, for example by controlling a whole car
factory.
............

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
The design of new car models is done by people who love to design
cars.
I watched a program on the discovery channel about the people who
design new cars, and it was obvious that they love their work.

No doubt they do. But why would they hand over their designs to your
factory? Why wouldn't they sell them to a factory in a free country, or
move to that country and do their designing there?

..............

The new world system will probably become reality in the whole world,
so there will not be "another country".

Even if there is another country they will probably prefer to live in
the comfortable and secure country where they have freedom to do what
they want, and where they enjoy the social security of owning their
house, car and boat without worries for the future.
..........

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
I have said all the time that those who own more than the average
will have to choose what they want to keep, and return the surplus to
the society.

...............

Post by Publius
What do you mean by "will have to choose"?

...............
They cannot register more property than other people, so they will
have to choose what they want to own.
.................

Post by Publius
What if they say, "I'm not
making any such choice. I'm keeping all that I have." Then you will take
the "excess" by force, correct?

.............

Yes. And remember that the rich people today have used force to get
and keep their property, so force is nothing new to them, they are
just used to the situation where the force is on their side.

That the force could be on the people's side, through democratic
decisions, is what is new for them. And they have sacrificed millions
of lives to stop democracy from taking over the power from the rich
and the church.

Look up the word Fascism in wikipedia and read about the pope who in
1891 wrote that the democracy and labor unions was a big threat, and
the pope suggested a new strategy to stop the class struggle, and read
about how this strategy developed into fascism.

Look up "hitler henry ford wall street" on the web and read about how
the rich in USA and Britain helped hitler to come to power. This is
also mentioned in the movie we talked about in the beginning of this
thread.

The rich and the church did everything they could to crush democracy,
labor unions and socialism. The first people who were sent to the
concentration camps were labor union leaders and socialists.
............

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
If you try to control other people you will be warned, and if you
persist in creating schemes for the control of other people you will
be punished.
Because the freedom of the individual is the most important principle
in the new world.

Wait --- in what sense am I "controlling" anyone?

...............
If you use the ownership of something to make other people do what you
want them to do you are trying to control their behavior.
..............

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
If you write a novel you either publish it or not. If you publish it
it will be available for all people for free.

............

Post by Publius
Says who? You mean I can't write a novel and allow only those who are
willing to pay read it? How are you going to prevent me from doing that,
except by force?

................

There is no money in this system. If you persist in trying to control
other people you are a criminal and can ultimately go to jail for a
few months, where you will be educated about the laws of the new
world, what individual freedom means, etc..
...........

Post by Publius
You may be sure that if authors are not to be paid for
their efforts, then your socialist publishing house will have nothing to
publish. Authors will find another way to distribute their works.

..........
People write on the internet all the time without getting any payment.
It will be like that in the future too.
If you publish anything on internet it will be free for all to read.
...........

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
If you build a house it will be valued and you can register it as your
property, but you might have to unregister other property first so
your total amount of personal property will not be higher than the
same maximum limit as everybody else can own.

But suppose I refuse to do that. I say, "I'm keeping the house and
everything else I have too." So then you resort to force, correct?

.............
If you barricade yourself in a house you do not own and use weapons to
stop other people from coming there you are a case for the police to
take care of.
............

Post by Publius
BTW, since there is no money, how will you "value" the house? Without money there is no means of measuring value.

...............

We can call it property points (PP).
The difference between PP and money is that PP cannot be transferred
to anybody else, it can not be used for bartering, it can not be
accumulated to become a big fortune.

Everybody has the same amount of property points.
If the maximum limit is 10 000 PP a big house can be valued to 5000
PP, a very valuable car can be valued at 3000 PP, a big yacht 5000
PP.
A small apartment 500 PP, an old and used car 500 PP, etc..

Next year we have produced more houses and more cars so the maximum
limit is raised to 11 000 PP.

You do not have to do anything to earn PP, these property points is
the constitutional right of every citizen. It gives us material
equality, social security and a maximum of individual freedom, or
liberty as you like to call it.
....

--
Roger J.

[Publius]

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
Which industrial robots are those? You cannot be referring to those
which presently exist, since if they existed auto makers would
currently be using them. Who is going to invent them?

My father worked for a company called ASEA which developed industrial
robots a long time ago. Today they have merged with a swiss company
and they are called ASEA Brown Bovery (ABB), and they are making
millions of industrial robots every month. There are Japanese and
Korean companies who are also producing industrial robots.

Yes, Roger, I'm aware of those. That was not the question. Modern auto
factories, and most other factories, are highly automated. Nonetheless, they
still require hundreds or thousands of human workers per plant. Auto
manufacturers in the US (including US, Japanese, Korean, and German-owned
factories) are as automated in any in the world, yet they still employ over
200,000 hourly workers. If you imagine all those people will show up for
work every day for the fun of it, you are truly living in a dream world.

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
Why would these "engineers" show up every morning to spend 8 hours in an

They do not have to show up at a certain time, they can be a part of a
bunch of interested engineers who show up when they want, so there are
engineers present 24/7.

Well, no, Roger. The engineer cannot show up whenever he likes. Nor can any
other worker. Each machine must have all of its operators in place to
operate. That means each worker must have a schedule and follow that
schedule. The plant will rarely be running if it relies on chance for its
staffing.

Nor is it sufficient merely for some engineer to be "present." Every
particular worker has information about his particular machine or his
particular job that others do not have. That is why new employees must be
trained. Workers cannot just "drop in," work for a few hours, and be
replaced the next day by someone else.

Have you ever worked in a factory, or at any kind of skilled trade, Roger?

Post by Roger Johansson
The factory usually runs itself, so people are needed only when a
fault appears.

Sorry, Roger. The factory will not run itself. Not even close. If those
200,000 workers were unnecessary they'd quickly be laid off.

Post by Roger Johansson
They get something "in return". Free food, free clothes, free housing,
and individual freedom to do whatever they like.

Er, no. They don't get free food, etc., "in return." By your hypothesis they
get those whether they choose to work or not. So the question is, Why work?

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
Why would they not
prefer to spend the day playing video games?

They probably played enough video games as children, grownups want to
play with the real world, for example by controlling a whole car
factory.

Yes. Some might wish to amuse themselves that way for a few days. While they
were learning the ropes the factory would be down. They'd have fun getting
their machine running, but then they would get bored. Just like playing a
video game --- once you beat the game, you look for a new one. Then a new
dilettante arrives and the machine is down for another week. Since all these
machines --- of which there are thousands in the factory --- must all be
running at once, and optimally, the factory is down virtually all of the
time.

Many jobs have a "fun phase" --- the learning phase, where there is a
challenge of acquiring mastery. Once you'd acquired that mastery, the fun
turns into work. At that point the guy who now has mastery gets bored, and
looks for new challenges, unless he has another reason to stay. And the
factory goes down, because everyone who actually knows how to operate it is
seeking new amusements.

Post by Roger Johansson
The new world system will probably become reality in the whole world,
so there will not be "another country".

LOL. Well, history argues to the contrary. Cuba operates much as you
envision. It is the 2nd or 3rd poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. No
one is following its example.

Post by Roger Johansson
Even if there is another country they will probably prefer to live in
the comfortable and secure country where they have freedom to do what
they want, and where they enjoy the social security of owning their
house, car and boat without worries for the future.

You'll still have to explain where all these goodies will come from, given
that all the factories will be down due to lack of trained staff, or any
staff at all.

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
What if they say, "I'm not
making any such choice. I'm keeping all that I have." Then you will
take the "excess" by force, correct?

Yes. And remember that the rich people today have used force to get
and keep their property, so force is nothing new to them, they are
just used to the situation where the force is on their side.

Ah! Ok, so you admit that property will be taken from me by force if I
refuse to hand it over. Correct?

Can you specify which "rich people today" have acquired their property by
force, and describe the "force" they employed?

Post by Roger Johansson
The rich and the church did everything they could to crush democracy,
labor unions and socialism. The first people who were sent to the
concentration camps were labor union leaders and socialists.

Well, of course. Socialists are self-professed thieves. Their motto, like
yours, is "Your money or your life." So prisons are the proper places for
them.

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
Wait --- in what sense am I "controlling" anyone?

If you use the ownership of something to make other people do what you
want them to do you are trying to control their behavior.

Wait --- how am I "making them" do anything? I cannot "make" anyone buy my
book. I cannot "make" anyone want to read my book. I cannot make anyone do
anything except by holding a gun to their heads, and I'm not doing that.
Anyone who does not wish to contribute 1 hour of labor to build my house is
free to refuse, and spend that hour doing anything else he would prefer to
do. So what are you talking about here?

Can you explain this "making them," Roger? Is that some sort of metaphor?

Post by Roger Johansson
There is no money in this system. If you persist in trying to control
other people you are a criminal and can ultimately go to jail for a
few months, where you will be educated about the laws of the new
world, what individual freedom means, etc..

Ah, before I was "making them," and now I'm "controlling them."

Methinks you are trying to use "making them" and "controlling them" as
euphemisms for "forcing them." You are hoping that everyone will assume that
if I'm "making them" or "controlling them" then I must be forcing them. But
of course I'm not. Your "making" and "controlling" are merely inapt
metaphors for disguising what are purely voluntary transactions.

There is no force involved there, Roger, except the force you plan to employ
against me. Nor is there any "making" or "controlling." You are trying to
peddle snake oil, sir.

Post by Roger Johansson
People write on the internet all the time without getting any payment.
It will be like that in the future too.
If you publish anything on internet it will be free for all to read.

Yes, they do. And once in a while something worth reading appears. But most
of what appears --- 99.999% --- is worthless dreck which no one would
willingly spend a penny for. Those who can write material others will find
valuable --- material others would be willing to pay for --- do not publish
their work on the Net. They publish it through Random House.

Or compare public domain vs. commerical software. There are at least a
half-dozen "free" clones of MS-Word around. Yet altogether they have about
5% of the market. Everyone else uses Word or some other commercial app, even
though they must fork over $100 or so to use it. Why is that? Because the
clones are garbage. Same with every other category of software.

Post by Roger Johansson
If you barricade yourself in a house you do not own and use weapons to
stop other people from coming there you are a case for the police to
take care of.

Er, wait --- but I *do* own that house, by hypothesis. I built it, therefore
I own it. I did not take it, or any part of it, by force from anyone else.
Since I own it, I'm perfectly entitled to tell everyone else to keep out.
Aren't I?

What do you mean, "house I do not own"? Who do you think *does* own it?

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
BTW, since there is no money, how will you "value" the house? Without
money there is no means of measuring value.

We can call it property points (PP).
The difference between PP and money is that PP cannot be transferred
to anybody else, it can not be used for bartering, it can not be
accumulated to become a big fortune.
Everybody has the same amount of property points.
If the maximum limit is 10 000 PP a big house can be valued to 5000
PP, a very valuable car can be valued at 3000 PP, a big yacht 5000
PP.
A small apartment 500 PP, an old and used car 500 PP, etc.

Well, you've missed the point, Roger. You have no basis for declaring a
house to be "worth" 5000 points, as opposed to 500 points. You are picking
numbers out of thin air. Who does these evaluations? What is the basis for
picking one number over another?

Post by Roger Johansson
You do not have to do anything to earn PP, these property points is
the constitutional right of every citizen. It gives us material
equality, social security and a maximum of individual freedom, or
liberty as you like to call it.

Well, you'll have to scratch the "individual freedom," since you've just
admitted that you will use force against persons who have not themselves
used it. Hence individual freedom is not maximized.

Your original claim was that your system would guarantee both "maximum
individual freedom" and "maximum personal property." You've just refuted the
first claim. Now we can examine the second claim.

[Roger Johansson]

On Mar 20, 11:13 pm, "Publius" <***@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
-

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
My father worked for a company called ASEA which developed industrial
robots a long time ago. Today they have merged with a swiss company
and they are called ASEA Brown Bovery (ABB), and they are making
millions of industrial robots every month. There are Japanese and
Korean companies who are also producing industrial robots.

-

Post by Publius
Yes, Roger, I'm aware of those. That was not the question. Modern auto
factories, and most other factories, are highly automated. Nonetheless, they
still require hundreds or thousands of human workers per plant.

-
If there would be any shortage of workers the engineers would quickly
automize more of the process. As long as cheap workers are available
there is little incentive to automize the whole process.
-

Post by Publius
Each machine must have all of its operators in place to
operate. That means each worker must have a schedule and follow that
schedule. The plant will rarely be running if it relies on chance for its
staffing.

-
That is not correct. A factory can use buffers for different parts of
the process, which means that it doesn't matter if a few people do not
show up one day.
Most factories also use job rotation, so all workers learn all manual
jobs, to make it more interesting for the workers, and it makes it
easy to move workers to the station where they are needed.
-

Post by Publius
Have you ever worked in a factory, or at any kind of skilled trade, Roger?

-
A close relative is an engineer at the Volvo factory, and we have
discussed a lot of what happens in the factory.
I am also very well educated myself, especially in the field of
industrial electronics and automation.
I also have it in my family. My father was process electrician in the
most modern paper mill in the world in the 60ies, and later he kept a
sawmill working day and night. He could be called any time so he often
had to rush down to the factory in the middle of the night to find out
what the fault was and how to fix the problem.

When I visited him on his workplace he sat in a room full of relays
and watched all of them at once. Now and then he changed a relay or
changed some switches.
He ran the whole factory from that room.

----
On Mar 20, 6:59 pm, Bob Kolker <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
-

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
Don't you think that some would like to live in the country and
produce food?

-

Post by Publius
Why produce any more than one consumes if there is no money or equivalent?

-
Because modern farmers use machines which makes it easy to produce a
hundred thousand times more than he can use personally.

Because he realizes that other people have made the shoes and clothes
he is wearing, and other people have worked in mines and factories to
make his machines and his computer, other people teach his children in
schools, other people take care of him and his family if he becomes
ill. Then it is just natural that he helps others by producing food,
or transport food, or process food, or put it on the shelves in the
supermarket where everybody can go and take what they need.

A lot of people would like to live in the country with their children,
and in this system they can do so, without all the worries and hard
work many farmers today are suffering from. If 4 families live on a
farm and help running it they can afford to take a vacation now and
then, and they have no economic issues to handle. That will be very
easy work compared to what farmers have to put up with under
capitalism today.

The society works if at least some of us participate and produce what
we think is needed.

If some people do things we do not think is productive we should not
judge them or force them, they probably have good reasons to do what
they are doing.

Think about Jimi Hendrix. Who could have guessed that he would produce
something which still makes people happy, 30 years after his death?

If somebody just stays in bed all day for weeks he probably need it,
it is not up to us to judge other people's behavior.


--
Roger J.

-

[Publius]

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
Yes, Roger, I'm aware of those. That was not the question. Modern auto
factories, and most other factories, are highly automated. Nonetheless,
they still require hundreds or thousands of human workers per plant.

If there would be any shortage of workers the engineers would quickly
automize more of the process. As long as cheap workers are available
there is little incentive to automize the whole process.

As long as "cheap workers" are not free workers there is every incentive to
replace them with machines. The industry is doing that as fast as it can.
Nor are auto workers "cheap workers," by anyone's definition but yours. That
is nuts, Roger.

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
Each machine must have all of its operators in place to
operate. That means each worker must have a schedule and follow that
schedule. The plant will rarely be running if it relies on chance for
its staffing.

That is not correct. A factory can use buffers for different parts of
the process, which means that it doesn't matter if a few people do not
show up one day.
Most factories also use job rotation, so all workers learn all manual
jobs, to make it more interesting for the workers, and it makes it
easy to move workers to the station where they are needed.

No they don't, Roger. They may cross-train within a unit. They will not
corss-train for all jobs in any complex operation. And if it takes 3 people
to run a certain machine, then if 3 trained people aren't there, that
machine does not run.

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
Have you ever worked in a factory, or at any kind of skilled trade, Roger?

A close relative is an engineer at the Volvo factory, and we have
discussed a lot of what happens in the factory.

I take it the answer is "No." Not surprised.

Post by Roger Johansson
When I visited him on his workplace he sat in a room full of relays
and watched all of them at once. Now and then he changed a relay or
changed some switches.
He ran the whole factory from that room.

Yup. And if he did not show up that factory was down. BTW, you might ask him
how long it took him to learn how to read those gauges and tweak the
controls accordingly. I worked in a chemical plant which was similarly
controlled by 3 operators, one in the control room and 2 in the field. The
control room operator had to spend at least two years in the field learning
where every valve and vessel was, and its role in the process, before being
allowed anywhere near the control board. The plant was 2 blocks long, with
hundreds of vessels and valves for controlling temperatures and flows.

All those relays and switches your father monitored represented devices,
machines, and processes going on in those devices. He didn't become
proficient at it by showing up one or twice a month, "for the fun of it."

No comment on the "maximum personal liberty," then? I take it you withdraw
that claim?

[Roger Johansson]

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
Most factories also use job rotation, so all workers learn all manual
jobs, to make it more interesting for the workers, and it makes it
easy to move workers to the station where they are needed.

-

Post by Publius
No they don't, Roger.

-
You can believe what you want, but Volvo is the only car factory in
this country, so we know very much about it, and they use job-
rotation. In addition to the reasons I have already given they also
say that it keeps the workers healthier, because doing the same
movements all the time wears out the body faster than if the workers
do different jobs on a rotation basis.

Note that we are talking about two very different types of jobs in a
car factory.
The engineers, who program the robots and control the whole process,
and the workers who mount details which have not yet become robotized.

These workers are the ones who are on job rotation.

The engineers are like my father, they have the overall
responsibility and they have interesting jobs.
-

Post by Publius
And if it takes 3 people to run a certain machine,

-
There aren't any machines of that type in a modern car factory. The
workers are mounting cables and car seats, and they don't need any
machines for that, only a pneumatic screwdriver, typically. There are
no machines which need 3 workers to control them.

The first part of building a car is done by robots. The robots weld,
galvanize and paint the chassi and mount the front and back windows.

Manual work is only used at the end of the production, mounting seats
and doors for example. But they are working on automation of the whole
process.
Fewer and fewer manual workers are needed.

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
When I visited him on his workplace he sat in a room full of relays
and watched all of them at once. Now and then he changed a relay or
changed some switches.
He ran the whole factory from that room.

Yup. And if he did not show up that factory was down.

-
He was one of three industrial electricians, so the company could
always count on that at least one of them was available.

Post by Publius
BTW, you might ask him

-
He died in 1982.
-

Post by Publius
how long it took him to learn how to read those gauges and tweak the
controls accordingly. I worked in a chemical plant which was similarly
controlled by 3 operators, one in the control room and 2 in the field. The
control room operator had to spend at least two years in the field learning
where every valve and vessel was, and its role in the process, before being
allowed anywhere near the control board. The plant was 2 blocks long, with
hundreds of vessels and valves for controlling temperatures and flows.
All those relays and switches your father monitored represented devices,
machines, and processes going on in those devices. He didn't become
proficient at it by showing up one or twice a month, "for the fun of it."

It takes many years of training to become a good doctor, or process-
engineer, or violinist. Fortunately there are people who are
interested in such fields and they become very good at it.

I have studied a lot about electronics and process-control myself,
just because I liked the field. But I have had a more important task
in my life, solving an old problem with social traditions, a cultural
pattern which has caused a lot of violence, slavery, social and
economic inequality, wars, torture, bullying, child abuse, serial
killers, alcoholics, fanaticism, terrorism, etc..

My political program is the solution for all these problems, because
it gives the individual freedom, and this old cultural pattern cannot
exist if people are free.

The money system is one of the main tools these traditionalists are
using to control people and force them to become violent and
supernaturally strong in social life.

It is a cultural pattern which is based on creation.
They create men out of boys, they create ego-based and strong willed
women out of little girls. They create the eternal love and the holy
matrimony.
They create a dualistic society, divided into heaven and hell, bullies
and the victims of bullies, masters and slaves, superhumans and common
people, gods and mere mortals.


--
Roger J.

[Publius]

Post by Roger Johansson
My political program is the solution for all these problems, because
it gives the individual freedom, and this old cultural pattern cannot
exist if people are free.

Well, I think we have seen that your program proceeds from false premises and
is inconsistent to boot. Hence it is a non-solution.

[Roger Johansson]

Post by Roger Johansson
I have studied a lot about electronics and process-control myself,
just because I liked the field. But I have had a more important task
in my life, solving an old problem with social traditions, a cultural
pattern which has caused a lot of violence, slavery, social and
economic inequality, wars, torture, bullying, child abuse, serial
killers, alcoholics, fanaticism, terrorism, etc..

-
The most famous christian pastor in my country was interviewed on tv
last night.
The reporter asked him if he still encouraged parents to beat
children.
He first denied that he ever had said that, but the reported played
two recordings in which he clearly encouraged parents to beat their
children.

Obviously he follows the old saying "spare the rod and you will spoil
the child".

A few weeks ago, in a discussion about child care on tv a woman said:
"I think we must give children a trauma, to make them strong enough
for life."

If she had encouraged people to mistreat jews or homosexuals so they
will suffer from a lifelong trauma she would have been arrested, but
children do not have the protection which other groups of people have,
obviously.

People who had left the chistian church said that they did not like to
become very hard and tough people, so they left the church of that
famous christian pastor.

When I was younger I thought that christian people were very soft and
nice people. But since then I have been in close contact with
christian people, and now I know that they are very tough people.

They are creating a very tough social environment so people are forced
to become members of the christian community or live a very hard life
outside that community. That is the reason why serial killers exist,
why people become criminals or alcoholics, why people use drugs or
sleeping pills, why there is so much violence, in the society and in
media.

They want to create super-humans, who rule the social life with mental
and physical power, and economic power too. They have invented
property rights and the money system to control other people, so they
can force them to become members of the christian community or die.

Post by Roger Johansson
My political program is the solution for all these problems, because
it gives the individual freedom, and this old cultural pattern cannot
exist if people are free.
The money system is one of the main tools these traditionalists are
using to control people and force them to become violent and
supernaturally strong in social life.
It is a cultural pattern which is based on creation.
They create men out of boys, they create ego-based and strong willed
women out of little girls. They create the eternal love and the holy
matrimony.
They create a dualistic society, divided into heaven and hell, bullies
and the victims of bullies, masters and slaves, superhumans and common
people, gods and mere mortals.

--
Roger J.

[tg]

-> > My father worked for a company called ASEA which developed industrial

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
robots a long time ago. Today they have merged with a swiss company
and they are called ASEA Brown Bovery (ABB), and they are making
millions of industrial robots every month. There are Japanese and
Korean companies who are also producing industrial robots.

-

Post by Publius
Yes, Roger, I'm aware of those. That was not the question. Modern auto
factories, and most other factories, are highly automated. Nonetheless, they
still require hundreds or thousands of human workers per plant.

-
If there would be any shortage of workers the engineers would quickly
automize more of the process. As long as cheap workers are available
there is little incentive to automize the whole process.

I'm jumping in again because this is one of my favorite fundatarian
paradoxes. When I argue that we would be better off with fewer people,
these Religio-Capitalist types always say that then we will only have
stone tools. But they obviously don't understand their own economic
theories; of course if people are not available to do jobs we will
automate them.

Also, we will build better cars that will last longer---consider how
50 years ago US cars would rust out in 3 years and now we are used to
cars that last 150-200 thousand miles, with far longer intervals
between regular service like oil changes and tuneups. If we build pure
electric and series-hybrid cars, they can last at least 50 years---if
people want to change the style, they can have kits to build a new
shell to fit on the functional frame.

These people are so attached to the authoritarian paradigm that they
can't see the real world at all---they talk about freedom and
flexibility in the free market, but are terrified if you show how it
can actually work.

-tg





-

Post by Publius
Each machine must have all of its operators in place to
operate. That means each worker must have a schedule and follow that
schedule. The plant will rarely be running if it relies on chance for its
staffing.

-
That is not correct. A factory can use buffers for different parts of
the process, which means that it doesn't matter if a few people do not
show up one day.
Most factories also use job rotation, so all workers learn all manual
jobs, to make it more interesting for the workers, and it makes it
easy to move workers to the station where they are needed.
-> Have you ever worked in a factory, or at any kind of skilled trade, Roger?
-
A close relative is an engineer at the Volvo factory, and we have
discussed a lot of what happens in the factory.
I am also very well educated myself, especially in the field of
industrial electronics and automation.
I also have it in my family. My father was process electrician in the
most modern paper mill in the world in the 60ies, and later he kept a
sawmill working day and night. He could be called any time so he often
had to rush down to the factory in the middle of the night to find out
what the fault was and how to fix the problem.
When I visited him on his workplace he sat in a room full of relays
and watched all of them at once. Now and then he changed a relay or
changed some switches.
He ran the whole factory from that room.
----
-> > Don't you think that some would like to live in the country and

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
produce food?

-

Post by Publius
Why produce any more than one consumes if there is no money or equivalent?

-
Because modern farmers use machines which makes it easy to produce a
hundred thousand times more than he can use personally.
Because he realizes that other people have made the shoes and clothes
he is wearing, and other people have worked in mines and factories to
make his machines and his computer, other people teach his children in
schools, other people take care of him and his family if he becomes
ill. Then it is just natural that he helps others by producing food,
or transport food, or process food, or put it on the shelves in the
supermarket where everybody can go and take what they need.
A lot of people would like to live in the country with their children,
and in this system they can do so, without all the worries and hard
work many farmers today are suffering from. If 4 families live on a
farm and help running it they can afford to take a vacation now and
then, and they have no economic issues to handle. That will be very
easy work compared to what farmers have to put up with under
capitalism today.
The society works if at least some of us participate and produce what
we think is needed.
If some people do things we do not think is productive we should not
judge them or force them, they probably have good reasons to do what
they are doing.
Think about Jimi Hendrix. Who could have guessed that he would produce
something which still makes people happy, 30 years after his death?
If somebody just stays in bed all day for weeks he probably need it,
it is not up to us to judge other people's behavior.
--
Roger J.
-

[tg]

Post by Roger Johansson
..........

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
The car register, boat register, the house and land register are
combined into a property register. All citizens are allowed to
register the same amount of property.
When you decide to own a certain car you use the terminal in the car
shop and register yourself as the owner of that car.

...........

Post by Publius
That doesn't answer the question, Roger. The questions were, (1) Where will
they get it? (2) Where will it (boat, house, car, etc.) come from?

.............
Cars are made in big factories where industrial robots do most of the
work, supervised by engineers who control the computers.
The design of new car models is done by people who love to design
cars.
I watched a program on the discovery channel about the people who
design new cars, and it was obvious that they love their work.
Some cars are also made by enthusiasts like hotrod builders who make
cars manually.

Roger,

You know I have one disagreement with you so I will not mention it.
But I will point out that you will never convince some people on this
particular point because they are ok with paradoxical thinking---you
would call it religious thinking I guess.

Now, you and I understand that people will do something because they
like doing it. But Publius will say that it is only for money that
they do things. Then, if you ask him if that is the case for him, he
will go on a long discourse full of self-contradiction and
equivocation in trying to dodge the question. This is exactly what we
see in religions, when they try to explain things that are irrational.

He will block out from his mind that *we are doing exactly what you,
Roger, describe*!! Because we have sufficient food and shelter and
security, we sit here and write and write even though we are not
getting paid, we have no copyright, and we will not publish and sell
our work.

So of course if your system were real, people would come and design
cars because otherwise they would be bored with just eating and
sleeping. And the additional reward they would get for their work,
beyond the pleasure of doing it, would be that people pick their
designs, just as we are rewarded when people answer our posts.

-tg

Post by Roger Johansson
.............

Post by Publius
So those who own "more than average" will have property taken from them by
force, contrary to your earlier claim. Correct?

No, I have said all the time that those who own more than the average
will have to choose what they want to keep, and return the surplus to
the society.
...........

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
Read my program, there is no money, everybody gets the same material
standard of living. There are no copyright and patent laws. There are
no drug laws, you can go to the pharmacy and get drugs for free.

..............

Post by Publius
OK. Let's assume there is no money. Instead of $20, I demand that those who
want to read my novel must supply labor or materials for the 30-room mansion
I am building. Anyone who wishes to work for 1 hour may read my novel.

If you try to control other people you will be warned, and if you
persist in creating schemes for the control of other people you will
be punished.
Because the freedom of the individual is the most important principle
in the new world.
If you write a novel you either publish it or not. If you publish it
it will be available for all people for free.

Post by Publius
Do I
get to keep the house when it is finished? Or will it be taken from me by
force because it is much bigger than everyone else's?

If you build a house it will be valued and you can register it as your
property, but you might have to unregister other property first so
your total amount of personal property will not be higher than the
same maximum limit as everybody else can own.
It doesnt matter if you build your own house or register a house
someone else has built, you still have to register it as your property
to become the legal owner of it.

Post by Publius
since there is no money to buy materials and no one
must work, and no property may be taken by force, where will the industry get
the materials and workers to make the product?

...............
Some people like to work in a car factory, others like to work in
mines, because we have very nice machines which do the job, we only
need people who drive the giant trucks and cranes.
I watched a program about the biggest trucks in the world, which are
used in mining gold, and most of the drivers were women who loved to
drive these giant trucks.
..........

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
You cannot register more property than everybody else, so if you steal
a car you cannot become the legal owner of it. It will be reported as
stolen, and you will get caught very quickly because the police will
find that car very quickly.

..............

Post by Publius
Why would they find it any more quickly than they do now? All cars are
registered now, but they are stolen regularly just the same.

Boats which are built today often have a chip built into them, like
you can put a chip under the skin of a dog, so you can prove that it
is your boat or your dog.
We see today how systems are built up for automatic reading of license
plates on cars in cities where you pay a tax for driving, because they
want to reduce the emission of harmful gas. These system also make it
easier to track terrorists.
In the future it will be impossible to drive around in a stolen car.
..............> And cars are

Post by Publius
fairly conspicuous. Much property (antiques, artworks, rare books, jewelry,
custom-made clothing, exotic foodstuffs, custom-made furniture, novel drugs,
etc.), would never be registered and never found, despite any laws.

.........
That is no problem, the important issue is the freedom of the
individual.
When nobody can use private property like an industry or millions of
dollars to gain control of other people we have succeeded in the
liberation of the individual.
You can own special furniture, special clothes and other stuff, as
long as you do not use it to gain control over other individuals.
--
Roger J.

[Roger Johansson]

On Mar 20, 2:24 pm, "tg" <***@earthlink.net> wrote:
..........

Post by tg
You know I have one disagreement with you so I will not mention it.
But I will point out that you will never convince some people on this
particular point because they are ok with paradoxical thinking---you
would call it religious thinking I guess.

...........

I am not trying to convince Publius, because he has obviously a very
strong conviction, or is only repeating like a parrot what others have
told him.
Or he is only playing a game with words.

I write to explain things to others, and I use Publius because he
represents the other side, the conservative, reactionary side.
...........

Post by tg
Now, you and I understand that people will do something because they
like doing it. But Publius will say that it is only for money that
they do things. Then, if you ask him if that is the case for him, he
will go on a long discourse full of self-contradiction and
equivocation in trying to dodge the question. This is exactly what we
see in religions, when they try to explain things that are irrational.

.............

Yes, and I have met a lot of people like him over the years.
.............

Post by tg
He will block out from his mind that *we are doing exactly what you,
Roger, describe*!! Because we have sufficient food and shelter and
security, we sit here and write and write even though we are not
getting paid, we have no copyright, and we will not publish and sell
our work.

...........
Exactly.
.........

Post by tg
So of course if your system were real, people would come and design
cars because otherwise they would be bored with just eating and
sleeping. And the additional reward they would get for their work,
beyond the pleasure of doing it, would be that people pick their
designs, just as we are rewarded when people answer our posts.

.........

Yes, and I write for those who are more intelligent than Publius.

But intelligent people are often full of doubts and hesitate to get
involved in a discussion, while guys like Publius are very sure of
themselves and gladly continue to reply forever. They have nothing
better to do than keep on chatting. So I use such fools to present my
program and I show that I can defend my ideas even against such
people.


--
Roger J.

[Publius]

Post by tg
You know I have one disagreement with you so I will not mention it.
But I will point out that you will never convince some people on this
particular point because they are ok with paradoxical thinking---you
would call it religious thinking I guess.

Heh. Still clinging to that all-encompassing definition of "religion," I see.

Post by tg
Now, you and I understand that people will do something because they
like doing it. But Publius will say that it is only for money that
they do things.

No, Publius never said any such thing.

Post by tg
He will block out from his mind that *we are doing exactly what you,
Roger, describe*!! Because we have sufficient food and shelter and
security, we sit here and write and write even though we are not
getting paid, we have no copyright, and we will not publish and sell
our work.

That's right. We are amusing ourselves. We are not getting paid because no
one would publish what we are writing and if it were published no one would
buy it. But we can still amuse ourselves by doing it.

In order to be paid you have to write something (or otherwise produce
something) others will find valuable. That means you have to produce things
of value to them, not to you. That's when it becomes work.

Post by tg
So of course if your system were real, people would come and design
cars because otherwise they would be bored with just eating and
sleeping. And the additional reward they would get for their work,
beyond the pleasure of doing it, would be that people pick their
designs, just as we are rewarded when people answer our posts.

We might imagine that car designs become as ubiqiutous as public domain
software. Most of them would never be produced, because (unlike the software)
a design that appealed to 12 people would not justify tooling up the factory.
A few designs would indeed be "picked." Those designers would then tell the
factory committee, "If you want another design from me, it will cost you."
And if they declined to pay, someone else would.

Unless the upstart designer (having been tried and convicted of "thwarting
the public good") is shot first by Roger's goons, of course.

[Global Warming]

Post by Publius
And if they declined to pay, someone else would.

Someday, there will be nowbody, just you P

[Global Warming]

Post by Publius
people are not
equally productive

re; people are not equally productive, there is the buzz word for this day
and time, productive, I can bet you are proud and feel productive, have you
looked around,

[galathaea]

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
When enough people have agreed on a vision of the future society we
can win the election and start realizing that vision.

Sorry, Roger, but people may not choose the kind of society in which
they live,

I know you do not like democracy, but fact is that we live in a
democracy, and when enough people want to change it we can change it.
Democracy = the people rules itself.

Liberty = each person rules himself.
Each person is an autonomous individual, not a cell, and societies ("the
people") are free associations of such individuals, not organisms. When
democracy begins to treat individuals as cells, it is time to overthrow it.

as with other biological communities
whatever you wish to call them
societies have scientific metrics of health

they do not imply the communistic theories are optimal
though

in fact
very much in line with the threat of monospecies in agriculture
unigoal theories of government suffer from fragility in response to
stimuli
they are not adaptive
and therefore not healthy

freedom to explore possibilities
at many levels of organisation
has always been a necessity to fitness in natural selection
and has always been a prerequisite of the most successful economies

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar

[Publius]

Post by galathaea
freedom to explore possibilities
at many levels of organisation
has always been a necessity to fitness in natural selection
and has always been a prerequisite of the most successful economies

Always enjoy your posts, g. But you have yet to defend the relevance of your
criterion of "health," or explain how any agent might come to have a duty to
promote that goal.

[galathaea]

Post by Publius

Post by galathaea
freedom to explore possibilities
at many levels of organisation
has always been a necessity to fitness in natural selection
and has always been a prerequisite of the most successful economies

Always enjoy your posts, g. But you have yet to defend the relevance of your
criterion of "health," or explain how any agent might come to have a duty to
promote that goal.

here is one model i consider likely:
-+-

we all have many drives

these exist as things that are tied to observation

we can map neural activity
through mRNA expression
we can trace isotopic glucose consumption
with NMR (MRI !)
we can measure current in muscular twitch

this system of drives
has a complicated and still somewhat poorly misunderstood
negotiation process
to manage control over which action schemas we take

many have drives to stay alive
whether an innate primal calculation
going all the way back to our
sessile arm-feeding cilliary filter-feeding chordatic beginnings
or more well-elaborated hungers
like the beauty in our experience

health and fitness measure the ability to stay alive
using predictions based upon best models and other learning algorithms

so for symbologically-influenced drives to live
( those affected by exchanges of language )
health metrics are an important tool

however
if someone does not possess such a drive
which i understand can happen
when the weight of one's suffering becomes high
and when the elaborate is meaningless

i would not presume to make such an important decision for them

##$$**&&

i am not proposing that one must desire life

if one does have such a drive
health metrics are our scientific foundation for prediction

all of our actions should be informed by health

every moment we are alive
we can do what our desires negotiate
or at least we can try

if you cherish your moments
health can maximise this ability

..

this plays an even more important role in agreements

health metrics can be defined over agreements
which measure forms of "collective" health

this is part of a large mereological chain of subcollections
of physical systems which admit metrics of health

including the cellular level
with its differentiations and structural systematics

up to the entire planet and beyond

we are all a part of this process of life

agreements
collaborations
colonialisation
industrialisation

all processes of some physical collection
with their own health metrics

choosing to enter into
only those agreements that are healthy in appropriate metrics
is a good prescription for mutualist benefit

that is all

i have strong suspicions this simple prescription
gives a more elegant explanation of
"natural" forms of collective governance
than rights based explanations
and still gives many classically well-observed relationships
found in formal political science and economics

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar

[Publius]

Post by galathaea
we all have many drives
these exist as things that are tied to observation

Well, that is delightfully obscure. I'm sure it's true that they are "tied"
to observation in some sense, but the details of the "tie" need to be
spelled out.

I think it's safe to say that a drive which cannot be coupled to an action
schema would be redundant (and probably undetectable), and that action
schemas depend upon information re: the state of the environment, i.e.,
observation. But drives do not necessarily *originate* in observation. Some
may, but some may not.

BTW, I like the term "values" better than "drives." They are the same,
behaviorally speaking, but the two terms have somewhat different
implications, and the former is more at home in moral philosophy.

Post by galathaea
we can map neural activity
through mRNA expression
we can trace isotopic glucose consumption
with NMR (MRI !)
we can measure current in muscular twitch
this system of drives
has a complicated and still somewhat poorly misunderstood
negotiation process
to manage control over which action schemas we take

Agree. Drives (values) form a dynamic hierarchy. When one is (temporarily)
satisifed, it moves down the hierarchy, others move up. Each drive (value)
has a satisfaction cycle with its own clock. So drives are constantly
rearranging themselves in the hierarchy, depending upon their satisfaction
state and their individual clock rates.

And your "negotiation" is a good word. The system constantly scans the
environment for *opportunities* to satisfy all the drives in the hierarchy.
When an opportunity is discerned the system calculates the *opportunity
cost* to satisfy that drive at that time. It does not necessarily act on the
drive currently uppermost in the hierarchy; it acts on the uppermost drive
which is currently actionable, and whose opportunity cost does not exceed
the current rank of that drive in the hierarchy. It has to solve a set of
simultaneous equations.

Post by galathaea
many have drives to stay alive
whether an innate primal calculation
going all the way back to our
sessile arm-feeding cilliary filter-feeding chordatic beginnings
or more well-elaborated hungers
like the beauty in our experience

Hm. Are you suggesting that seeking beauty, like seeking food, are primal
drives? That both are to be subsumed under the drive for self-preservation?

I think those are quite different. Some drives indeed appear to be innate (a
claim based entirely on empirical grounds). For humans, however, most appear
to be acquired. The latter category includes both the drive for beauty and
the drive for self-preservation. But I don't think the latter two have any
other relationship (though they may co-vary for a given person).

Post by galathaea
health and fitness measure the ability to stay alive
using predictions based upon best models and other learning algorithms

Granted.

Post by galathaea
so for symbologically-influenced drives to live
( those affected by exchanges of language )
health metrics are an important tool

Yes. If self-preservation is a value in the hierarchy, then the system will
learn what means serve that end, calculate the relative costs of those
means, and adopt the means with the lowest costs. Which means are chosen
depends on the outcome of those calculations and the current rank of that
drive in the hierarchy.

Post by galathaea
however
if someone does not possess such a drive
which i understand can happen
when the weight of one's suffering becomes high
and when the elaborate is meaningless
i would not presume to make such an important decision for them

It is not usually a matter of possessing or not possessing that drive. Only
a few people do not possess that drive at all. But its rank in the hierarchy
varies considerably, especially between persons, but even for a given person
at different times. Like all other drives.

Post by galathaea
i am not proposing that one must desire life
if one does have such a drive
health metrics are our scientific foundation for prediction
all of our actions should be informed by health
every moment we are alive
we can do what our desires negotiate
or at least we can try
if you cherish your moments
health can maximise this ability

In an earlier post (can't recall to whom) I outlined the difference between
"personal morality" and "public morality." Personal morality involves the
rational scrutiny of ones own values, with a view toward understanding their
relationships --- especially dependencies and conflicts among them. It may
lead to "harmonizing" one's values, i.e., recognizing their "base rank"
(eigenstate?) in the hierarchy, removing or reconciling conflicts, and
ordering dependencies. This is the stuff that fills the self-help shelves in
bookstores.

Public morality, on the other hand, is a much different undertaking. It is
the search for *rules for interactions* among agents within a "moral
field" --- a setting where interactions among them may occur. It posits a
number of agents, each of whom has a value hierarchy of the sort described
above. It's aim is to find that set of rules which allow all agents to
maximize satisfaction of the drives in their own hierarchies, whatever those
may be. The rules are chosen to maximize synergistic interactions and
minimize destructive ones.

Unlike personal moralities, however, it makes no inquiries into the contents
of any of those value hierarchies, *except* to determine whether any of them
contain drives (values) not compatible, *prima facie*, with the "fundamental
principle" of public morality, namely, concurrent maximization of all
agents' drives.

So I think your advice above is sound for private moralities, but not
relevant for public ones.

Post by galathaea
this plays an even more important role in agreements
health metrics can be defined over agreements
which measure forms of "collective" health

Health metrics can be *defined* over a collection of marbles in a bag. But
any definition over a collection of humans will be meaningful (and relevant)
only if it is defined in terms of the various metrics adopted by each member
of the collection. Any global metric not derived from those individual
metrics will be arbitrary and irrelevant to any individual agent.

Post by galathaea
this is part of a large mereological chain of subcollections
of physical systems which admit metrics of health

There are different types of collections, or systems, namely organisms and
adaptive systems. Organisms have critical interdependencies; adaptive
systems don't. As a result a health metric for an organism applies to all
cells. For an adaptive system, on the other hand, each agent has only its
own metric, and any relevant global metric will have to be some derivative
of those.

BTW, there is reason to think no global metric (of the right kind) is
possible. E.g., Arrow's Theorem.

Post by galathaea
i have strong suspicions this simple prescription
gives a more elegant explanation of
"natural" forms of collective governance
than rights based explanations
and still gives many classically well-observed relationships
found in formal political science and economics

The heart of rights-based moralities is the rigid insistence on the
plurality of agents and the distinctness and independence of their value
hierarchies. Theories which propose a common hierarchy or global values
ignore the empirical situation.

PS: This sounds like a good project for a model. Ever used Swarm?

[Roger Johansson]

Post by Publius
BTW, there is reason to think no global metric (of the right kind) is
possible. E.g., Arrow's Theorem.

The reader is probably wondering what you talking about.
I feel compelled to help the readers to understand that "Publius" is
an academic thinker and he escapes into the academic ivory tower
whenever he needs to hide behind a lot of technical terms.

This is an example of the kind of academic gibberish some people think
is valuble. I leave it to the reader to judge for himself what kind of
crap this is.

" Arrow's Theorem and Buridan's Ass.

Arrow's theorem: Suppose we have a voting system to rank 3 or more
voting options. Suppose that system respects unanimity and the
independence of independent alternatives. Then there must be a
dictator for the voting system.

A dictator means here that in spite of having a large number of voters
ranking the alternatives, there is just one whose ranking matches the
final ranking implemented, using any fair (according to the hypotheses
of the theorem) voting system whatsoever. see Nielsen's post for the
reasons we conclude this.

And it occurred to me that this can account for the supposed paradox
of Buridan's Ass. You recall that this says that an ass equidistant
from two bales of hay will starve to death because (Being a robotic
zombie in Jean Buridan's philosophy) it has no sufficient reason to
prefer going to one rather than the other.

But the ass actually has three choices; it can go to bale A, or to
bale B, or it can ignore both bales. Suppose now that the ass's
robotic brane is built on the basis of Dennet's Conscieusness
Explained (surely even dualists will grant me this in the case of a
zombie). This theory features competing agents each with an agenda to
sell to their collectivity - in other words a voting scheme, and in
this case each agenda is a preference ranking of the three choices,
and Arrow's theorem should apply. So not alll agents are equal and
one, just one, of them determines the action of the collectivity in
spite of their independence. So there is no effective vote, but rather
a single dictatorial agenda - whatever it is - is implemented. The ass
survives."

What can we say about this?

People who cannot speak in clear language cannot think clearly.

The overcomplicated mind easily fools itself.

--
Roger J.

[Publius]

Post by Roger Johansson
This is an example of the kind of academic gibberish some people think
is valuble. I leave it to the reader to judge for himself what kind of
crap this is.
" Arrow's Theorem and Buridan's Ass.
Arrow's theorem: Suppose we have a voting system to rank 3 or more
voting options. Suppose that system respects unanimity and the
independence of independent alternatives. Then there must be a
dictator for the voting system.

If you think Arrow's Theorem is "crap," Roger, you need to disprove it.
You'll win a Nobel Prize, like Arrow.

[Roger Johansson]

On Mar 22, 8:36 pm, Publius <***@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
-

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
This is an example of the kind of academic gibberish some people think
is valuble. I leave it to the reader to judge for himself what kind of
crap this is.

-

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
" Arrow's Theorem and Buridan's Ass.
Arrow's theorem: Suppose we have a voting system to rank 3 or more
voting options. Suppose that system respects unanimity and the
independence of independent alternatives. Then there must be a
dictator for the voting system.

-

Post by Publius
If you think Arrow's Theorem is "crap," Roger, you need to disprove it.
You'll win a Nobel Prize, like Arrow.

-
There is no real Nobel prize in economics, and it is not given by the
Nobel prize committee.

The prize in economics is awarded by the money masters who rule this
world, and they have so much power that they can invent an award, a so
called "Nobel prize" in economics, which is not a proper Nobel prize.

Game theory in a game like Monopoly is only interesting for the people
who like to play the monetary game for maximum profit, and they don't
give a damn about the real people they use and abuse in the process.

So after a long discussion which started with a very revealing movie
about the money masters we are back to the subject we started with.

See the movie, and throw out these parasites who play a game with
people and their lives. It is time for a new system, built by the
people for the people, and we have no need for game theory in the
field of economics.

People should not be treated like pawns in a chess game.


--
Roger J.

[Publius]

Post by Roger Johansson
There is no real Nobel prize in economics, and it is not given by the
Nobel prize committee.

The winner is selected by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the same
group who chooses the winner in Physics and Chemistry, applying the same
principles. It is presented by the Swedish Monarch at the same ceremony. It
is separately endowed --- it was not funded via Alfred Nobel's will.

If you want to attack Arrow's Theorem, Roger, you'll have to refute it. *Ad
hominem* sniping at the economics prize doesn't cut it.

[Roger Johansson]

On Mar 23, 12:23 am, Publius <***@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
-

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
There is no real Nobel prize in economics, and it is not given by the
Nobel prize committee.

-

Post by Publius
The winner is selected by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, the same
group who chooses the winner in Physics and Chemistry, applying the same
principles. It is presented by the Swedish Monarch at the same ceremony. It
is separately endowed --- it was not funded via Alfred Nobel's will.

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/schools/nobel.htm

"In 1896, Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist and inventor of
dynamite, bequeathed his fortune to a foundation to create an annual
prize for person "who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred
the greatest benefit on mankind." Nobel's will specified prizes in
physics, chemistry, physiology/medicine, literature and peace. These
were first awarded in 1901.

In 1969, the Swedish central bank (Sveriges Riskbank) established a
prize known as the "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in
Memory of Alfred Nobel", which is commonly shortened to the Nobel
Memorial Prize. The Nobel Memorial Prize has a similar procedure of
award selection (by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences) as the
original Nobel prizes. It also disburses the same monetary amounts
and shares in the formal ceremony.

The Nobel Memorial Prize has been quite controversial since its
inception and numerous objections have been raised against it. The
first objection is that economics is either not "scientific" enough or
does not contribute to "human advancement" enough to merit the
prestige of an award with the Nobel name. The sentiment, often echoed
in wider intellectual circles and the popular press, is shared by many
economists themselves. Indeed, Gunnar Myrdal, after having helped the
Riksbank set it up in 1968 and receiving the award himself in 1974,
eventually came to publicly admit this.

The second objection, is that the Bank of Sweden's decision to use the
prestigious "Nobel" name has thrust economics into a kind of medal
race, pitting nations, universities and individual economists against
each other. All this leads to a lot of unnecessary acrimony that
distracts and disrupts serious economics research."

"A corollary to this is that the Bank of Sweden is occasionally
criticized is for failing to choose the most popular candidates. Some
of the choices it made have been openly criticized by professional
economists. There are a number of perennial candidates so universally
liked and recommended, always leading straw polls year after year,
whom nonetheless received no award. So, even if one disagrees
violently with its choices or gets frustrated by the fact that one's
favorite candidate keeps missing out, perhaps one ought to continue to
admire the Bank of Sweden's bravery.

However, it is precisely because of the erratic and disproportionate
"impact" the Bank of Sweden's choice has upon the profession and the
shape of subsequent economics research that many have called for an
end to the Nobel Memorial Prize. "

In the week before this year's Nobel laureates are annonunced, the
great great nephew of Alfred Nobel has reiterated his criticism of the
Nobel Economics Prize, which he says is "a PR coup by economists to
improve their reputation".

A fierce advocate of refugees' rights, Peter Nobel, 73, says he has
always wanted to help people, in much the same way his great great
uncle Alfred Nobel, who died more than a hundred years ago..

Nobel despised people who cared more about profits than society's well-
being, Peter says, reiterating his vehement criticism of the Nobel
Economics Prize which he says Alfred Nobel would never have created.

Unlike the Nobel Prizes for Medicine, Chemistry, Physics, Literature
and Peace, which were created by Nobel in his 1896 will and first
awarded in 1901, the Economics Prize was conceived by Sweden's central
bank in 1968 to mark its tricentenary and first awarded a year later.

"There is nothing to indicate that he would have wanted such a prize."

The Economics Prize has over the years been criticized as not being a
"real" Nobel, and a newspaper article Peter Nobel wrote in 2001
refuelled the debate.

"It's most often awarded to stock market speculators", which does not
reflect Alfred Nobel's spirit of improving the human condition, he
fumes.

"The Economics Prize has nestled itself in and is awarded as if it
were a Nobel Prize. But it's a PR coup by economists to improve their
reputation," he bristles."

--
Roger J.

[Publius]

Post by Roger Johansson
The Nobel Memorial Prize has been quite controversial since its
inception and numerous objections have been raised against it.

Heh. Of course. Economics is closely related to politics. So everyone who
espouses unscientific economic theories in order to bolster their political
fantasies will object to scientific economics, and therefore to the prize.

If there were a prize for biological sciences all the fundamentalists would
be objecting to it, for the same reason.

[Roger Johansson]

On Mar 23, 3:03 am, Publius <***@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
-

Post by Publius
Heh. Of course.

-

Look up the wikipredia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Economics

and read the documents referred to:

^ The Local: Nobel descendant slams Economics prize.
^ Abolish the Nobel in Economics, Many Scientists Agree by Hazel
Henderson
^ Le Monde diplomatique: The 'Nobel prize' that isn't.
^ Cloud hovers over Nobel economics prize.
^ Inter Press Service News Agency: The Cuckoo's Egg in the Nobel Prize
Nest
^ The Financial Times: The not so noble Nobel Prize.
^ Beautiful Mind, Ugly Deception: The Bank of Sweden Prize in
Economics Science

http://www.unifr.ch/econophysics/PHP/principal/redirect_news.php?id=39

"The vast majority of economic prizes have gone to people who reflect
the dominating western view of the world. It's doubtful whether this
really is of benefit to all mankind," says Peter Nobel.
The economics prize has long been controversial, not least because the
theories of many prize-winners have been found wanting in practice. In
1997, Robert Merton and Myron Scholes were feted for their work on
options pricing. A year later, Long Term Capital Management, the US
hedge fund where they were partners, crashed. The Riksbank has taken
the latest criticism in its stride. Robert Sparve, the bank's general
counsel, insists: "The economics prize is not a Nobel prize.
It's not mentioned in the will." But he accepts that it is awarded in
"memory of Alfred Nobel".
Asked if the Riksbank would be happy to clear up the ambiguity and
drop the Nobel name, Mr Sparve said: "No, we see no reason to change
it." Peter Nobel and his cousins have no direct involvement in the
Nobel Foundation, which administers the prizes and runs the finances.
Do they think their campaign can succeed? "This is a long-term battle.
If we keep up the criticism, they may be more careful about who they
choose for their awards," says Mr Nobel.
The attack may discomfort the prize ceremony organisers. Some 225
former laureates are about to descend on Stockholm and Oslo for
celebrations to mark the centenary which climax on December 10, the
anniversary of Alfred Nobel's death, when this year's prizes - worth
SKr10m ($940,000) per discipline - are awarded. True to form, the
winners of this year's economics prize - George Akerlof, Michael
Spence and Joseph Stiglitz - are all from the US."

"No one has actually won a Nobel Prize in economics since there are
none! The prize is "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences
in Memory of Alfred Nobel" and is not part of the official prizes
awarded every year since 1901 for achievements in physics, chemistry,
physiology or medicine, literature and for peace."

Hazel Henderson, 2004

"The widely-touted, so-called "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics"
isn't a proper Nobel Prize at all. For many years, I and others have
sought to correct this widespread error by reminding people of its
actual name: The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Science in Memory of
Alfred Nobel. The Bank set up this $1 million prize in 1969, as I have
held, in order to legitimize the economics profession as a science."


--
Roger J.

[Publius]

Post by Roger Johansson
"The vast majority of economic prizes have gone to people who reflect
the dominating western view of the world. It's doubtful whether this
really is of benefit to all mankind," says Peter Nobel.

Heh. That's what I said, i.e., that the critics complain about the prize for
political reasons.

You may have noticed that the majority of prizes in physics, chemistry, *et
al* have also gone to scientists who "reflect the dominating Western view" in
those fields. Peddlers of crackpot theories don't get them. Neither do
peddlers of crackpot economic theories, such as Marxism.

Fortunately, the economic prize is not awarded based on Mr. Nobel's misguided
political views, or his uninformed notions of what is "really of benefit to
all mankind." He is not qualified to judge what is "of benefit to all
mankind." It is awarded based on the soundness of the reasoning and
empirically verifiable results.

As I said, Roger, if you wish to be rid of Arrow's Theorem you'll have to
disprove it. *Ad hominems* work in politics, but they don't count in
economics.

[Roger Johansson]

-

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
"The vast majority of economic prizes have gone to people who reflect
the dominating western view of the world. It's doubtful whether this
really is of benefit to all mankind," says Peter Nobel.

-

Post by Publius
Heh. That's what I said, i.e., that the critics complain about the prize for
political reasons.

-

Post by Publius
You may have noticed that the majority of prizes in physics, chemistry, *et
al* have also gone to scientists who "reflect the dominating Western view" in
those fields.

-
Which is the view of the money changers.
-

Post by Publius
economics.

-
What you call "economics" isn't even real economics.

You talk about the monetary system, a game which the money masters are
playing. The game theory ideas which are rewarded with the Federal
Reserve of Sweden's annual prize, are useless in an economy without
money, where each individual is free to make his own choices.

The movie about the monetary system is still available at youtube,
watch it and save it to your hard disk and show your friends, upload
it again to youtube if it disappears.

<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8753934454816686947>
.
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2665915773877500927>

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
It is mind-boggling beyond belief - just watch it..

--
Roger J.

[Publius]

Post by Roger Johansson
What you call "economics" isn't even real economics.

Heh. That is like a creationist claiming that what is practiced by biologists
is not "real biology."

"Real economics" is the economics found to operate in the real world. It is
not the economics of a world where goods appear magically, like manna from
Heaven.

Post by Roger Johansson
You talk about the monetary system, a game which the money masters are
playing. The game theory ideas which are rewarded with the Federal
Reserve of Sweden's annual prize, are useless in an economy without
money, where each individual is free to make his own choices.

Well, no Roger. You have already admitted that in the dystopia you envision
individuals are *not* free to make their own choices. That is, if two
individuals choose to exchange their labor or products, one or both will be
shot.

To be sure, in that world there is no need for economics, since there is no
economy.

[Global Warming]

Post by Publius

Post by Roger Johansson
What you call "economics" isn't even real economics.

Heh. That is like a creationist claiming that what is practiced by
biologists is not "real biology."
"Real economics" is the economics found to operate in the real world.
It is not the economics of a world where goods appear magically, like
manna from Heaven.

Post by Roger Johansson
You talk about the monetary system, a game which the money masters
are playing. The game theory ideas which are rewarded with the
Federal Reserve of Sweden's annual prize, are useless in an economy
without money, where each individual is free to make his own choices.

Well, no Roger. You have already admitted that in the dystopia you
envision individuals are *not* free to make their own choices. That
is, if two individuals choose to exchange their labor or products, one
or both will be shot.
To be sure, in that world there is no need for economics, since there
is no economy.

I was wondering when Plubious would end up kissing some earth or some dirty
people, who have no productive value, its all over the internet, that
promised secret

[Publius]

Post by Global Warming

Post by Publius
Well, no Roger. You have already admitted that in the dystopia you
envision individuals are *not* free to make their own choices. That
is, if two individuals choose to exchange their labor or products, one
or both will be shot.
To be sure, in that world there is no need for economics, since there
is no economy.

I was wondering when Plubious would end up kissing some earth or some
dirty people, who have no productive value, its all over the internet,
that promised secret

??

[Global Warming]

Post by Global Warming

Post by Publius
Well, no Roger. You have already admitted that in the dystopia you
envision individuals are *not* free to make their own choices. That
is, if two individuals choose to exchange their labor or products, one
or both will be shot.
To be sure, in that world there is no need for economics, since there
is no economy.

I was wondering when Plubious would end up kissing some earth or some
dirty people, who have no productive value, its all over the internet,
that promised secret

??

only words from the' wilderness,

[Global Warming]

Post by Global Warming

Post by Global Warming

Post by Publius
Well, no Roger. You have already admitted that in the dystopia you
envision individuals are *not* free to make their own choices. That
is, if two individuals choose to exchange their labor or products, one
or both will be shot.
To be sure, in that world there is no need for economics, since there
is no economy.

I was wondering when Plubious would end up kissing some earth or some
dirty people, who have no productive value, its all over the

internet,

Post by Global Warming

Post by Global Warming
that promised secret

??

only words from the' wilderness,

when can 'we become full savage human 'beings? ?

[Global Warming]

Global Warming <***@spam.net> wrote in news:***@199.45.49.11:
You all have some kind of debt, some unpaid obligation did you know, or did
you hear about some jEwish plan to save the world,

[Global Warming]

Post by Global Warming
You all have some kind of debt, some unpaid obligation did you know,
or did you hear about some jEwish plan to save the world,

Do you think that Allah can save your soul?

Can Jesus on the cross render comfort ?

A Spiritual Moment

Is worth a thousand promises

and maybe some more,

see i knew you would make it to this fucking lovely party, good to see you
and all of you may this everlasting canopy of stars and mysteries compel
you to the belly of 'this universe,

[Global Warming]

Post by Global Warming

Post by Publius
Well, no Roger. You have already admitted that in the dystopia you
envision individuals are *not* free to make their own choices. That
is, if two individuals choose to exchange their labor or products, one
or both will be shot.
To be sure, in that world there is no need for economics, since there
is no economy.

I was wondering when Plubious would end up kissing some earth or some
dirty people, who have no productive value, its all over the internet,
that promised secret

??

Bet you are wondering, where am i coming from? Reading this thread left
me very disturbed, it reminded me of some testimony from the new
testament, that part about :

Luk 4:1 Then Jesus returned from the Jordan, full of the Holy Spirit,
and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness


Luk 4:2 for 40 days to be tempted by the Devil. He ate nothing during
those days, and when they were over, He was hungry.


Luk 4:3 The Devil said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, tell this
stone to become bread."


Luk 4:4 But Jesus answered him, "It is written: Man must not live on
bread alone."


Luk 4:5 So he took Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world
in a moment of time.


Luk 4:6 The Devil said to Him, "I will give You their splendor and all
this authority, because it has been given over to me, and I can give it
to anyone I want.


Luk 4:7 If You, then, will worship me, all will be Yours."


Publious you so remind me of the devil in this thread, careful to every
attention and detail, reminding Roger of the details and the facts as if
there is "no" solution or way out of this worldly Faustian bargain, and
yet I wonder about the concept of a devil who can freely give away
worldly splendor and this continued indenture, surely those writers from
some 2000 and 7 years ago posted to their blogs and it is obvious even
then that taxes, census and crafty greedy members of the population tried
to get full control of every well and resource, much like the world
today.

Is it about power and control, some arcane pecking order, with nuclear
technology in this modern day, Roger talks about some money free society,
you remind him how can this be achieved, surely not from the system of
justice that we' have inherited.

In the meantime, there are so many marginilised human beings on this
planet, who pay taxes and homage, yet live under some social global
shame, if it were about money, then any thief can buy a free pass ticket,
what are your thoughts about an un-wed mother? Open Homosexuals? Black
People, Muslims or Jews?

[Global Warming]

Post by Global Warming

Post by Global Warming

Post by Publius
Well, no Roger. You have already admitted that in the dystopia you
envision individuals are *not* free to make their own choices. That
is, if two individuals choose to exchange their labor or products,

one

Post by Global Warming

Post by Publius
or both will be shot.
To be sure, in that world there is no need for economics, since
there is no economy.

I was wondering when Plubious would end up kissing some earth or
some dirty people, who have no productive value, its all over the
internet, that promised secret

??

Bet you are wondering, where am i coming from? Reading this thread
left me very disturbed, it reminded me of some testimony from the new
Luk 4:1 Then Jesus returned from the Jordan, full of the Holy Spirit,
and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness
Luk 4:2 for 40 days to be tempted by the Devil. He ate nothing during
those days, and when they were over, He was hungry.
Luk 4:3 The Devil said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, tell this
stone to become bread."
Luk 4:4 But Jesus answered him, "It is written: Man must not live on
bread alone."
Luk 4:5 So he took Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the
world in a moment of time.
Luk 4:6 The Devil said to Him, "I will give You their splendor and
all this authority, because it has been given over to me, and I can
give it to anyone I want.
Luk 4:7 If You, then, will worship me, all will be Yours."
Publious you so remind me of the devil in this thread, careful to
every attention and detail, reminding Roger of the details and the
facts as if there is "no" solution or way out of this worldly Faustian
bargain, and yet I wonder about the concept of a devil who can freely
give away worldly splendor and this continued indenture, surely those
writers from some 2000 and 7 years ago posted to their blogs and it is
obvious even then that taxes, census and crafty greedy members of the
population tried to get full control of every well and resource, much
like the world today.
Is it about power and control, some arcane pecking order, with nuclear
technology in this modern day, Roger talks about some money free
society, you remind him how can this be achieved, surely not from the
system of justice that we' have inherited.
In the meantime, there are so many marginilised human beings on this
planet, who pay taxes and homage, yet live under some social global
shame, if it were about money, then any thief can buy a free pass
ticket, what are your thoughts about an un-wed mother? Open
Homosexuals? Black People, Muslims or Jews?

Is this group about the future?

Sure hope I can be part of the future.

When people can look out their doors and see a healthy world, preparing a
white tablecloth to our table, where the topics of human emancipation and
restitution may free your soul may walk in every bubble of human joy, do
you know where you stand?

Can you see? Your hand?

If you are reading this and you have cable tv,


Then science and the explanation of the electron may satisfy your soul,
have you accepted the current scientific world view?

Do you ever wonder?

Have you ever seen your face in some mirror?


Love Freedom

[Publius]

Post by Global Warming
Publious you so remind me of the devil in this thread, careful to every
attention and detail, reminding Roger of the details and the facts as if
there is "no" solution or way out of this worldly Faustian bargain, and
yet I wonder about the concept of a devil who can freely give away
worldly splendor and this continued indenture, surely those writers from
some 2000 and 7 years ago posted to their blogs and it is obvious even
then that taxes, census and crafty greedy members of the population tried
to get full control of every well and resource, much like the world
today.

Well, GW, it depends upon to which "Faustian Bargain" you refer. If you are
referring to the need to work in order to eat, then there is no "bargain."
Neither you nor I, nor any other animal on this Earth, have any choice in
the matter. We were all evicted from the Garden long ago; there are no more
fruit trees which can supply all our needs with no effort on our part. That
free fruit has long since been eaten.

Now we must produce what we wish to consume. And if even if the Garden were
still open to us, and all its natural fruits abundant, we would not be
satisifed. We're no longer content with the products of Nature. We're not
content to sleep in the rain on a bed of leaves, or entertain ourselves by
watching the clouds, or remain all our lives within 10 miles or our
birthplaces, or rely on prayer to heal our wounds. Our needs expand in
proportion to our ability to satisfy them.

Even if there were unlimited "free" apples and tubers to eat, there would
be no "free" houses, automobiles, wool coats, leather shoes, video games,
televisions, antibiotics, refrigerators, books, or telephones. All of those
things must be produced by humans, whether they are in the Garden or not.
So the only way anyone can get them "free" is by stealing them from
whomever produced them.

But of course, the "free" apples are long gone. If you want an apple today,
you will have to deal with an apple grower. He will not likely give you one
for "free." If that's what you demand, then you seek to make him your
slave, obliged to work for your benefit.

When lefties complain about "greedy capitalists controlling resources,"
what they are complaining about is that others are unwilling to hand over
the products of their labor to idlers who produce nothing.

We have no choice about whether to produce what we desire to have. If it is
not produced, it will not exist. The only choice each of us has is whether
to produce enough to meet our own needs, or steal from someone else.

Post by Global Warming
In the meantime, there are so many marginilised human beings on this
planet, who pay taxes and homage, yet live under some social global
shame,

People can be "marginalized" in only two ways: by their own actions, or
lack thereof, or by force. The latter is generally the province of
government.

Post by Global Warming
what are your thoughts about an un-wed mother? Open Homosexuals? Black
People, Muslims or Jews?

I have no thoughts about others' marital status, sexual preferences, or
religion. They are none of my business and I have no interest in them. I
wish each person to live the life he or she chooses, as long as they don't
interfere with anyone else's right to do the same.

[Global Warming]

Post by Publius

Post by Global Warming
Publious you so remind me of the devil in this thread, careful to
every attention and detail, reminding Roger of the details and the
facts as if there is "no" solution or way out of this worldly
Faustian bargain, and yet I wonder about the concept of a devil who
can freely give away worldly splendor and this continued indenture,
surely those writers from some 2000 and 7 years ago posted to their
blogs and it is obvious even then that taxes, census and crafty
greedy members of the population tried to get full control of every
well and resource, much like the world today.

Well, GW, it depends upon to which "Faustian Bargain" you refer. If
you are referring to the need to work in order to eat, then there is
no "bargain." Neither you nor I, nor any other animal on this Earth,
have any choice in the matter. We were all evicted from the Garden
long ago; there are no more fruit trees which can supply all our needs
with no effort on our part. That free fruit has long since been eaten.
Now we must produce what we wish to consume. And if even if the Garden
were still open to us, and all its natural fruits abundant, we would
not be satisifed. We're no longer content with the products of Nature.
We're not content to sleep in the rain on a bed of leaves, or
entertain ourselves by watching the clouds, or remain all our lives
within 10 miles or our birthplaces, or rely on prayer to heal our
wounds. Our needs expand in proportion to our ability to satisfy them.
Even if there were unlimited "free" apples and tubers to eat, there
would be no "free" houses, automobiles, wool coats, leather shoes,
video games, televisions, antibiotics, refrigerators, books, or
telephones. All of those things must be produced by humans, whether
they are in the Garden or not. So the only way anyone can get them
"free" is by stealing them from whomever produced them.
But of course, the "free" apples are long gone. If you want an apple
today, you will have to deal with an apple grower. He will not likely
give you one for "free." If that's what you demand, then you seek to
make him your slave, obliged to work for your benefit.
When lefties complain about "greedy capitalists controlling
resources," what they are complaining about is that others are
unwilling to hand over the products of their labor to idlers who
produce nothing.
We have no choice about whether to produce what we desire to have. If
it is not produced, it will not exist. The only choice each of us has
is whether to produce enough to meet our own needs, or steal from
someone else.

Post by Global Warming
In the meantime, there are so many marginilised human beings on this
planet, who pay taxes and homage, yet live under some social global
shame,

People can be "marginalized" in only two ways: by their own actions,
or lack thereof, or by force. The latter is generally the province of
government.

Post by Global Warming
what are your thoughts about an un-wed mother? Open Homosexuals?
Black People, Muslims or Jews?

I have no thoughts about others' marital status, sexual preferences,
or religion. They are none of my business and I have no interest in
them. I wish each person to live the life he or she chooses, as long
as they don't interfere with anyone else's right to do the same.
When lefties complain about "greedy capitalists controlling

resources," what they are complaining about is that others are unwilling
to hand over the products of their labor to idlers who produce nothing.


I think you missed the part about "manipulative" greedy capitalists, who
see no evil in "exploiting" the masses..and here I thought you were
sounding like a Libertarian when you said "as long as they don't
interfere with anyone else's right to do the same", Did you ever wonder
how often you are reminded by self serving interests or the government on
what you really need? That "thing" you must rush out and buy?

I hear a knock on the door, who could it be? Goodness gracious its the
tax collector reminding me that my taxes are overdue, its funny how you
Publious speak so eloquently about the slacker or lefty in our society,
yet completely ignore the fact that even a dog is smart enough to survive
on this lunatic planet, and yet a poor person can be driven from his home
not for being lazy but because he cannot earn enough to pay for his
obligations, I guess when you factor in the Federal Reserve and the World
Bank, the IMF and all the controlling forces, a poor person or slacker as
you like to say, your picture of society and the future is a complete
failure, it is unsustainable and horribly brutal.

In the end, can a human being survive on this planet?

I know what you are thinking, 'can that human being come up with the
'money, the effort, to survive what can this human being offer to the
fire where they are smolting the calf and purifying the righteous for all
eternal times, there is a popular belief, when we left Eden, we entered
Eden, and all our friends became reflections no longer sure +

[Publius]

Post by Global Warming
I think you missed the part about "manipulative" greedy capitalists, who
see no evil in "exploiting" the masses.

Ah. That notorious leftist buzzword, "exploit." Can you define that term
for me?

Post by Global Warming
Did you ever wonder
how often you are reminded by self serving interests or the government on
what you really need? That "thing" you must rush out and buy?

Well, various hucksters *try* to remind me what they think I might want or
need, almost constantly. But I pay no attention to them unless I do, in
fact, want one of their offerings. Certainly I've never "rushed out and
bought" something because of their reminders. Have you?

There is a difference between government and others in that respect,
though. Governments do not try to persuade you that you need their
services. They inform you that you do, at gunpoint.

Post by Global Warming
yet completely ignore the fact that even a dog is smart enough to survive
on this lunatic planet, and yet a poor person can be driven from his home
not for being lazy but because he cannot earn enough to pay for his
obligations,

Well, you can escape those obligations also, if you wish to live like a
dog. A wild dog, that is. But given your example, I imagine you prefer to
live in a house. And if that is the case, you will indeed incur an
obligation to pay whoever built that home for you, unless you built it
yourself. It is in fact not "your home" until you have satisfied whatever
obligations you agreed to when you bought it.

And if you cannot earn enough to pay for the kind of home you want, then
you'll need to improve your skills or the quality of whatever product you
are offering to others. You might pay attention to some of the thousands of
other people who don't have that problem, and see how they are able to pay
for their homes. What are they doing different from what you are doing?

Post by Global Warming
I guess when you factor in the Federal Reserve and the World
Bank, the IMF and all the controlling forces, a poor person or slacker as
you like to say, your picture of society and the future is a complete
failure, it is unsustainable and horribly brutal.

Hm. I've never been controlled by the Fed or the World Bank or any other
such institution. How have they controlled you?

Or are you speaking of the bank from which you borrowed money to buy your
house? Are they "controlling" you by demanding that you repay that loan?

Well, of course --- like Roger, you believe you are entitled to a "free"
house, "free" food, and any other goodies you might desire for "free." If
those who produce those things actually expect you to pay for them, they
are "exploiting" and "controlling" you. Right?

[Global Warming]

Post by Publius
Ah. That notorious leftist buzzword, "exploit." Can you define that term
for me?

exploit: Taking advantage of Luck, using your mind and intelligence to find
a fool, tricking a child to signing off on the future, I reckon some of you
are the ultimate Darwinists, a sure bundled cash and carry group' did you
ever hear the word 'emancipation, also known as 'freedom, when some jew
named jesus was nailed on a cross it became very clear who was in charge
and where from every glass of water and every mouthful became a memory,

[Roger Johansson]

On Apr 24, 7:06 am, Publius <***@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
-

Post by Publius
Neither you nor I, nor any other animal on this Earth, have any choice in

-
Standard capitalist justification number 1: Social Darwinism.
You put humans at the same level as animals, who need to kill or get
killed.
But humans have a much higher level of intelligence and capacity for
social interaction.

Post by Publius
And if even if the Garden were
still open to us, and all its natural fruits abundant, we would not be
satisifed.

Standard capitalist justification number 2: Referring to the human
"nature".

But it's not nature, it is a culture, a bully culture, a culture which
divides the society into masters and slaves, gods and mere mortals,
bullies and victims of bullying, rich people and poor people.

If this is our nature, why would we need so much manipulation, child
abuse and lifelong training, being fed our daily ration of fear and
anger, violence and fear in movies, tv, radio and newspapers?

Post by Publius
Even if there were unlimited "free" apples and tubers to eat, there would
be no "free" houses, automobiles, wool coats, leather shoes, video games,
televisions, antibiotics, refrigerators, books, or telephones.

So you cannot imagine anybody doing useful things for others without
the interest of profit and getting something in return?
Ever heard of Linux, freeware, doctors who study hard all their lives
to be able to help other people, voluntary firefighters, etc..?

Post by Publius
things must be produced by humans, whether they are in the Garden or not.
So the only way anyone can get them "free" is by stealing them from
whomever produced them.

No. It is possible to let everybody do what they want, and still be
sure that enough people will do what is needed to give us all food and
other necessities like health care.

All people will, of course, not do what others consider as valuable,
but we do not need all the possible workforce to work hard.

Even in the wasteful capitalist system there enough abundance so some
people can play the guitar, like Jimi Hendrix, even if people around
him regarded him as a totally useless loser, until he suddenly became
world famous.

Half of all human effort in the capitalist world is wasted in the
management of the money system. Counting money, stealing money,
chasing the thiefs, gambling for money, worrying about money, paying
money, keep track of money accounts, writing cheques, building
cashiers machines, etc ..

Another large part of human efforts are wasted because of wars and
religions.

An interesting fact is that the Soviet Union started out from a
position a hundred years behind the western world, was plagued by wars
for half of its existence, got 30 million of their best workers killed
by the fascists, and in spite of that they could send a human into
orbit long before USA could do it.

How inefficient must capitalism be, if even a crippled and suffering
third world country could surpass it in many areas, technically and
socially?

I read about Jurij Gagarin yesterday. About orbiting the world in an
hour and a half, turning on the breaks over south Africa, to start the
fall down through the atmosphere so he could land very near the place
he had started from, nortwest of the Caspian sea.

He jumped out of the capsule at the height of 7500 meters, and landed
with a parachute, dressed in an orange spacesuit and a white helmet,
in a potato field in front of a farmer and his daughter, who looked
frightened, so he took off his helmet and said:

"Don't be afraid. I am a Soviet citizen just like you. I just came
down from space, and now I need to find a telephone so I can call
Moscow."


--
Roger J.

[Publius]

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
Neither you nor I, nor any other animal on this Earth, have any choice in

Standard capitalist justification number 1: Social Darwinism.
You put humans at the same level as animals, who need to kill or get
killed.
But humans have a much higher level of intelligence and capacity for
social interaction.

Why did you snip the quote in the middle of a sentence, Roger? So you could
change the apprarent subject from "work to eat" to "kill or be killed"?

Would you like to restore the complete paragraph and respond to the actual
point raised?

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
And if even if the Garden were
still open to us, and all its natural fruits abundant, we would not be
satisifed.

Standard capitalist justification number 2: Referring to the human
"nature".
But it's not nature, it is a culture, a bully culture, a culture which
divides the society into masters and slaves, gods and mere mortals,
bullies and victims of bullying, rich people and poor people.

I made no reference to any "human nature." You need to address the claims
actually made, Roger, not strawmen of your own making. My claim above was
that we are not satisfied to live as animals, content only with the natural
products of the Earth. That is a simple empirical claim. It is based on the
observation that no one who has a choice lives that way. Do you disagree?

Can you tell us who is "bullying" or "enslaving" you?

Post by Roger Johansson
If this is our nature, why would we need so much manipulation, child
abuse and lifelong training, being fed our daily ration of fear and
anger, violence and fear in movies, tv, radio and newspapers?

Who is manipulating you? If you are living in fear and believe teevee is to
blame, perhaps you could shut it off. Or are you being forced to attend
movies and watch teevee?

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
Even if there were unlimited "free" apples and tubers to eat, there would
be no "free" houses, automobiles, wool coats, leather shoes, video games,
televisions, antibiotics, refrigerators, books, or telephones.

So you cannot imagine anybody doing useful things for others without
the interest of profit and getting something in return?
Ever heard of Linux, freeware, doctors who study hard all their lives
to be able to help other people, voluntary firefighters, etc..?

Of course I can imagine such things. I can imagine them doing those things
about as often as they do now, and with similar results. What I can't
imagine is that anyone would spend 8 hours or more every day in the hot sun
installing roofing on houses, or tending a furnace in a steel mill, or
operating a drill in a dangerous mine, or running a sewing machine in a
garment factory, or plowing a dusty field on a tractor, or manning a camera
in a television studio, maintaining a server farm for Web sites, or even
teaching grammar to misbehaving brats, if all their wants could be met
without doing so. I'm quite sure most of them would be able to find much
less onerous and more interesting ways to spend their time.

Of course, I know you imagine that no one would need to work every day ---
everyone could just show up somewhere for some task that seemed interesting
at the moment and work a few hours, then go back to the beach and the pina
coladas for another couple weeks. But of course, the quantity of houses,
autos and fuel, shirts and shoes, iron and steel, beans and rice, teevee
shows produced, and educated kids would fall proportionately. Not only would
the total hours worked fall precipitously, but the few who are working on
any given day are all inexperienced dilattentes. Then where do all the
goodies come from for satisfying all those wants?

How many hours per day do you spend doing any of those things, Roger?

You just can't quite grasp the connection between work and goodies, can you?
You imagine that the same quantity of goodies would be produced even if
everybody worked only 1 day per month instead of 22. Do the math, Roger.

Post by Roger Johansson
No. It is possible to let everybody do what they want, and still be
sure that enough people will do what is needed to give us all food and
other necessities like health care.

Do the math, Roger. The less people work, the less product produced. So
unless everybody is already working as much as they want, there will be less
product produced if "everybody does what they want."

Is that really so hard to figure out?

Post by Roger Johansson
Even in the wasteful capitalist system there enough abundance so some
people can play the guitar, like Jimi Hendrix, even if people around
him regarded him as a totally useless loser, until he suddenly became
world famous.

LOL. "Even in the wasteful capitalist system"? That "wasteful capitalist
system" Roger, is the *only* system that produces an abundance of anything.
Indeed, it produces abundances of everything, unlike socialist economies,
which produce shortages of everything --- which is why Russia, China, and
most other formerly socialist states have abandoned that system. They don't
do it without work, however.

Of course there are a few holdouts, such as N. Korea and Cuba. Have you ever
seen this photo?

Loading Image...

Why is N. Korea as dark as the middle of the Sahara? Why is it plagued by
famine? No lights, no food, and nary a thieving, greedy capitalist in sight.

Post by Roger Johansson
An interesting fact is that the Soviet Union started out from a
position a hundred years behind the western world, was plagued by wars
for half of its existence, got 30 million of their best workers killed
by the fascists, and in spite of that they could send a human into
orbit long before USA could do it.

No, Roger. Not before the US *could* do it; only before they *did* do it.
The US didn't do it earlier because the Congress saw it as a waste of money
(which it was), and would not fund it. But then they thought they had to
show up the Russians --- which they did with several manned landings on the
Moon. The Soviets abandoned the "space race" at that point.

But it is a poor example anyway, since space programs are gummint operations
in both cases. The US space program is not a capitalist endeavor; it is a
gummint endeavor.

Post by Roger Johansson
How inefficient must capitalism be, if even a crippled and suffering
third world country could surpass it in many areas, technically and
socially?

Which areas were those? Socially? You mean empty store shelves, 2 or 3
families sharing a 2-room apartment, and gulags? Technically? How many
Soviet-built autos, motorcycles, bicycles, watches, telescopes, cameras,
typewriters, stereos, computers, televisions, appliances, tools, or even
shoes or coats have you ever owned, Roger?

[Global Warming]

Post by Publius
I made no reference to any "human nature." You need to address the
claims actually made, Roger, not strawmen of your own making. My claim
above was that we are not satisfied to live as animals, content only
with the natural products of the Earth. That is a simple empirical
claim. It is based on the observation that no one who has a choice
lives that way. Do you disagree?

Hey Pubelious do you really believe that this rat infested empire can find
enough food?

[Global Warming]

Post by Global Warming

Post by Publius
I made no reference to any "human nature." You need to address the
claims actually made, Roger, not strawmen of your own making. My
claim above was that we are not satisfied to live as animals, content
only with the natural products of the Earth. That is a simple
empirical claim. It is based on the observation that no one who has a
choice lives that way. Do you disagree?

Hey Pubelious do you really believe that this rat infested empire can
find enough food?

So much of future and society, lots of talk,

and many fine words'

examine your obligations you will see shortly

look for your reflection and, and right in front of your good eye is the
path and trail that leads one to greener pastures warm with the correct
picture regarding Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

[Publius]

Post by Global Warming
examine your obligations you will see shortly
look for your reflection and, and right in front of your good eye is the
path and trail that leads one to greener pastures warm with the correct
picture regarding Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I hope you enjoy your idyllic vision. When the drug wears off and you have to
eat, please don't expect someone else to hand you a sandwich.

[Global Warming]

Post by Publius

Post by Global Warming
examine your obligations you will see shortly
look for your reflection and, and right in front of your good eye is
the path and trail that leads one to greener pastures warm with the
correct picture regarding Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I hope you enjoy your idyllic vision. When the drug wears off and you
have to eat, please don't expect someone else to hand you a sandwich.

I bet you are a lot of fun around the Christmas Holidays -Pub, so let me
understand, if you work hard, you earn "money" so that you can
"purchase" food, is there any room for visions and suger plum fairies?

Is it possible -Pub, that when you and Roger start to realize you are on
the same page and the same planet, that strange neighbor may come and be
a burglar, even some errant crazed human being who manifests the markings
of the sub culture, and they cannot read written words, so much for
liberal government programs, guess if you got this far you might be be
able to read, can see a few signs and portents, now here is where it gets
supernatural, did you ever wonder about life, this universe and when the
drug wears off, I continue to lust for -Pub's sandwich and many good
campfires.

[Publius]

Post by Global Warming
Hey Pubelious do you really believe that this rat infested empire can find
enough food?

No need to "find it." We can make it. And as long as we have free markets,
we'll make plenty.

[Global Warming]

Post by Publius

Post by Global Warming
Hey Pubelious do you really believe that this rat infested empire can
find enough food?

No need to "find it." We can make it. And as long as we have free
markets, we'll make plenty.

Now there is an oxymoron "free markets", yeah sure you will make plenty of
food, especially with those GM seeds..but the question remains, will you or
I be able to afford that ham sandwich someday?

[Roger Johansson]

On Apr 24, 7:06 am, Publius <***@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
-

Post by Publius
Neither you nor I, nor any other animal on this Earth, have any choice in

-
Standard capitalist justification number 1: Social Darwinism.
You put humans at the same level as animals, who need to kill or get
killed.

But humans have a much higher level of intelligence and capacity for
social interaction.

Post by Publius
And if even if the Garden were
still open to us, and all its natural fruits abundant, we would not be
satisifed.

Standard capitalist justification number 2: Referring to the human
"nature".

But it's not nature, it is a culture, a bully culture, a culture which
divides the society into masters and slaves, gods and mere mortals,
bullies and victims of bullying, rich people and poor people.

If this is our nature, why would we need so much manipulation, child
abuse and lifelong training, being fed our daily ration of fear and
anger, violence and fear in movies, tv, radio and newspapers?

Post by Publius
Even if there were unlimited "free" apples and tubers to eat, there would
be no "free" houses, automobiles, wool coats, leather shoes, video games,
televisions, antibiotics, refrigerators, books, or telephones.

So you cannot imagine anybody doing useful things for others without
the interest of profit and getting something in return?
Ever heard of Linux, freeware, doctors who study hard all their lives
to be able to help other people, voluntary firefighters, etc..?

Post by Publius
things must be produced by humans, whether they are in the Garden or not.
So the only way anyone can get them "free" is by stealing them from
whomever produced them.

No. It is possible to let everybody do what they want, and still be
sure that enough people will do what is needed to give us all food and
other necessities like health care.

All people will, of course, not do what others consider as valuable,
but we do not need all the possible workforce to work hard.

Even in the wasteful capitalist system there enough abundance so some
people can play the guitar, like Jimi Hendrix, even if people around
him regarded him as a totally useless loser, until he suddenly became
world famous.

Half of all human effort in the capitalist world is wasted in the
management of the money system. Counting money, stealing money,
chasing the thiefs, gambling for money, worrying about money, paying
money, keep track of money accounts, writing cheques, building
cashiers machines, etc ..

Another large part of human efforts are wasted because of wars and
religions.

An interesting fact is that the Soviet Union started out from a
position a hundred years behind the western world, was plagued by wars
for half of its existence, got 30 million of their best workers killed
by the fascists, and in spite of that they could send a human into
orbit long before USA could do it.

How inefficient must capitalism be, if even a crippled and suffering
third world country could surpass it in many areas, technically and
socially?

I read about Jurij Gagarin yesterday. About orbiting the world in an
hour and a half, turning on the breaks over south Africa, to start the
fall down through the atmosphere so he could land very near the place
he had started from, nortwest of the Caspian sea.

He jumped out of the capsule at the height of 7500 meters, and landed
with a parachute, dressed in an orange spacesuit and a white helmet,
in a potato field in front of a farmer and his daughter, who looked
frightened, so he took off his helmet and said:

"Don't be afraid. I am a Soviet citizen just like you. I just came
down from space, and now I need to find a telephone so I can call
Moscow."


--
Roger J.

[Roger Johansson]

On Apr 24, 7:06 am, Publius <***@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
--

Post by Publius
Neither you nor I, nor any other animal on this Earth, have any choice in

--
Standard capitalist justification number 1: Social Darwinism.
You put humans at the same level as animals, who need to kill or get
killed.
But humans have a much higher level of intelligence and capacity for
social interaction.

Post by Publius
And if even if the Garden were
still open to us, and all its natural fruits abundant, we would not be
satisifed.

Standard capitalist justification number 2: Referring to the human
"nature".

But it's not nature, it is a culture, a bully culture, a culture which
divides the society into masters and slaves, gods and mere mortals,
bullies and victims of bullying, rich people and poor people.

If this is our nature, why would we need so much manipulation, child
abuse and lifelong training, being fed our daily ration of fear and
anger, violence and fear in movies, tv, radio and newspapers?

Post by Publius
Even if there were unlimited "free" apples and tubers to eat, there would
be no "free" houses, automobiles, wool coats, leather shoes, video games,
televisions, antibiotics, refrigerators, books, or telephones.

So you cannot imagine anybody doing useful things for others without
the interest of profit and getting something in return?
Ever heard of Linux, freeware, doctors who study hard all their lives
to be able to help other people, voluntary firefighters, etc..?

Post by Publius
things must be produced by humans, whether they are in the Garden or not.
So the only way anyone can get them "free" is by stealing them from
whomever produced them.

No. It is possible to let everybody do what they want, and still be
sure that enough people will do what is needed to give us all food and
other necessities like health care.

All people will, of course, not do what others consider as valuable,
but we do not need all the possible workforce to work hard.

Even in the wasteful capitalist system there enough abundance so some
people can play the guitar, like Jimi Hendrix, even if people around
him regarded him as a totally useless loser, until he suddenly became
world famous.

Half of all human effort in the capitalist world is wasted in the
management of the money system. Counting money, stealing money,
chasing the thiefs, gambling for money, worrying about money, paying
money, keep track of money accounts, writing cheques, building
cashiers machines, etc ..

Another large part of human efforts are wasted because of wars and
religions.

An interesting fact is that the Soviet Union started out from a
position a hundred years behind the western world, was plagued by wars
for half of its existence, got 30 million of their best workers killed
by the fascists, and in spite of that they could send a human into
orbit long before USA could do it.

How inefficient must capitalism be, if even a crippled and suffering
third world country could surpass it in many areas, technically and
socially?

I read about Jurij Gagarin yesterday. About orbiting the world in an
hour and a half, turning on the breaks over south Africa, to start the
fall down through the atmosphere so he could land very near the place
he had started from, nortwest of the Caspian sea.

He jumped out of the capsule at the height of 7500 meters, and landed
with a parachute, dressed in an orange spacesuit and a white helmet,
in a potato field in front of a farmer and his daughter, who looked
frightened, so he took off his helmet and said:

"Don't be afraid. I am a Soviet citizen just like you. I just came
down from space, and now I need to find a telephone so I can call
Moscow."


--
Roger J.

[Roger Johansson]

On Apr 24, 7:06 am, Publius <***@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
-

Post by Publius
Neither you nor I, nor any other animal on this Earth, have any choice in

-
Standard capitalist justification number 1: Social Darwinism.
You put humans at the same level as animals, who need to kill or get
killed.
But humans have a much higher level of intelligence and capacity for
social interaction.

Post by Publius
And if even if the Garden were
still open to us, and all its natural fruits abundant, we would not be
satisifed.

Standard capitalist justification number 2: Referring to the human
"nature".

But it's not nature, it is a culture, a bully culture, a culture which
divides the society into masters and slaves, gods and mere mortals,
bullies and victims of bullying, rich people and poor people.

If this is our nature, why would we need so much manipulation, child
abuse and lifelong training, being fed our daily ration of fear and
anger, violence and fear in movies, tv, radio and newspapers?

Post by Publius
Even if there were unlimited "free" apples and tubers to eat, there would
be no "free" houses, automobiles, wool coats, leather shoes, video games,
televisions, antibiotics, refrigerators, books, or telephones.

So you cannot imagine anybody doing useful things for others without
the interest of profit and getting something in return?
Ever heard of Linux, freeware, doctors who study hard all their lives
to be able to help other people, voluntary firefighters, etc..?

Post by Publius
things must be produced by humans, whether they are in the Garden or not.
So the only way anyone can get them "free" is by stealing them from
whomever produced them.

No. It is possible to let everybody do what they want, and still be
sure that enough people will do what is needed to give us all food and
other necessities like health care.

All people will, of course, not do what others consider as valuable,
but we do not need all the possible workforce to work hard.

Even in the wasteful capitalist system there enough abundance so some
people can play the guitar, like Jimi Hendrix, even if people around
him regarded him as a totally useless loser, until he suddenly became
world famous.

Half of all human effort in the capitalist world is wasted in the
management of the money system. Counting money, stealing money,
chasing the thiefs, gambling for money, worrying about money, paying
money, keep track of money accounts, writing cheques, building
cashiers machines, etc ..

Another large part of human efforts are wasted because of wars and
religions.

An interesting fact is that the Soviet Union started out from a
position a hundred years behind the western world, was plagued by wars
for half of its existence, got 30 million of their best workers killed
by the fascists, and in spite of that they could send a human into
orbit long before USA could do it.

How inefficient must capitalism be, if even a crippled and suffering
third world country could surpass it in many areas, technically and
socially?

I read about Jurij Gagarin yesterday. About orbiting the world in an
hour and a half, turning on the breaks over south Africa, to start the
fall down through the atmosphere so he could land very near the place
he had started from, nortwest of the Caspian sea.

He jumped out of the capsule at the height of 7500 meters, and landed
with a parachute, dressed in an orange spacesuit and a white helmet,
in a potato field in front of a farmer and his daughter, who looked
frightened, so he took off his helmet and said:

"Don't be afraid. I am a Soviet citizen just like you. I just came
down from space, and now I need to find a telephone so I can call
Moscow."


-- -- --
Roger J.

[Roger Johansson]

On Apr 24, 7:06 am, Publius <***@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
-

Post by Publius
Neither you nor I, nor any other animal on this Earth, have any choice in

-
Standard capitalist justification number 1: Social Darwinism.
You put humans at the same level as animals, who need to kill or get
killed.
But humans have a much higher level of intelligence and capacity for
social interaction.

Post by Publius
And if even if the Garden were
still open to us, and all its natural fruits abundant, we would not be
satisifed.

Standard capitalist justification number 2: Referring to the human
"nature".

But it's not nature, it is a culture, a bully culture, a culture which
divides the society into masters and slaves, gods and mere mortals,
bullies and victims of bullying, rich people and poor people.

If this is our nature, why would we need so much manipulation, child
abuse and lifelong training, being fed our daily ration of fear and
anger, violence and fear in movies, tv, radio and newspapers?

Post by Publius
Even if there were unlimited "free" apples and tubers to eat, there would
be no "free" houses, automobiles, wool coats, leather shoes, video games,
televisions, antibiotics, refrigerators, books, or telephones.

So you cannot imagine anybody doing useful things for others without
the interest of profit and getting something in return?
Ever heard of Linux, freeware, doctors who study hard all their lives
to be able to help other people, voluntary firefighters, etc..?

Post by Publius
things must be produced by humans, whether they are in the Garden or not.
So the only way anyone can get them "free" is by stealing them from
whomever produced them.

No. It is possible to let everybody do what they want, and still be
sure that enough people will do what is needed to give us all food and
other necessities like health care.

All people will, of course, not do what others consider as valuable,
but we do not need all the possible workforce to work hard.

Even in the wasteful capitalist system there enough abundance so some
people can play the guitar, like Jimi Hendrix, even if people around
him regarded him as a totally useless loser, until he suddenly became
world famous.

Half of all human effort in the capitalist world is wasted in the
management of the money system. Counting money, stealing money,
chasing the thiefs, gambling for money, worrying about money, paying
money, keep track of money accounts, writing cheques, building
cashiers machines, etc ..

Another large part of human efforts are wasted because of wars and
religions.

An interesting fact is that the Soviet Union started out from a
position a hundred years behind the western world, was plagued by wars
for half of its existence, got 30 million of their best workers killed
by the fascists, and in spite of that they could send a human into
orbit long before USA could do it.

How inefficient must capitalism be, if even a crippled and suffering
third world country could surpass it in many areas, technically and
socially?

I read about Jurij Gagarin yesterday. About orbiting the world in an
hour and a half, turning on the breaks over south Africa, to start the
fall down through the atmosphere so he could land very near the place
he had started from, nortwest of the Caspian sea.

He jumped out of the capsule at the height of 7500 meters, and landed
with a parachute, dressed in an orange spacesuit and a white helmet,
in a potato field in front of a farmer and his daughter, who looked
frightened, so he took off his helmet and said:

"Don't be afraid. I am a Soviet citizen just like you. I just came
down from space, and now I need to find a telephone so I can call
Moscow."


--
Roger J.

[Roger Johansson]

On Apr 24, 7:06 am, Publius <***@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
-

Post by Publius
Neither you nor I, nor any other animal on this Earth, have any choice in

-
Standard capitalist justification number 1: Social Darwinism.
You put humans at the same level as animals, who need to kill or get
killed.
But humans have a much higher level of intelligence and capacity for
social interaction.

Post by Publius
And if even if the Garden were
still open to us, and all its natural fruits abundant, we would not be
satisifed.

Standard capitalist justification number 2: Referring to the human
"nature".

But it's not nature, it is a culture, a bully culture, a culture which
divides the society into masters and slaves, gods and mere mortals,
bullies and victims of bullying, rich people and poor people.

If this is our nature, why would we need so much manipulation, child
abuse and lifelong training, being fed our daily ration of fear and
anger, violence and fear in movies, tv, radio and newspapers?

Post by Publius
Even if there were unlimited "free" apples and tubers to eat, there would
be no "free" houses, automobiles, wool coats, leather shoes, video games,
televisions, antibiotics, refrigerators, books, or telephones.

So you cannot imagine anybody doing useful things for others without
the interest of profit and getting something in return?
Ever heard of Linux, freeware, doctors who study hard all their lives
to be able to help other people, voluntary firefighters, etc..?

Post by Publius
things must be produced by humans, whether they are in the Garden or not.
So the only way anyone can get them "free" is by stealing them from
whomever produced them.

No. It is possible to let everybody do what they want, and still be
sure that enough people will do what is needed to give us all food and
other necessities like health care.

All people will, of course, not do what others consider as valuable,
but we do not need all the possible workforce to work hard.

Even in the wasteful capitalist system there enough abundance so some
people can play the guitar, like Jimi Hendrix, even if people around
him regarded him as a totally useless loser, until he suddenly became
world famous.

Half of all human effort in the capitalist world is wasted in the
management of the money system. Counting money, stealing money,
chasing the thiefs, gambling for money, worrying about money, paying
money, keep track of money accounts, writing cheques, building
cashiers machines, etc ..

Another large part of human efforts are wasted because of wars and
religions.

An interesting fact is that the Soviet Union started out from a
position a hundred years behind the western world, was plagued by wars
for half of its existence, got 30 million of their best workers killed
by the fascists, and in spite of that they could send a human into
orbit long before USA could do it.

How inefficient must capitalism be, if even a crippled and suffering
third world country could surpass it in many areas, technically and
socially?

I read about Jurij Gagarin yesterday. About orbiting the world in an
hour and a half, turning on the breaks over south Africa, to start the
fall down through the atmosphere so he could land very near the place
he had started from, nortwest of the Caspian sea.

He jumped out of the capsule at the height of 7500 meters, and landed
with a parachute, dressed in an orange spacesuit and a white helmet,
in a potato field in front of a farmer and his daughter, who looked
frightened, so he took off his helmet and said:

"Don't be afraid. I am a Soviet citizen just like you. I just came
down from space, and now I need to find a telephone so I can call
Moscow."


--
Roger J.

[galathaea]

[...]

Post by Publius
PS: This sounds like a good project for a model. Ever used Swarm?

i wanted to apologise for not responding

i've been spending some time looking up the features of swarm
which i beat myself up for not having any knowledge of

it has some features i hadn't even thought about yet for my own
product

a few years ago i did a lot of market research here
but i've been slack lately
and apparently have a bit more to learn...

.
.`

the rest i can't answer right away
but eventually...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar

[Publius]

Post by Roger Johansson

Post by Publius
except by moving to a different one if they don't like their present
one, or by withdrawing from it altogether.

.
That is an option for you, who do not like democracy.

Actually, that would not be an option. It was not an option for Soviet
citizens or East German citizens who did not like "people's democracies."
Cuba tried it, and everyone with talent left the country, leaving Cuba with a
stone-age economy.

"People's democracy" is no fun when all the productive people have left. No
one is left to steal from.

[ZerkonX]

Post by Roger Johansson
Write down your own vision, and compare it with others, develop your
vision when you get new ideas or when people make you realize that
something in your vision is not such a good idea.

My vision is simply this. Take the profit out of war, take the profit out
of elections. Whatever follows will trend towards real betterment.

Post by Roger Johansson
We are all waiting for the american people to become intelligent enough
to take control of their own government and military forces.

Intelligence has little to do with it now. I am in Ohio and it is certain
that the last two Presidential elections were frauds as was the last
mid-term election. While many Americans have a almost prideful ignorance
of the outside world, many know how corrupt government is and has been for
more than a generation now. The military is a 300lb gorilla but at the
heart of it all.

Sorry, it is you guys who are going to have to carry the ball on this one.
What it will take here is too ugly, for now anyway.

DON'T WAIT UP !! START THE PARTY WITHOUT US!!

[Roger Johansson]

-

Post by ZerkonX

Post by Roger Johansson
Write down your own vision, and compare it with others, develop your
vision when you get new ideas or when people make you realize that
something in your vision is not such a good idea.

-

Post by ZerkonX
My vision is simply this. Take the profit out of war, take the profit out
of elections. Whatever follows will trend towards real betterment.

-

But that is not a practical, concrete vision, how would you do that?

You need a plan which others can agree with so you can work together
in a peaceful manner to change the society, and the government.
-

Post by ZerkonX

Post by Roger Johansson
We are all waiting for the american people to become intelligent enough
to take control of their own government and military forces.

Intelligence has little to do with it now. I am in Ohio and it is certain
that the last two Presidential elections were frauds as was the last
mid-term election. While many Americans have a almost prideful ignorance
of the outside world, many know how corrupt government is and has been for
more than a generation now. The military is a 300lb gorilla but at the
heart of it all.

-

Yes, you are angry and you know that something is wrong, but you have
no plan for how to change the situation.

The only way you can change the situation is through peaceful
education, spreading a new program, building up a new political party
and winning the elections.

Using violence will only help the enemy, so you must stay far away
from any form of violence, including street demonstrations.
-

Post by ZerkonX
Sorry, it is you guys who are going to have to carry the ball on this one.

-
We cannot do so much as long as the US army is controlling the whole
world.
Only the american people can stop your military forces from moving
outside your own country.
-

Post by ZerkonX
What it will take here is too ugly, for now anyway.

-
It will not get ugly if you follow a peaceful democratic plan to come
to power in a lawful way. You have a democratic system, you just need
to use it.

Don't let anger control your activity, let reason and a sound
judgement lead your actions.

People who demonstrate in the streets and fight with the police are
helping the conservative party which is in power. They express their
anger instead of their intelligence.


--
Roger J.

[Global Warming]

Post by Roger Johansson
-

Post by ZerkonX

Post by Roger Johansson
Write down your own vision, and compare it with others, develop
your vision when you get new ideas or when people make you realize
that something in your vision is not such a good idea.

-

Post by ZerkonX
My vision is simply this. Take the profit out of war, take the profit
out of elections. Whatever follows will trend towards real
betterment.

-
But that is not a practical, concrete vision, how would you do that?
You need a plan which others can agree with so you can work together
in a peaceful manner to change the society, and the government.
-

Post by ZerkonX

Post by Roger Johansson
We are all waiting for the american people to become intelligent
enough to take control of their own government and military forces.

Intelligence has little to do with it now. I am in Ohio and it is
certain that the last two Presidential elections were frauds as was
the last mid-term election. While many Americans have a almost
prideful ignorance of the outside world, many know how corrupt
government is and has been for more than a generation now. The
military is a 300lb gorilla but at the heart of it all.

-
Yes, you are angry and you know that something is wrong, but you have
no plan for how to change the situation.
The only way you can change the situation is through peaceful
education, spreading a new program, building up a new political party
and winning the elections.
Using violence will only help the enemy, so you must stay far away
from any form of violence, including street demonstrations.
-

Post by ZerkonX
Sorry, it is you guys who are going to have to carry the ball on this one.

-
We cannot do so much as long as the US army is controlling the whole
world.
Only the american people can stop your military forces from moving
outside your own country.
-

Post by ZerkonX
What it will take here is too ugly, for now anyway.

-
It will not get ugly if you follow a peaceful democratic plan to come
to power in a lawful way. You have a democratic system, you just need
to use it.
Don't let anger control your activity, let reason and a sound
judgement lead your actions.
People who demonstrate in the streets and fight with the police are
helping the conservative party which is in power. They express their
anger instead of their intelligence.
--
Roger J.

I Love You Roger J'

Thanks

[Global Warming]

Post by ZerkonX

Post by Roger Johansson
Write down your own vision, and compare it with others, develop your
vision when you get new ideas or when people make you realize that
something in your vision is not such a good idea.

My vision is simply this. Take the profit out of war, take the profit
out of elections. Whatever follows will trend towards real betterment.

Post by Roger Johansson
We are all waiting for the american people to become intelligent
enough to take control of their own government and military forces.

Intelligence has little to do with it now. I am in Ohio and it is
certain that the last two Presidential elections were frauds as was
the last mid-term election. While many Americans have a almost
prideful ignorance of the outside world, many know how corrupt
government is and has been for more than a generation now. The
military is a 300lb gorilla but at the heart of it all.
Sorry, it is you guys who are going to have to carry the ball on this
one. What it will take here is too ugly, for now anyway.
DON'T WAIT UP !! START THE PARTY WITHOUT US!!

Carry the 'ball, oh no not that horrible ball, do mean straight into
Heaven ?

Or were you just passing through and got caught up with an obligation,
you do understand, children are born completely free and learn about
rules in this hell, it makes them cry for no explicable reason, go to
Light Children go to a comfortable and affordable place in the 'future

[Global Warming]

Post by Roger Johansson
.

You think you understand how the money system works?

.
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8753934454816686947>
.
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2665915773877500927>

It is mind-boggling beyond belief - just watch it..

.

To drive home the point the video should be edited to 1/10 th of its
content.

.
It could have been 10 times longer, covering more countries, and it
could have included other main factors behind many historical events.
They say in this movie that this is not the only factor behind
historical events, but a very important side of what has happened in
world history, and I agree.
.

It could be that the 'Money Masters' had their population's *best
interest* at
heart and finally they get blamed for their achievement (in typical
fashion ;-)).

.
Do you think killing a hundred million human beings during the 20th
century alone, is something some really good people would have done?
.
Which populations are you thinking about?
.
I don't think you have actually seen the movie, because it mentions no
population which has gained more than it has lost from the
manipulations of these "money masters".
.

There are always some very gifted persons born into any society.
Others are what they are--they'll never understand even if it is
explained to them.

.
You don't have to be especially gifted to play an economic game, you
just need to know how it works.
.
Watch the movie and you will understand how it works too.
To understand the world history you need to have watched this movie.
In addition to that information you need to understand the role of
religion, real practical religion, not the ideology the religious
people hide behind.
Social traditions, gender roles, bullying, violence, male honor,
manipulative women, etc..
You need to understand that religion was seriously challenged
theoretically around the year 1500, when new ideas like humanism
versus theism, secularism versus religion, democracy versus religious
dictatorship gained strength enough to break the rule of the pope.
Since then we live in the era of enlightenment, spreading these new
ideas and struggling against reactionary ideas which try to stop the
advancement of the new ideas, secularism, equality, democracy, and
individual freedom.
Democracy lead to socialism, when the workers joined the class
struggle with worker's unions, worker's education, and millions of
poor people outvoted a few rich.
.
The pope saw this as a big problem, because with democracy and
socialism came secularism and individual freedom.
We are still in the process of abolishing religion and the rule of the
rich.
Watch this movie, and read my articles in alt.society.futures, and you
will know everything you need to know about the world history, and
what we can do about it.
--
Roger J.

Hey,..Roger

Did you notice how this subject has become so muddled?

Looking at this thread today (7/11/07) , it seems as if the cyberworld
had some difficulty in digesting some of the ideas, thoughts and typed
words, fortunately some of us-we those people managed to make copies of
the video and will make it available for the squeamish and the late
bloomers.

[Roger Johansson]

Post by Global Warming
Hey,..Roger
Did you notice how this subject has become so muddled?

Everything gets muddled in a very confused world full of anger and
hate.
But a few people can think clearly enough to find the pearls and
preserve and spread them further.

Post by Global Warming
Looking at this thread today (7/11/07) , it seems as if the cyberworld
had some difficulty in digesting some of the ideas, thoughts and typed
words, fortunately some of us-we those people managed to make copies of
the video and will make it available for the squeamish and the late
bloomers.

I will help making it available too.

If we can keep a vision of a better world alive and available it will
find more supporters, slowly but surely.

This world need a new vision and we can present one.
We can also show what is wrong with the current system, and that is
nearly as important.
Most people already feel that something is wrong with the world, but
few can understand what is wrong, and even fewer can point to a better
solution.


--
Roger J.