Chip with simple program for Toy

[Bret Cahill]

Anyway, going back to Brat's ridiculous "Question", it is not "free
speech" which people need in advanced industrial countries. They
already have that

In that case your outspoken "market" economists should be falling over
themselves to answer The Question.

They should be just like Ayn Rand ripping Dr. Coase or anyone else who
suggests free markets are not possible without the precondition of
free speech.

Outspoken market economists should be outspoken in their support of
free speech.

Instead they _all_ go into full dodgin' 'n dodgin' mode when ever any
pops 'em on their fraudulent fannies with The Question:

Does F/S precede each and every F/T?

(for the most part).

It's the part that ain't free speech on naked nazi flag burner parades
that's missing.

And that missing "part" -- the core intent by Madison's own words --
is worth trillions to the economy, leveling wealth at the same time so
median wages will soon be over $50/hr.

The part that is missing is free speech on economic information.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

True. To the extent that their wages are inflated by union contracts,
mandatory minimum wages, tariff protection, etc., they are paid *too
much*. (Which is precisely why so many jobs have gone overseas).

Furthermore, "free speech" is merely the right to express one's views
without restraint in a forum of one's own. It is not the right to loot
others.

So, for the poor to organize so as to stand up to superior economic
power is to engaging in looting?

I dont even thing free speach is sufficient for free trade. �I think
near equality of circumstances is required. �Any time people
with unequal power engage in trade the person with the greater
power has the advantage. �Nearly all laborers need their jobs to
survive but most businesses don't need any particular non-owner
employee to survive.

By the same token, the laborers don't need that
particular job to survive. �Competition is choice
is competition is choice. ďż˝

But how do you have competition without free speech?

The problem with
socialist amd fascist monopolies is there is no
other alternative.

Do you think it is wise to continually equate free speech with
socialism, communism or fascism?

By their circumstances labors need jobs.
Unless they are allowed to organize they are
at a disadvantage to capital. �It's still unequal
power. �The benefits acruing to capital should be
at best rent.

The problem is, at once, much deeper and much easier to solve than
that.

You just need to state it properly:


Without free speech it's not a free trade.

If it's not a free trade it's not employment at will.

If it's not employment at will then it's a violation of the 13th
Amendment.


Bret Cahill

 

[DB]

Shrikeback@gmail.com wrote:

It wouldn't take long before the poor had none.
That's the problem with the observation. There
is no way to loot the poor unless they are
constantly creating new wealth.

They do, they just don't get to keep it....

 

[Fred Weiss]

On Aug 25, 11:59 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

They should be just like Ayn Rand ripping Dr. Coase or anyone else who
suggests free markets are not possible without the precondition of
free speech.

We've previously discussed your distortion of what AR had to say about
Coase.

Check the archives.

The part that is missing is free speech on economic information.

Whatever that means.

Care to explain - or are you going to duck 'n dodge that, too, like
you do everything else related to this subject?

Fred Weiss

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:25:42 -0500, Publius
<m.publius@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:

John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
news:9a03b4t1u52fao7ak36cr21lr0g5bbr5a0@4ax.com:

But weren't you attempting to create a foundationalist philosophy
based on a single, undeniable truth, the giveness of sense data which
you somehow believe is "fixed and assured"?


No, I attempt to design and sell electronic circuits. Since it almost
always works, I must understand something close to the way the world
operates.

Non-sequitur.

Ah, we hear from another philosopher.

John

 

[zzbunker@netscape.net]

On Aug 25, 11:59 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

Anyway, going back to Brat's ridiculous "Question", it is not "free
speech" which people need in advanced industrial countries. They
already have that

In that case your outspoken "market" economists should be falling over
themselves to answer The Question.

They should be just like Ayn Rand ripping Dr. Coase or anyone else who
suggests free markets are not possible without the precondition of
free speech.

Well, since only thing the wank Ayn Rand evens knows about
economics, publishing,
politics science, logic, engineering, education, or medicine is
idiot New York Lawyers,
that's why Cruise Missiles and GPS were invented,
Since that's more enough free speech for idiot New York Lawyers,

Outspoken market economists should be outspoken in their support of
free speech.

Instead they _all_ go into full dodgin' 'n dodgin' mode when ever any
pops 'em on their fraudulent fannies with The Question:

Does F/S precede each and every F/T?

(for the most part).

It's the part that ain't free speech on naked nazi flag burner parades
that's missing.

And that missing "part" -- the core intent by Madison's own words --
is worth trillions to the economy, leveling wealth at the same time so
median wages will soon be over $50/hr.

The part that is missing is free speech on economic information.

Bret Cahill

 

On Aug 25, 8:47 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

Anyway, going back to Brat's ridiculous "Question", it is not "free
speech" which people need in advanced industrial countries. They
already have that (for the most part). What they need is free markets
- and, in effect, *more* rich people.
Wow after this rant I wonder there is any Kool-Aid left for anyone
else.

Fred might not be very effective simply because his boilerplate is so
hackneyed and dated it's boring.

Oh, please. Coming from a guy who uses ancient
boilerplate phrases from the beforetime, such as
"robber barons," the word, "dated" sounds a little
flaccid, don't you think?

The gun nut bigot who types "KKK" all the time

Your anterograde amnesia is showing. Everyone
knows I am not a bigot. Note that you used to call
me a "fundie" too, even though I am an unabashed
atheist fag.

And, unlike our semi-literate troll from Canada, I
use the KKK in KKKahill for a good reason. Back
before Hitlery met her Stalingrad during the primary,
you actually did make reference to some racist
stereotyping beliefs you had.

KKKahill: Black people don't trust Obama
enough to vote for him.

You also said you were "more black" than
Obama because you had more personality,
as though black people were born to be your
entertainment.

and who has been
denying the existence of microwave weapons "out of my live warm hands"
isn't much better.

Ahem. We all know the Corpwhore CIA mind control
beams are a constant worry for you. I think you can
order some Depleted Uranium helmets straight from
China, if it makes you feel better.

In the meantime, watch out for the cosmic rays,
and for allah's sake, keep your paranoia antennae
out of sight of the satellites!

 

On Aug 25, 9:05 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

True. To the extent that their wages are inflated by union contracts,
mandatory minimum wages, tariff protection, etc., they are paid *too
much*. (Which is precisely why so many jobs have gone overseas).
Furthermore, "free speech" is merely the right to express one's views
without restraint in a forum of one's own. It is not the right to loot
others.
So, for the poor to organize so as to stand up to superior economic
power is to engaging in looting?
I dont even thing free speach is sufficient for free trade. I think
near equality of circumstances is required. Any time people
with unequal power engage in trade the person with the greater
power has the advantage. Nearly all laborers need their jobs to
survive but most businesses don't need any particular non-owner
employee to survive.
By the same token, the laborers don't need that
particular job to survive. Competition is choice
is competition is choice.

But how do you have competition without free speech?

The problem with
socialist amd fascist monopolies is there is no
other alternative.

Do you think it is wise to continually equate free speech with
socialism, communism or fascism?

Who's equating free speech with anything here?
Do you think it is wise to continually equate freedom
with slavery, war with peace, day with night, atheism
with fundamentalism, reality with the surreal the way
you always do, Mr. Newspeak?

By their circumstances labors need jobs.
Unless they are allowed to organize they are
at a disadvantage to capital. It's still unequal
power. The benefits acruing to capital should be
at best rent.

The problem is, at once, much deeper and much easier to solve than
that.

You just need to state it properly:

Without free speech it's not a free trade.

So, your utopia in Singapore doesn't have free trade.
Wait, didn't you claim that the Chinese had free
speech on economic information one time? Yes,
you did. So we know what your idea of free speech
is.

If it's not a free trade it's not employment at will.

If it's not employment at will then it's a violation of the 13th
Amendment.

Since the original premise that the proletariat in
this country doesn't have free speech is false,
the rest of your syllogism is irrelevant.

 

On Aug 25, 8:59 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

Anyway, going back to Brat's ridiculous "Question", it is not "free
speech" which people need in advanced industrial countries. They
already have that

In that case your outspoken "market" economists should be falling over
themselves to answer The Question.

They should be just like Ayn Rand ripping Dr. Coase or anyone else who
suggests free markets are not possible without the precondition of
free speech.

Outspoken market economists should be outspoken in their support of
free speech.

Instead they _all_ go into full dodgin' 'n dodgin' mode when ever any
pops 'em on their fraudulent fannies with The Question:

Does F/S precede each and every F/T?

(for the most part).

It's the part that ain't free speech on naked nazi flag burner parades
that's missing.

And that missing "part" -- the core intent by Madison's own words --
is worth trillions to the economy, leveling wealth at the same time so
median wages will soon be over $50/hr.

The part that is missing is free speech on economic information.

I'm guessing that "free speech on economic
information" involves tossing molotovs or
something, since we have free speech on
economic information in this country (as
any sane person would define it.) QED.
Case closed.

 

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:39:21 -0700 (PDT), Shrikeback@gmail.com wrote:

I'm guessing that "free speech on economic
information" involves tossing molotovs or
something, since we have free speech on
economic information in this country (as
any sane person would define it.)  QED.
Case closed.

  Well no, try making a claim the government disagrees with or
advertising in a
way the government doesn't like.

Okay: psilocybin ought to be legal, since it's
relatively innocuous.

Where are the bullets to dodge? Where are the
goon squads? I'm still here.

I heard a chuckle the other day. A US diplomat was explaining US
freedom of speech to a Russian government official. the Russian said
under their constitution they had freedom of speech also. "Ah yes",
said the American, " but we have freedom AFTER speech".

 

[Michael Price]

On Aug 22, 3:28 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:46:54 -0700 (PDT), Michael Price



nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 21, 1:27 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:08:18 -0400, Democracy Highlander

nospam_example_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is NO difference between the finality in communism and fascism. They
both lead to the same end: A plutocracy where a small oligarchy run as
tyrant over the enslaved people.

Sort of like capitalism in that regard. Or libertarianism. welcome to
human nature.

Of course you have no actual evidence that's that's true.
Capitalism historically didn't lead to a small oligarchy run as
a tyrant over the enslaved people, it ran as a fairly large class
desperately trying to figure out how to serve the people. Small
oligarchies are promoted by anti-capitalist, anti-libertarian
restrictions on trade like Anti-Trust
laws and industry protection.

Oh Christ the ignroant libertoon is back with his cartoon history.

Of course you can't actually refute any of this you just resort to
saying
"libertoon". Fuck you.

 

[Michael Price]

On Aug 22, 2:48 pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

This is not a wager. It is a free market free trade offer.

I'll pay $200 US for a hard copy answer to The Question from an
outspoken "market" economist at the Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von
Mises.*

The Question is:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

And what possible use could the answer to that question have?

Well into 13 figures a year to the U. S. economy.

Bret Cahill

Yeah right you loon. You have no coherent idea of what the
answer means and professionals sensibly detect that $200 is
not enough to make them talk to you.

 

On Aug 25, 8:36 am, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:

On Aug 25, 11:15 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

The poor are never properly paid for their work in the first place.
True. To the extent that their wages are inflated by union contracts,
mandatory minimum wages, tariff protection, etc., they are paid *too
much*. (Which is precisely why so many jobs have gone overseas).

Who decides how much it too much?

Broadly, no one. The market decides - a result of the choices of
buyers and sellers or, in this instance, employers and workers. For
example, if you pay workers too little, they will quit and go
elsewhere and you will have difficulty finding replacements. On the
other hand, if workers demand too much and a company is unable to pay
them, it goes out of business (or goes elsewhere, e.g. overseas). This
of course is what has happened to the auto industry in the USA.

Labor and Capital are not on an equal footing unless they are allowed
to organize and make enforcable contracts as a group. When labor
much choose between which capital, will extract the majority of their
labor as rent of capital they are heavily disadvantaged. Labor
typically
has the resources to go one to two months without wages but Capital
has the ability to go more than a year without the products of an
equivalent unit of labor.

The markets for labor and the products resold by employers are
different.
The issue for employers is ROI. It is perfectly sane for employers
to
attempt to maximize profits. Reducing costs for an equivalent unit
of product is quite understandable.

Insane labor agreements, such as the non-introduction of automation
in the auto industry in the early seventies for the percieved benefit
of the labor at the time, hurts everyone. The issue isn't to restrict
organized labor but to have an open exchange of ideas and information.
We need grownups to reach fair agreements rather than children using
adversarial processes to maximized short term benefit for the most
powerful.

 

[Michael Price]

On Aug 23, 1:49 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

This is not a wager. ?It is a free market free trade offer.
I'll pay $200 US for a hard copy answer to The Question from an
outspoken "market" economist at the Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von
Mises.*
The Question is:
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
? And what possible use could the answer to that question have?
Well into 13 figures a year to the U. S. economy.
So what?
now there is a fine example of a logic. its called "what me worry"

Actually he has "bigger fish to fry" than trillions a year, i. e.,
trying to debate a self evident truth.

Bret Cahill

Actually it's closer to being a self-evident falsehood. You of
course
never show any actual evidence that it's true.

 

[Michael Price]

On Aug 25, 7:21 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

and he still refuses to answer a simple question. i have run into a
few like that. i give them a short line or two to refute, i get back
reams of nonsense, that when i am done reading it, still does not
answer my question. so good luck.
What you don't seem to understand is that Cahill isn't looking for an
answer,

I'll pay $200 US for an answer to the question from an outspoken
market economist at Hoover Inst., Am. Enterprise, Heritage Foundation,
Cato the Chicago School, von Mises, etc.

he's looking for a response that he can use as a springboard
to continue his nonsensical rhetoric.

But it won't be continued here.

In fact, I'm uppin' the ante!

In addition to the $200 I'll stop posting to newsgroups for 3 months
if anyone can get an answer to The Question:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade."

Imagine that! Going 3 months without having your bubble popped by
Bret "the Pin Cushion" Cahill

Bret Cahill

Ok then the answer is NO! Now fuck off.

 

[Michael Price]

On Aug 23, 8:21 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

This is not a wager. ?It is a free market free trade offer.

I'll pay $200 US for a hard copy answer to The Question from an
outspoken "market" economist at the Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von
Mises.*

The Question is:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

? And what possible use could the answer to that question have?

Well into 13 figures a year to the U. S. economy.

So what?

?now there is a fine example of a logic. its called "what me worry"

Actually he has "bigger fish to fry" than trillions a year, i. e.,
trying to debate a self evident truth.
I have no fish to fry,

Why are you always stating the obvious?

I just like to burst balloons.

No wonder you're vexed!

Anyway you have once again dodged the issue:

You don't have to be very bright to agree with a self evident truth
but you have to be a complete dunce to try to disagree with one.

Here, try to tell us why the following might not be a self evident
truth:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

We're settin' on the edges of our chairs.

Bret Cahill

Ok, it's not a truth let alone a self evident one, but if it was SO
WHAT?
What actual impact on the science of economics would it have? I'll
let
you answer this question before three months go by since I have
answered
yours and you promised to shut the fuck up. But only this question.

 

[Michael Price]

On Aug 26, 4:58 am, Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:

On Aug 25, 8:59 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:



Anyway, going back to Brat's ridiculous "Question", it is not "free
speech" which people need in advanced industrial countries. They
already have that

In that case your outspoken "market" economists should be falling over
themselves to answer The Question.

They should be just like Ayn Rand ripping Dr. Coase or anyone else who
suggests free markets are not possible without the precondition of
free speech.

Outspoken market economists should be outspoken in their support of
free speech.

Instead they _all_ go into full dodgin' 'n dodgin' mode when ever any
pops 'em on their fraudulent fannies with The Question:

Does F/S precede each and every F/T?

(for the most part).

It's the part that ain't free speech on naked nazi flag burner parades
that's missing.

And that missing "part" -- the core intent by Madison's own words --
is worth trillions to the economy, leveling wealth at the same time so
median wages will soon be over $50/hr.

The part that is missing is free speech on economic information.

I'm guessing that "free speech on economic
information" involves tossing molotovs or
something, since we have free speech on
economic information in this country (as
any sane person would define it.) QED.
Case closed.

Well no, try making a claim the government disagrees with or
advertising in a
way the government doesn't like.

 

On Aug 25, 7:11 pm, Michael Price <nini_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Aug 26, 4:58 am, Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:





On Aug 25, 8:59 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

Anyway, going back to Brat's ridiculous "Question", it is not "free
speech" which people need in advanced industrial countries. They
already have that

In that case your outspoken "market" economists should be falling over
themselves to answer The Question.

They should be just like Ayn Rand ripping Dr. Coase or anyone else who
suggests free markets are not possible without the precondition of
free speech.

Outspoken market economists should be outspoken in their support of
free speech.

Instead they _all_ go into full dodgin' 'n dodgin' mode when ever any
pops 'em on their fraudulent fannies with The Question:

Does F/S precede each and every F/T?

(for the most part).

It's the part that ain't free speech on naked nazi flag burner parades
that's missing.

And that missing "part" -- the core intent by Madison's own words --
is worth trillions to the economy, leveling wealth at the same time so
median wages will soon be over $50/hr.

The part that is missing is free speech on economic information.

I'm guessing that "free speech on economic
information" involves tossing molotovs or
something, since we have free speech on
economic information in this country (as
any sane person would define it.)  QED.
Case closed.

  Well no, try making a claim the government disagrees with or
advertising in a
way the government doesn't like.

Okay: psilocybin ought to be legal, since it's
relatively innocuous.

Where are the bullets to dodge? Where are the
goon squads? I'm still here.

You're point on advertising is correct, since the
Supreme Court has decided that "commercial
speech" is not entitled to the same protections
as any other speech, but that doesn't affect the
proletariat so much as it does the bourgeoisie,
eh?

 

[DB]

DB wrote:

Shrikeback@gmail.com wrote:

It wouldn't take long before the poor had none.
That's the problem with the observation. There
is no way to loot the poor unless they are
constantly creating new wealth.

They do, they just don't get to keep it....

There you go. A 'rod speed' sock puppet....

 

[Fred Weiss]

On Aug 25, 10:07 pm, forbisga...@msn.com wrote:

Labor and Capital are not on an equal footing...

True. A worker can just pack up his tools and leave whereas a
businessman may have all his savings and assets tied up in the
business. Also, a worker need only do his job well. A businessman is
responsible for all the workers and every aspect of the business.

... Labor typically has the resources to go one to two months without wages but Capital
has the ability to go more than a year...

This is rather an overstatement as I am sure even you will admit, but
I grant you that the loss of a job can be a serious financial blow to
many workers - and sometimes that can happen through no fault of
theirs, e.g. in a business downturn. But keeping workers in such
circumstances (at previous wages) could be even worse for the business
and put it out of business. What is accomplished then for the workers?

I have no objection to worker organizations, unions or otherwise - so
long as they are peaceful and they are not granted special protections
by the gov't. But they are primarily of benefit to the least competent
workers, those less likely to advance and the most vulnerable to
technological advances which can replace them. The primary function of
unions, as they have developed (not their original purpose), has been
to distort the market and impede innovation.

In fact unions have actually accelerated the demise of many industries
and have been a major contributor to companies going overseas. They
have been of little long-term benefit to workers, if not arguably
detrimental, which is probably why union membership remains at near
historic lows in this country.

Insane labor agreements, such as the non-introduction of automation
in the auto industry in the early seventies for the percieved benefit
of the labor at the time, hurts everyone.

It wasn't just in the auto industry. It had started earlier with the
railroads and moved on to many other industries.

 The issue isn't to restrict
organized labor but to have an open exchange of ideas and information.
We need grownups to reach fair agreements rather than children using
adversarial processes to maximized short term benefit for the most
powerful.

That in fact was the original purpose of unions - before the
socialists took them over. Many of the benefits now expected of
companies or offered by the gov't, such as health insurance and
unemployment benefits might well have been better done by unions.

Fred Weiss